|
Steven Brill recently took a look at the American Healthcare system, and the findings are deeply troubling. I knew the system was corrupt, but the extent of that corruption was not made aware to me until I read this article. It is quite an interesting read:
The Article, TImes Magazine
I found this article from Steven Brill's interview on the Daily Show:
Steven Brill on the Daily Show with John Stewart
Recchi’s bill and six others examined line by line for this article offer a closeup window into what happens when powerless buyers — whether they are people like Recchi or big health-insurance companies — meet sellers in what is the ultimate seller’s market.
After about three hours of tests and some brief encounters with a doctor, she was told she had indigestion and sent home. That was the good news. The bad news was the bill: $995 for the ambulance ride, $3,000 for the doctors and $17,000 for the hospital — in sum, $21,000 for a false alarm.
This would mean that Sean Recchi’s dose of Rituxan cost the Biogen Idec–Genentech partnership as little as $300 to make, test, package and ship to MD Anderson for $3,000 to $3,500, whereupon the hospital sold it to Recchi for $13,702.
I strongly reccomend everyone to read this article if you are not aware of the current health care crisis in America.
As a Capitalist, I feel like this is one area in which Capitalism has for the most part been unable to impact, and the effects are quite evident. Price gouging becomes outrageously easy when there is no competition, and is incentivized in this enviorment, Im not really sure how America would go about fixing this system, since it is inheritantly averse to capitalism due to the fact that consumers do not choose to be consumers, and are not at all educated about what they are paying for. Perhaps this is one area in which the government could actually do better? It seems that medicare actually gets much better prices than private insurance by actually basing their prices on cost rather than the "chargemaster." However hospitals still make great profits off of medicare patients.
TL; DR points
-Buyers have no knowledge of the products they are buying, one sided information leads to higher costs
-The healthcare system massively out-lobbies the "military inductrial complex"and energy companies
-Drugs and procedures cost many times what they would on the open market
-The profits are are made by upper management, the doctors and nurses are not seeing the massive profits
-This includes "not for profit" hospitals
-medicare actually pays hospitals at the cost it takes the hospital to do the procedure, those not on medicare pay rediculous mark ups, however hospitals still make a profit off of medicare patients
-60% of the personal bankruptcy filings each year are related to medical bills.
-Overall, ambulance revenues were more than $12 billion last year, or about 10% higher than Hollywood’s box-office take
-Obamacare barely scratches the surface of the real corruption
|
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices.
|
On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices.
Not completely. I went to the hospital in November due to a massive pain in my lower left abdomen that prevented me from doing anything, including getting up out of bed. What was it? They have no fucking idea. Bill? about 5 grand. For what? A ct scan. One ct scan is 5 grand? Insurance is only paying half of it. My brother went recently and has a 1400 dollar bill. Until they send a debt collector I'm not paying that shit. I understand they're trying to make money and a lot of other people haven't paid but that doesn't give you the right to completely rip off people.
|
On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices.
Your solution is to get rid of insurance? Really?
|
On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices.
Demand never falls. People dont stop being sick. Insurance companies usually get 40-50% of chargemaster prices. You will initially be charged 100% of chargemaster costs unless you get outside help.
|
On February 23 2013 14:04 Dagan159 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Demand never falls. People dont stop being sick. Insurance companies usually get 40-50% of chargemaster prices. You will initially be charged 100% of chargemaster costs unless you get outside help.
Demand will fall. Yes people keep getting sick, but they can't actually get the care, because they can't afford it. That counts as falling demand.
Yes, it will suck like shit at first, but things will improve eventually, and once they do they will be better than they are now.
If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. Likewise, the healthcare industry is seriously flawed, and only extreme measures will suffice.
I suppose you could lessen the impact by slowly phasing out insurance instead of just dismantling it overnight, but I think it should be done.
|
On top of my head, I feel that cheaper MD programs and cheaper drugs will remedy the problem.
|
On February 23 2013 14:23 Sufficiency wrote:
On top of my head, I feel that cheaper MD programs and cheaper drugs will remedy the problem.
Doctors dont set the costs of the procedures, the drugs, and dont take in the massive profits.
Yes cheaper drugs would be great, but how do you make this happen?
On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:04 Dagan159 wrote:On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Demand never falls. People dont stop being sick. Insurance companies usually get 40-50% of chargemaster prices. You will initially be charged 100% of chargemaster costs unless you get outside help. Demand will fall. Yes people keep getting sick, but they can't actually get the care, because they can't afford it. That counts as falling demand. Yes, it will suck like shit at first, but things will improve eventually, and once they do they will be better than they are now. If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. Likewise, the healthcare industry is seriously flawed, and only extreme measures will suffice. I suppose you could lessen the impact by slowly phasing out insurance instead of just dismantling it overnight, but I think it must be done one way or another.
Insurance is a great tool for modern society. It alleviates risk by spreading it throughout the population. However, in many cases in the healthcare industry, poeple simply dont understand what they are buying or the coverage they are getting.
The problem in this market is poeple dont choose their hospital based on their insurance, they choose their insurance based on the hospital, making it a completely one sided market in which the hospitals can charge almost anything they want, even to the :big bad" insurance companies. cutting out the middle man does nothing, your still gonna have to pay the crazy healthcare costs. You can expect every person that gets sick to go bankrupt in an effort to "teach the hospitals a lesson." Lowering their costs does not bring in more customers.
|
So what's different about the US system compared to other western countries? The prices just seem ridiculous as does the notion of removing insurance -.-
|
On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:04 Dagan159 wrote:On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Demand never falls. People dont stop being sick. Insurance companies usually get 40-50% of chargemaster prices. You will initially be charged 100% of chargemaster costs unless you get outside help. Demand will fall. Yes people keep getting sick, but they can't actually get the care, because they can't afford it. That counts as falling demand. Yes, it will suck like shit at first, but things will improve eventually, and once they do they will be better than they are now. If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. Likewise, the healthcare industry is seriously flawed, and only extreme measures will suffice. I suppose you could lessen the impact by slowly phasing out insurance instead of just dismantling it overnight, but I think it must be done one way or another.
This is idiotic. Plain and simple. The problem isn't insurance. The problem is market failure due to asymmetric information, lack of competition, price inelasticity of demand, and other real issues.
Get rid of insurance? What an utter ignoramus.
|
On February 23 2013 14:28 Scarecrow wrote:
So what's different about the US system compared to other western countries? The prices just seem ridiculous.
Well, in Canada part of everyone's taxes goes to health care so it's pretty much all paid for by the state (the taxpayer).
|
On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices.
i have no idea how demand falls if you get rid of insurance... people all of a sudden stop getting sick?
|
On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:04 Dagan159 wrote:On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Demand never falls. People dont stop being sick. Insurance companies usually get 40-50% of chargemaster prices. You will initially be charged 100% of chargemaster costs unless you get outside help. Demand will fall. Yes people keep getting sick, but they can't actually get the care, because they can't afford it. That counts as falling demand. Yes, it will suck like shit at first, but things will improve eventually, and once they do they will be better than they are now. If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. Likewise, the healthcare industry is seriously flawed, and only extreme measures will suffice. I suppose you could lessen the impact by slowly phasing out insurance instead of just dismantling it overnight, but I think it must be done one way or another.
I hate this "morality play" logic. We see it all the time in politics. "If only we induce and endure suffering for a brief period, then we will enter another golden age!" Any clear path that creates suffering before creating this "better" system isn't a path at all.
|
On February 23 2013 14:28 Scarecrow wrote:
So what's different about the US system compared to other western countries? The prices just seem ridiculous.
Just about every other country has health care prices controlled by the government.
And yes our prices are insane. Infographic
|
The reason there isn't any competition is because of the government/lobbyists using said government.
|
On February 23 2013 14:38 Ingenol wrote:
The reason there isn't any competition is because of the government/lobbyists using said government.
Not quite.
The lobbiests for health care really just want to maintain the status quo.
The reason there is no competition is due to the fact that people dont choose their hospital. When consumers cant choose the producer, capitalism fails.
On February 23 2013 14:00 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Not completely. I went to the hospital in November due to a massive pain in my lower left abdomen that prevented me from doing anything, including getting up out of bed. What was it? They have no fucking idea. Bill? about 5 grand. For what? A ct scan. One ct scan is 5 grand? Insurance is only paying half of it. My brother went recently and has a 1400 dollar bill. Until they send a debt collector I'm not paying that shit. I understand they're trying to make money and a lot of other people haven't paid but that doesn't give you the right to completely rip off people.
A head CT scan in India is around 50 bucks. Its not only the main charges that they nail you with, check out the minor charges, and compare them to what your could pay for them on amazon, if its anything like the examples in the article, the results will make your head spin.
|
Out of curiosity, how much does it cost to go to the doctors with a broken arm in the US?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:
If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. I normally stay out of these threads but you are seriously deluded if you truly believe this. If you have a serious illness and you cut insurance out of the picture then you're essentially condemning most of them to death. Many diseases have no cures and only things which treat the symptoms and hence are required to take life long meds. Once the money runs out to support that, the disease takes over and people die. The vast majority of people with serious illness take things pretty damn seriously, its quite insulting to suggest otherwise.
|
On February 23 2013 14:41 Dagan159 wrote:
The reason there is no competition is due to the fact that people dont choose their hospital. When consumers cant choose the producer, capitalism fails.
Yeah, that's extremely important. I'm very libertarian and a firm believer in free markets, but healthcare just doesn't fit in with other consumer goods and services. It's much more like police and fire departments than buying new shoes, yet we treat it like the latter in America. It's crazy to think that all the gnashing of teeth over Obamacare and hatred towards insurance companies was really just a giant smokescreen covering up the real issue in healthcare. A single-payer system wasn't even on the table, and with the billions being funneled into Washington by ludicrously profitable non-profit hospitals, how are we ever going to change that?
|
On February 23 2013 14:50 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:
If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. I normally stay out of these threads but you are seriously deluded if you truly believe this. If you have a serious illness and you cut insurance out of the picture then you're essentially condemning most of them to death. Many diseases have no cures and only things which treat the symptoms and hence are required to take life long meds. Once the money runs out to support that, the disease takes over and people die. The vast majority of people with serious illness take things pretty damn seriously, its quite insulting to suggest otherwise.
I didn't say they didn't take things seriously. I'm using it as an analogy. The medical industry is seriously flawed, and as such any fix is likely to be just as serious.
I believe insurance is the problem. I respect anyone else's position as well, and I don't expect people to think I believe my way is the only way. But every solution will have serious side effects, simply due to its scale. There is no perfect solution that will completely fix the situation with no difficulties.
|
On February 23 2013 14:50 Omnidroid wrote:
Out of curiosity, how much does it cost to go to the doctors with a broken arm in the US?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken arm cost usa
(the answer you are looking for was hit number 3: http://health.costhelper.com/broken-arm.html )
Slightly more seriously, it would depend on the fracture and your insurance status. The point of the article linked by the OP is that insurance status should not affect the cost - or at least not as much as it does and that it is ridiculous that what the state pays 10 USD for (covering all profits) a non-insured has to pay 199.00 USD for.
|
Insurance is a problem in that it insulates consumers from the reality of the inflated costs of their care. Let's say you have insurance through your job and pay $5000 right out of your paycheck for it. I bet very few people actually know how much they're paying since they're not writing a check for it themselves every year. Now let's say you go to the hospital and they charge $50,000. Your insurance company pays some negotiated rate much lower than that and sticks you with $2500. At this point you're probably thinking "whew I'm glad I had insurance; I'd be FUCKED otherwise," but (assuming no other major medical issues that year) you paid $7500. As the Time piece discovered, the hospitals would still be making profits if they charged 10% of those inflated rates. So really, you paid $7500 yourself (not to mention what the insurance company paid) for care that should have cost you $5000 tops, but instead of being pissed off at the hospital, you're ecstatic that you didn't go bankrupt. If you're mad at anyone, it's the insurance company that didn't pay out 100%.
|
On February 23 2013 15:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:50 Plexa wrote:On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:
If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. I normally stay out of these threads but you are seriously deluded if you truly believe this. If you have a serious illness and you cut insurance out of the picture then you're essentially condemning most of them to death. Many diseases have no cures and only things which treat the symptoms and hence are required to take life long meds. Once the money runs out to support that, the disease takes over and people die. The vast majority of people with serious illness take things pretty damn seriously, its quite insulting to suggest otherwise. I didn't say they didn't take things seriously. I'm using it as an analogy. The medical industry is seriously flawed, and as such any fix is likely to be just as serious. I believe insurance is the problem. I respect anyone else's position as well, and I don't expect people to think I believe my way is the only way. But every solution will have serious side effects, simply due to its scale. There is no perfect solution that will completely fix the situation with no difficulties.
Just admit that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about and quietly excuse yourself from this thread before you become even more ludicrous.
User was warned for this post
|
Well, most countries i know of use systems in which you have the right to proper medical treatment by law. In the US you don't, it's just a "ware" like coffee. And that's stupid. Over here it's a bit like police and firefighters. You get it if you need it, there's little to no profit to be made (not saying the insurance companies don't try to, but it's not a free market).
That's how it should be imo. And to be honest, to say "well, let's get rid of insurances, fuck the couple of poor people that will die in the process" is so ignorant, it scratches the border to being retarded.
|
On February 23 2013 15:12 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Insurance is a problem in that it insulates consumers from the reality of the inflated costs of their care. Let's say you have insurance through your job and pay $5000 right out of your paycheck for it. I bet very few people actually know how much they're paying since they're not writing a check for it themselves every year. Now let's say you go to the hospital and they charge $50,000. Your insurance company pays some negotiated rate much lower than that and sticks you with $2500. At this point you're probably thinking "whew I'm glad I had insurance; I'd be FUCKED otherwise," but (assuming no other major medical issues that year) you paid $7500. As the Time piece discovered, the hospitals would still be making profits if they charged 10% of those inflated rates. So really, you paid $7500 yourself (not to mention what the insurance company paid) for care that should have cost you $5000 tops, but instead of being pissed off at the hospital, you're ecstatic that you didn't go bankrupt. If you're mad at anyone, it's the insurance company that didn't pay out 100%.
There's no way an insurance company would foot 100% of the bill. There must be a cost levied on the consumer, if not the consumer won't ever take any precautions on their own end to avoid getting sick. Obviously this doesn't apply to every ailment out there, but moral hazard does exist if the average guy doesn't watch his own diet or exercise regularly. If anything, the bill should be inspected at the healthcare provider's end to figure out how much does it actually cost them to provide that service, and what would be a reasonable profit.
|
There is also a good infographic about this: http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/what-makes-health-care-so-expensive/
At the end of the day, Healthcare is a for-profit industry in this country with a lot of lobbying power behind it to make sure it stays that way. Also, we aren't just getting ripped off by hospitals. Dentistry is also insanely expensive in this country. Hell, I recently had to get a couple root canals done on teeth that were bad for awhile and it was over 1k. I got quoted for about 4k for the remaining dental work. Take in account being unemployed and no insurance and what the fuck is this? I could have got those root canals done at a private clinic in another country for almost half of what I paid here....what the fuck? There are people who literally fly halfway around the world to other countries to get extensive dental work done because it is so fucking much here. If I wasn't for my family pitching in and taking it among themselves, I would still have those bad teeth in which could have gotten badly infected and gotten me very sick. In my mind, this is not fucking moral.
Reading the stories in that article makes me cringe though. If I were to have some horrible injury and have to stay in a hospital for an extended period of time, I would be fucked. It would be easier to just close my bank account and flee the country instead of being in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt that I would never be able to repay.
Insurance isn't that helpful anyways. You still pay out the ass unless you are really lucky and happen to be in the military or retired military. Tricare is fucking amazing, but insurance like that should be what everyone has.
|
On February 23 2013 15:24 Oktyabr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 15:12 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Insurance is a problem in that it insulates consumers from the reality of the inflated costs of their care. Let's say you have insurance through your job and pay $5000 right out of your paycheck for it. I bet very few people actually know how much they're paying since they're not writing a check for it themselves every year. Now let's say you go to the hospital and they charge $50,000. Your insurance company pays some negotiated rate much lower than that and sticks you with $2500. At this point you're probably thinking "whew I'm glad I had insurance; I'd be FUCKED otherwise," but (assuming no other major medical issues that year) you paid $7500. As the Time piece discovered, the hospitals would still be making profits if they charged 10% of those inflated rates. So really, you paid $7500 yourself (not to mention what the insurance company paid) for care that should have cost you $5000 tops, but instead of being pissed off at the hospital, you're ecstatic that you didn't go bankrupt. If you're mad at anyone, it's the insurance company that didn't pay out 100%. There's no way an insurance company would foot 100% of the bill. There must be a cost levied on the consumer, if not the consumer won't ever take any precautions on their own end to avoid getting sick. Obviously this doesn't apply to every ailment out there, but moral hazard does exist if the average guy doesn't watch his own diet or exercise regularly. If anything, the bill should be inspected at the healthcare provider's end to figure out how much does it actually cost them to provide that service, and what would be a reasonable profit.
So you want hospitals to decide how much profit they should make? Because thats what they are doing, and wasting billions of dollars in the process. He wasnt advocating insurance picking up the entire tab, the point of his post was that insurance companies serve as a buffer that pacify the consumer.
|
Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the taxpayer funded healthcare system in Canada and most of Europe foot 100% of the bill? People take precautions against getting sick because getting sick sucks. Even with insurance, most people hate going to the doctor or the hospital, and it also seems evident that having to bear the costs of being fat and out of shape in America isn't keeping us skinny and fit at all.
|
On February 23 2013 15:28 Dagan159 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 15:24 Oktyabr wrote:On February 23 2013 15:12 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Insurance is a problem in that it insulates consumers from the reality of the inflated costs of their care. Let's say you have insurance through your job and pay $5000 right out of your paycheck for it. I bet very few people actually know how much they're paying since they're not writing a check for it themselves every year. Now let's say you go to the hospital and they charge $50,000. Your insurance company pays some negotiated rate much lower than that and sticks you with $2500. At this point you're probably thinking "whew I'm glad I had insurance; I'd be FUCKED otherwise," but (assuming no other major medical issues that year) you paid $7500. As the Time piece discovered, the hospitals would still be making profits if they charged 10% of those inflated rates. So really, you paid $7500 yourself (not to mention what the insurance company paid) for care that should have cost you $5000 tops, but instead of being pissed off at the hospital, you're ecstatic that you didn't go bankrupt. If you're mad at anyone, it's the insurance company that didn't pay out 100%. There's no way an insurance company would foot 100% of the bill. There must be a cost levied on the consumer, if not the consumer won't ever take any precautions on their own end to avoid getting sick. Obviously this doesn't apply to every ailment out there, but moral hazard does exist if the average guy doesn't watch his own diet or exercise regularly. If anything, the bill should be inspected at the healthcare provider's end to figure out how much does it actually cost them to provide that service, and what would be a reasonable profit. So you want hospitals to decide how much profit they should make? Because thats what they are doing, and wasting billions of dollars in the process. He wasnt advocating insurance picking up the entire tab, the point of his post was that insurance companies serve as a buffer that pacify the consumer.
That's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.
|
Medical Care in the US is strange.
Even Government programs "overpay", in absolutely no small part due to lobbyists. If during program creation, you not only have a loud and presumed knowing voice arguing to make as much money as possible, and people who agree that is right and are willing to make it happen during the price negotiation (See, Medicare). Especially if it leads to jobs after their price negotiations.
Stolen from Wikipedia: "Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window"" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D).
So, basically Medicine is a business in America. To most of the rest of the world, it is a basic human right given to their citizens with varying levels of options of private care. In America, it's.... not. So that may make the conversation confusing to any international people.
|
On February 23 2013 15:34 Oktyabr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 15:28 Dagan159 wrote:On February 23 2013 15:24 Oktyabr wrote:On February 23 2013 15:12 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Insurance is a problem in that it insulates consumers from the reality of the inflated costs of their care. Let's say you have insurance through your job and pay $5000 right out of your paycheck for it. I bet very few people actually know how much they're paying since they're not writing a check for it themselves every year. Now let's say you go to the hospital and they charge $50,000. Your insurance company pays some negotiated rate much lower than that and sticks you with $2500. At this point you're probably thinking "whew I'm glad I had insurance; I'd be FUCKED otherwise," but (assuming no other major medical issues that year) you paid $7500. As the Time piece discovered, the hospitals would still be making profits if they charged 10% of those inflated rates. So really, you paid $7500 yourself (not to mention what the insurance company paid) for care that should have cost you $5000 tops, but instead of being pissed off at the hospital, you're ecstatic that you didn't go bankrupt. If you're mad at anyone, it's the insurance company that didn't pay out 100%. There's no way an insurance company would foot 100% of the bill. There must be a cost levied on the consumer, if not the consumer won't ever take any precautions on their own end to avoid getting sick. Obviously this doesn't apply to every ailment out there, but moral hazard does exist if the average guy doesn't watch his own diet or exercise regularly. If anything, the bill should be inspected at the healthcare provider's end to figure out how much does it actually cost them to provide that service, and what would be a reasonable profit. So you want hospitals to decide how much profit they should make? Because thats what they are doing, and wasting billions of dollars in the process. He wasnt advocating insurance picking up the entire tab, the point of his post was that insurance companies serve as a buffer that pacify the consumer. That's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.
Oh sorry I misread your post -.- Basically thats what medicare does currently, unfortunately not everyone qualifies. D=
It would undoubtely be beneficial if the private system could get on board with this, the thing is, it would require government internvention, and not only does the healthcare system lobby like crazy, people would go nuts if the government started price fixing.
|
On February 23 2013 15:38 Fuzzmosis wrote:
Medical Care in the US is strange.
Even Government programs "overpay", in absolutely no small part due to lobbyists. If during program creation, you not only have a loud and presumed knowing voice arguing to make as much money as possible, and people who agree that is right and are willing to make it happen during the price negotiation (See, Medicare). Especially if it leads to jobs after their price negotiations.
Stolen from Wikipedia: "Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window"" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D).
So, basically Medicine is a business in America. To most of the rest of the world, it is a basic human right given to their citizens with varying levels of options of private care. In America, it's.... not. So that may make the conversation confusing to any international people.
If by strange, you mean a complete fucking joke (like so many other things in this country), then yes, you are correct.
It fucking boggles my mind how ignorant, ultra-patriotic conservatives can brag about this country being the "best country on earth" when the average American's quality of life is quite lacking compared to other developed countries. Yes, you can love America, and I love this country just as much as the next SANE individual, but loving your country doesn't mean that you ignore its absolutely horrific faults. You FIX THEM.
|
On February 23 2013 14:35 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:On February 23 2013 14:04 Dagan159 wrote:On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Demand never falls. People dont stop being sick. Insurance companies usually get 40-50% of chargemaster prices. You will initially be charged 100% of chargemaster costs unless you get outside help. Demand will fall. Yes people keep getting sick, but they can't actually get the care, because they can't afford it. That counts as falling demand. Yes, it will suck like shit at first, but things will improve eventually, and once they do they will be better than they are now. If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. Likewise, the healthcare industry is seriously flawed, and only extreme measures will suffice. I suppose you could lessen the impact by slowly phasing out insurance instead of just dismantling it overnight, but I think it must be done one way or another. I hate this "morality play" logic. We see it all the time in politics. "If only we induce and endure suffering for a brief period, then we will enter another golden age!" Any clear path that creates suffering before creating this "better" system isn't a path at all.
Ye I hate this morality play logic too. I may be grossly overweight, but I don't like dieting, and Im not buying that 'no pain, no gain' bullshit. Any path that trades short term pleasures for more substantial long term pleasures is STUPID, LDO, LOL.
|
On February 23 2013 15:28 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the taxpayer funded healthcare system in Canada and most of Europe foot 100% of the bill? People take precautions against getting sick because getting sick sucks. Even with insurance, most people hate going to the doctor or the hospital, and it also seems evident that having to bear the costs of being fat and out of shape in America isn't keeping us skinny and fit at all.
yes and no.
Yes, because you can get all medically required and effective procedures paid.
No, because if you want a single room in the hospital, and treatment by the head of the station, it costs extra.
No, because some things have a upper limit of what health insurance will pay: Not more than 600 Euro for a pair of glasses for example. There is NO limit on surgery costs, or medication.
No, because - at least for private health insurance - you can put a co-pay agreement in your contract, which makes the monthly rates go way down. However, this is not a 'I pay 30%, the health insurance company pays 70%' thing, there is a set amount of spending per year that you have to pay before the health insurance company pays anything.
To elaborate on the last point: I took pretty much the most extreme co-payment thing from my private health insurance company: Over the whole year, the first 1200 Euro in medical expenses, I will have to pay for myself, then they will pay 100%. I also have it in my contract, that for every year after the two first years, where I do not hand in any bills, I cumulatively get half a month of premiums back, up to a maximum of three full months' premiums.
For that setup, I pay about 150 Euro per month, and at the end of the year, I get 375 back. Having said that, I would have to rack up around 2000 Euro in one year before it makes any sense to even consider handing in bills.
And 2000 Euros translates to somewhere between 200 and 10 visits to a doctor:
~200 times to go and see my GP to have him look at a giant pimple
80 times to go and have a 30 minute massage from a physical therapist
10 times to go to the dentist, have an x-ray taken, a thorough cleaning of plaque and treatment of exposed tooth necks
So, in a typical year, I pay maybe 200 Euro for visits to doctors and medication, but if I ever get anything serious, it will be 1200 that year, and then 100% paid by the health insurance company.
I am not sure exactly what the current system is for public ally insured people when it comes to medication, there might be some percentage-based co-payment system involved for prescription medicine.
Also: There is no television advertising (not sure about print) allowed for prescription medication
|
Healthcare is a good example of an industry that does not work in an open marketplace, unlike most other goods and services. The reason is simple; the consumer of healthcare has little to no bargaining power. When this happens, customers will be fragmented and have no access to substitute products. Prices will rise, because customers have little to no price sensitivity. The industry will end up with fixed, high costs.
See: Porter's Five Forces, Bargaining power of Customers
|
I agree, health care does not work in a free market. But Obamacare isn't the answer to this problem. If a company has over 30 employees, and if those employees work full time, they fall under Obamacare. So what do you think a company who couldn't care less about its employees will do? I'm guessing make as many as possible part-time jobs, and if a small business is right over the threshold of 30 workers, lay a few off so they don't fall under Obamacare. Many companies are already announcing lay-offs because they don't want to pay to potentially get medical care to save their lives. Just google "obama care job loss" or something. I like the idea in theory, but there are too many harmful loopholes.
|
There may be no perfect solution, but I think there are solutions that provide only upsides over our current situation. Our system is very stupid the way it is now, but kinda unchangeable because of the number of people who want the government to stay out of anything to do with money.
|
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal.
|
On February 23 2013 23:36 rackdude wrote:
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal.
I'd love to see sources on that.
Looking at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c4/c4s8.htm and the xls sheet from it http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/append/c4/at04-46.xls I see some western countries spend way more than the US percentage-wise
And I'd like to see numbers for the drugs not paying off, especially considering how little the generic ones generally cost in comparison to the trademarked ones.
And even that part of the argument does not address the horrendous charges for hospital visits and running some tests OR the huge salaries of the CEOs OR the huge hospital 'industry' - did you even read the whole article?
|
May I ask what the average doctor earns in the U.S ? Reading the sums for treatments and little diagnostic measures I'd imagine it to be a lot.
|
On February 23 2013 23:36 rackdude wrote:
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal.
So ... the US healthcare system is subsidizing the health sistems of the rest of the world? And this is because the rest of the world doesn't properly respect US patents?
Care to link where you got this from? It sounds awfully absurd, especially considering that the biggest markets for US pharmaceutical companies are, aside from the US market, markets in other developed countries, countries tend to respect international treaties on intelectual properties.
I don't know if the US patent system allows for longer-lasting patents than what is internationally accepted in treaties and conventions, but I would also think it unlikely given the US influence in negotiations of this kind. Still, if it truly does, then it's the US's own fault for not adhering to international standards.
|
If I lived in the US, I'd be constantly terrified that one random sickness could wipe out my life savings.
|
On February 23 2013 15:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:50 Plexa wrote:On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:
If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. I normally stay out of these threads but you are seriously deluded if you truly believe this. If you have a serious illness and you cut insurance out of the picture then you're essentially condemning most of them to death. Many diseases have no cures and only things which treat the symptoms and hence are required to take life long meds. Once the money runs out to support that, the disease takes over and people die. The vast majority of people with serious illness take things pretty damn seriously, its quite insulting to suggest otherwise. I didn't say they didn't take things seriously. I'm using it as an analogy. The medical industry is seriously flawed, and as such any fix is likely to be just as serious. I believe insurance is the problem. I respect anyone else's position as well, and I don't expect people to think I believe my way is the only way. But every solution will have serious side effects, simply due to its scale. There is no perfect solution that will completely fix the situation with no difficulties.
I think people here are trying to tell you it's not a way at all. It wont fix anything, it will just make people, quite literally, die.
Oh, and universal healthcare has no real drawbacks. Might try that.
|
America better stay away from our costly socialist universal healtcare that is making europe collapse. Stay free forever.
|
United States24680 Posts
On February 24 2013 00:16 Vivax wrote:
May I ask what the average doctor earns in the U.S ? Reading the sums for treatments and little diagnostic measures I'd imagine it to be a lot.
Much of the money spent on medical care does not go to the doctor (facilities/equipment/medicine, malpractice insurance, etc) but doctors of course do well overall. I'm sure you can look up averages for different types of doctors (and this will vary quite a bit).
On February 24 2013 01:03 ThaZenith wrote:
If I lived in the US, I'd be constantly terrified that one random sickness could wipe out my life savings.
If you have decent health insurance, you most likely don't have to worry about this (as long as you spend a few minutes familiarizing yourself with the policy). If you don't have decent health insurance, it could be more of a problem.
|
Liberty white slips the alamo band aid las vegas christmas rodeo bed bath and beyond 300000 because I broke my arm gg USA.
Hey, you have cancer that will be 300000000000000, paper or plastic? Shall I wrap it for you? Do you have our customer service card ? Tons of extra's you know. Does it come with a smile? Have you heard about our latest offer? If you die within eight months, these pills are for free. You heard it right folks, motherfuking FREE. DISCOUNT DISCOUNT DISCOUNT.
Dont you love capitalism?
Who would have thought shit is expensive in a country where corruption has been legalized???????????
User was warned for this post
|
On February 24 2013 00:17 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 23:36 rackdude wrote:
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal. So ... the US healthcare system is subsidizing the health sistems of the rest of the world? And this is because the rest of the world doesn't properly respect US patents? Care to link where you got this from? It sounds awfully absurd, especially considering that the biggest markets for US pharmaceutical companies are, aside from the US market, markets in other developed countries, countries tend to respect international treaties on intelectual properties. I don't know if the US patent system allows for longer-lasting patents than what is internationally accepted in treaties and conventions, but I would also think it unlikely given the US influence in negotiations of this kind. Still, if it truly does, then it's the US's own fault for not adhering to international standards.
It isn't my topic of research and the professor who had the full argument is on leave, but here's a few things I could scrounge together on this. Basically, it's not the whole issue, but there is truth to the claim. Prescription drug companies overcharge US customers to account for the fact that other countries have price controls. This way they can keep funding R&D. This does not account for the entirety of the difference in the costs, but it does give a sense as to why prescription drugs have such a large cost difference.
Quick Overview: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/node/4199
A Little Detailed: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048158
Some More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?_r=0
http://ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf
The professor also had a lot of other things to say... I can't find my notes on that though. Something about patents for vaccines and countries without firm rule of law. That's where the whole patent dispute comes in. It was quite awhile ago (3 years?). This should be enough to put you on track towards the right research in journals though.
Again, this doesn't account for everything (why are doctors here payed so much more? Why are CT scans so much more?) but it does tell you about one of the factors involved.
|
that america has the worst health care in world only comparing to african countrys is well known so ... perhaps they should make it more human
|
On February 24 2013 01:18 Gheizen64 wrote:
America better stay away from our costly socialist universal healtcare that is making europe collapse. Stay free forever.
No collapse here in Canada. Universal healthcare is awesome. You guys should work on paying your taxes, its amazing what the government can do with the money they are owed :D
+ Show Spoiler +
edit: wish you americans could enjoy it. but theres a cost to it. I dont even know if establishing a universal healtchare system for 350 million ppl in 2013 is possible in terms of $ available to the government...
|
United States24680 Posts
On February 24 2013 01:41 CoR wrote:
that america has the worst health care in world only comparing to african countrys is well known so ... perhaps they should make it more human
Source? How are you defining worst? The USA, along with several other nations, such as yours I believe, have world class doctors, facilities, and medication. Maybe you think the health care system is terrible, comparable to African Countries (why you are picking on them specifically I don't know) but that is different than what you said; in either case I'm not sure what your goal was here; why enter a thread discussing why a system has problems to say it has problems?
|
On February 23 2013 14:02 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Your solution is to get rid of insurance? Really?
its what the rest of the civilized world did. Well, in the UK we have the option to get private health insurance but its very cheap and covers EVERYTHING. If you don't want or can't afford that, you pay a small tax (its very small, about £5 per week for most people) and get all your medical treatment, save foir paying £7 for a prescription and paying £50 for dental works.
|
The issue is due to excessive regulation caused by regulators getting into the same bed with the medical and pharmaceutical companies. You would think regulation is a good thing - but in reality, it keeps out competition and allows the existing companies to charge astronomical prices.
It's little wonder that the USA spends the most of healthcare (as a % of GDP, it spends 17.6% and the next highest is 12%) but is falling behind other countries in health measurements (e.g. 40th (!) in life expectancy). If you live in Cuba, your life expectancy is higher than the average American. If I remembered correctly, USA was like 6th in the 60s.
|
which is why profitable healthcare is insanity.
|
CA10828 Posts
On February 24 2013 00:16 Vivax wrote:
May I ask what the average doctor earns in the U.S ? Reading the sums for treatments and little diagnostic measures I'd imagine it to be a lot.
trust me, physician compensation is not the real issue in the healthcare $$ debate, although politicians would like you to think so.
|
On February 23 2013 14:00 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Not completely. I went to the hospital in November due to a massive pain in my lower left abdomen that prevented me from doing anything, including getting up out of bed. What was it? They have no fucking idea. Bill? about 5 grand. For what? A ct scan. One ct scan is 5 grand? Insurance is only paying half of it. My brother went recently and has a 1400 dollar bill. Until they send a debt collector I'm not paying that shit. I understand they're trying to make money and a lot of other people haven't paid but that doesn't give you the right to completely rip off people.
5k O.o what? thats like 15k in my currency lol. there must be something really wrong going on there.
|
If you have the highest medical spending in the world by such a very long way, you would think the US would have by far the best healthcare on the planet. This isn't the case. Surely that's enough reason to fix the broken system?
|
On February 24 2013 01:41 CoR wrote:
that america has the worst health care in world only comparing to african countrys is well known so ... perhaps they should make it more human
Depends on how you look at it.
The US has the best health care in the world if you just look at quality (disregarding cost and availability).
The US has the worst health care in the world if consider the cost in relation to treatment given.
Sorry, no source, information is from a lecture I attended recently.
|
On February 23 2013 14:36 Dagan159 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:28 Scarecrow wrote:
So what's different about the US system compared to other western countries? The prices just seem ridiculous. Just about every other country has health care prices controlled by the government. And yes our prices are insane. Infographic
@@ Just wow
I for 1 was really confused by the "non-profit hospitals are making big bucks" part
If your healthcare costs double that of switzerland you have a serious fucking problem.... @@
Shit is so dam expensive there
|
Good lord, always thought the doctors are the fat cats just like I thought singers and actors are the greedy ones. Nope, it's the companies that they work for. That rustles my jimmies; I don't even know who these people are that I should really be angry at.
|
It's funny how so many people think American healthcare fails due to this thing called "Capitalism".
Capitalism = Private gains, Private losses. A system where one has the right to one's property, including profits and time.
Often, the government feels that the free market fails in certain markets, thus the government is starts manipulating the market This is done in various ways. 1. Rules and regulations. 2. Producing a good or service. 3. Paying someone else to produce the good or service.
When the government manipulates the market, the intentions are pure, the aim is to help people who cannot afford the good or service gain access to it. However, because the government is allowed to manipulate the market, this leads to huge firms in the market lobbying. What exactly does this mean? Huge firms send people to the convince congressmen to create policies that benefit the firm. Such as creating rules and regulations which benefit the firm, the government paying the firm to produce more of a certain good. The government subsidizing the consumers of the particular good, such that more people would be able to afford it. Congressmen who would not betray their country for a million dollars are doing it for a weekend trip to Hawaii. This is where the term crony capitalism comes from. It has nothing to do with capitalism, it is only possible with huge government that has the power to manipulate markets.
For example, Company A has a pill which treats a certain mental disorder. Company A sends people to congress to lobby for a policy to be implemented. A policy which would make it compulsory for all children between the ages of 10 and 12 to go for a test to see if they have this mental disorder. More people are claimed to have this disorder, company A benefits. Not only that, parents who disagree with the outcome are deemed unfit parents. If many more parents are forced by the government to purchase such medicine for their children due to such a policy, Company A can charge higher prices. Even if the government subsidizes the medicine, it does not change the fact that Company A profits from lobbying. I'm not saying that children who do not have such a mental disorder are claimed by the company to have such a disorder, however one can clearly see how lobbying benefits the company at the expense of taxpayers.
The speaker mentions that Ambulance companies earn more than Hollywood. If that is the case, can't businessmen enter the industry and compete? If there are more ambulance companies around, prices would likely fall by a large margin. If there is competition, prices would definitely fall by a large margin. However, due to policies implemented by the government, there are restrictions for ambulance companies, such that it would be nearly impossible for new ambulance companies to enter the market. Why are there such policies in the first place? Lobbying. Ambulance companies lobby and convince government officials that policies should be created to maintain a certain level of quality of ambulances as lives are at stake.
I believe that a purely capitalistic healthcare system would not work and the poor would be disadvantaged too much. However, blaming this current situation on capitalism is just wrong as there is nothing capitalistic about the American healthcare market. Greed =/= capitalism. Wanting to earn lots of profits =/= capitalism. Lobbying = opposite of capitalism. The American healthcare market = cronyism.
How to solve this situation? The government can start by reducing policies that restrict competition because of "safety reasons".
Edit: Another example: In the last election, Michele Bachmann became a laughing stock by saying how forced vaccinations gave a kid some brain disease or something like that and thus such forced vaccinations should be abolished. Her reasoning might be absurd but such a policy which forces a vaccination of a certain disease whereby all the vaccines are from a certain company is definitely a policy which came from lobbyists.
|
On February 24 2013 01:34 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 00:17 Sbrubbles wrote:On February 23 2013 23:36 rackdude wrote:
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal. So ... the US healthcare system is subsidizing the health sistems of the rest of the world? And this is because the rest of the world doesn't properly respect US patents? Care to link where you got this from? It sounds awfully absurd, especially considering that the biggest markets for US pharmaceutical companies are, aside from the US market, markets in other developed countries, countries tend to respect international treaties on intelectual properties. I don't know if the US patent system allows for longer-lasting patents than what is internationally accepted in treaties and conventions, but I would also think it unlikely given the US influence in negotiations of this kind. Still, if it truly does, then it's the US's own fault for not adhering to international standards. It isn't my topic of research and the professor who had the full argument is on leave, but here's a few things I could scrounge together on this. Basically, it's not the whole issue, but there is truth to the claim. Prescription drug companies overcharge US customers to account for the fact that other countries have price controls. This way they can keep funding R&D. This does not account for the entirety of the difference in the costs, but it does give a sense as to why prescription drugs have such a large cost difference. Quick Overview: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/node/4199A Little Detailed: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048158Some More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?_r=0http://ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdfThe professor also had a lot of other things to say... I can't find my notes on that though. Something about patents for vaccines and countries without firm rule of law. That's where the whole patent dispute comes in. It was quite awhile ago (3 years?). This should be enough to put you on track towards the right research in journals though. Again, this doesn't account for everything (why are doctors here payed so much more? Why are CT scans so much more?) but it does tell you about one of the factors involved.
Maybe you should read more carefully what you are posting, or at least something that actually strenghtens your point?
From the Consumer watchdog - link 1 you provided for overview.
The author of the health affairs study, Prof. Donald Light, argues that the study shows the U.S. drug industry shouldn't get the protection of exorbitant domestic drug prices.
Today's Health Affairs news release said:
"Congressional leaders and others concerned about high prices of new patented drugs will be heartened by this analysis, because lower European prices seem to be no deterrent to strong research productivity,” writes Light. He cites previous research showing that pharmaceutical companies are able to recover research costs and make a "good profit” at European prices, and he rejects the notion that Europeans are “free-riding” on American pharmaceutical research investments.
In fact, U.S. drug pricing looks more and more like the kind of "protection" money extracted by street gangs.
The new England journal article basically says what Bush will do ("did" in hindsight) differently than Kerry and why - with the author having some sort of "hunch" how it would pan out if the state took more direct action in determining prices. Yet no hard facts by this Richard G. Frank Harvard Medical dude.
What was interesting however is, that there generally is more money involved in the R&D and people working there in the US than anywhere else. So at least it is highly profitable for them I guess, (US) consumers paying the price for that however is not cool.
|
I don't know how America handles all the billing system and the treatments being too expensive and such but we in Turkey have a socialist approach to the healthcare system that is working for decades.
We simply collect small health taxes from everyone that is collected in one place and it is being used as part of our social insurance system and used for people who need it. This decreases the costs people personally has to pay for like %80 when compared to USA system. It is not a liberal approach of USA for "everyone takes care of himself" approach though. But again if you are for example healthy and doesn't really use the system you still pay small amounts for it and for example any other person that is cancer for almost 5 years and fighting with it using the part of collected money. In certain moments when many people is suffering from diseases the tax amount increases and such.
As far as i know some politicians talked about this in USA but people just didn't want to pay for other people's sickness' and such. So the argument closed very fast. But since i experience this system a lot i think it is not as "scary" as it sounds like. Actually in the long run it is really beneficial for public health.
|
The reason medical bills are killing the US is because they have neither a free market nor a socialized system. It is a bastardized amalgamation of the two, which prevents the market from working the way it ideally could, and prevents cost reducing measures of socialized care.
You cannot blame the market for this. The medical system is not a market. If I could provide a form of medical care for $500 and yet every single medical establishment is charging $4000, it means there are severe barriers to entry into the market which prevents competition and costs from being driven down.
People blaming the market when there isn't even a real market make me want to pull my hair out. Capitalism is the new permanent scapegoat for all things wrong in the world, even though it established wealth and liberty for billions.
|
On February 23 2013 15:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 15:38 Fuzzmosis wrote:
Medical Care in the US is strange.
Even Government programs "overpay", in absolutely no small part due to lobbyists. If during program creation, you not only have a loud and presumed knowing voice arguing to make as much money as possible, and people who agree that is right and are willing to make it happen during the price negotiation (See, Medicare). Especially if it leads to jobs after their price negotiations.
Stolen from Wikipedia: "Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window"" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D).
So, basically Medicine is a business in America. To most of the rest of the world, it is a basic human right given to their citizens with varying levels of options of private care. In America, it's.... not. So that may make the conversation confusing to any international people. If by strange, you mean a complete fucking joke (like so many other things in this country), then yes, you are correct. It fucking boggles my mind how ignorant, ultra-patriotic conservatives can brag about this country being the "best country on earth" when the average American's quality of life is quite lacking compared to other developed countries. Yes, you can love America, and I love this country just as much as the next SANE individual, but loving your country doesn't mean that you ignore its absolutely horrific faults. You FIX THEM.
This so much!!
|
I'm glad that I saw this here on TL, when I saw this on the Daily Show it really got me thinking. I know that when I had my appendectomy, it cost me close to 4 grand even with insurance...really ridiculous, I was living paycheck to paycheck as it was, now I pretty much have to defer all my bills to a collection agency, and that's no fun.
|
On February 24 2013 03:39 mierin wrote:
I'm glad that I saw this here on TL, when I saw this on the Daily Show it really got me thinking. I know that when I had my appendectomy, it cost me close to 4 grand even with insurance...really ridiculous, I was living paycheck to paycheck as it was, now I pretty much have to defer all my bills to a collection agency, and that's no fun.
Stories like this one really make me shake my head in disbelief...
|
On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:04 Dagan159 wrote:On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Demand never falls. People dont stop being sick. Insurance companies usually get 40-50% of chargemaster prices. You will initially be charged 100% of chargemaster costs unless you get outside help. Demand will fall. Yes people keep getting sick, but they can't actually get the care, because they can't afford it. That counts as falling demand. Yes, it will suck like shit at first, but things will improve eventually, and once they do they will be better than they are now. If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. Likewise, the healthcare industry is seriously flawed, and only extreme measures will suffice. I suppose you could lessen the impact by slowly phasing out insurance instead of just dismantling it overnight, but I think it should be done.
No. it. won't.
You just contradicted yourself, you say demand falls while at the same time admitting people don't stop getting sick. No, the demand is still THERE regardless.
Also, most serious illnesses can be prevented had said sick person gone to a doctor to see why they were feeling like such shit every day. Instead, they go to the doctor when they collapse on the floor at work and find out in the hospital that they have had cancer for a year.
|
On February 24 2013 03:44 cydial wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:On February 23 2013 14:04 Dagan159 wrote:On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Demand never falls. People dont stop being sick. Insurance companies usually get 40-50% of chargemaster prices. You will initially be charged 100% of chargemaster costs unless you get outside help. Demand will fall. Yes people keep getting sick, but they can't actually get the care, because they can't afford it. That counts as falling demand. Yes, it will suck like shit at first, but things will improve eventually, and once they do they will be better than they are now. If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. Likewise, the healthcare industry is seriously flawed, and only extreme measures will suffice. I suppose you could lessen the impact by slowly phasing out insurance instead of just dismantling it overnight, but I think it should be done. No. it. won't. You just contradicted yourself, you say demand falls while at the same time admitting people don't stop getting sick. No, the demand is still THERE regardless. Also, most serious illnesses can be prevented had said sick person gone to a doctor to see why they were feeling like such shit every day. Instead, they go to the doctor when they collapse on the floor at work and find out in the hospital that they have had cancer for a year.
Flawed premise: All medical demand comes from illness.
|
On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:04 Dagan159 wrote:On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Demand never falls. People dont stop being sick. Insurance companies usually get 40-50% of chargemaster prices. You will initially be charged 100% of chargemaster costs unless you get outside help. Demand will fall. Yes people keep getting sick, but they can't actually get the care, because they can't afford it. That counts as falling demand. Yes, it will suck like shit at first, but things will improve eventually, and once they do they will be better than they are now. If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. Likewise, the healthcare industry is seriously flawed, and only extreme measures will suffice. I suppose you could lessen the impact by slowly phasing out insurance instead of just dismantling it overnight, but I think it should be done.
Or, you know try what other countries are doing, that also lessens the costs , but does not cause countless people to die, suffer and go bankrupt like your solution.
|
On February 23 2013 14:28 Scarecrow wrote:
So what's different about the US system compared to other western countries? The prices just seem ridiculous as does the notion of removing insurance -.-
They don't have public healthcare system, because that would be socialist/communist. And so they suffer consequences.
|
On February 24 2013 03:31 rusedeguerre wrote:
The reason medical bills are killing the US is because they have neither a free market nor a socialized system. It is a bastardized amalgamation of the two, which prevents the market from working the way it ideally could, and prevents cost reducing measures of socialized care.
You cannot blame the market for this. The medical system is not a market. If I could provide a form of medical care for $500 and yet every single medical establishment is charging $4000, it means there are severe barriers to entry into the market which prevents competition and costs from being driven down.
People blaming the market when there isn't even a real market make me want to pull my hair out. Capitalism is the new permanent scapegoat for all things wrong in the world, even though it established wealth and liberty for billions.
That's one way to look at it, but the most pressing problem with the Health system is the fact that it has become too big as an entity in the US, and there are just too many offsprings (or you could call them leeches) that depend on the healthcare economics, which each of them has also become too gigantic. This is really what makes the US healthcare the most unique and different from any other countries who run theirs based on a socialized medicine. This is also the reason why US has the most sophisticated health system and the most advanced treatment in the world. Healthcare in US needs a reform, I agree, but it will only work if states are given more power to reform from within rather than anything that is federally run program.
|
On February 24 2013 03:51 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:28 Scarecrow wrote:
So what's different about the US system compared to other western countries? The prices just seem ridiculous as does the notion of removing insurance -.- They don't have public healthcare system, because that would be socialist/communist. And so they suffer consequences.
You are ignoring the ten thousand details and reasons that make up the US health care system in order to simplistically push your political beliefs. You really aren't doing anything for the discussion here.
|
On February 23 2013 23:36 rackdude wrote:
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal.
I doubt that cost difference comes even close to cover the gap between costs in US and other countries. Plus a lot of countries develops new drugs, for example we develop a lot of new drugs, that are then bought by US/other pharma companies in late development stage, put through trials and .... Companies pay for the trials, which are horrendously expensive, but they also get the money back by selling the drug, and not only in the US. Most developed countries does not ignore patents.
|
|
|
On February 24 2013 02:03 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:02 Angry_Fetus wrote:On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Your solution is to get rid of insurance? Really? its what the rest of the civilized world did. Well, in the UK we have the option to get private health insurance but its very cheap and covers EVERYTHING. If you don't want or can't afford that, you pay a small tax (its very small, about £5 per week for most people) and get all your medical treatment, save foir paying £7 for a prescription and paying £50 for dental works.
It still works as insurance, just not necessarily for-profit one. You can consider it a tax, but it still needs to cover the healthcare costs and so it is basically mandatory insurance.
|
On February 24 2013 03:31 rusedeguerre wrote:
The reason medical bills are killing the US is because they have neither a free market nor a socialized system. It is a bastardized amalgamation of the two, which prevents the market from working the way it ideally could, and prevents cost reducing measures of socialized care.
You cannot blame the market for this. The medical system is not a market. If I could provide a form of medical care for $500 and yet every single medical establishment is charging $4000, it means there are severe barriers to entry into the market which prevents competition and costs from being driven down.
People blaming the market when there isn't even a real market make me want to pull my hair out. Capitalism is the new permanent scapegoat for all things wrong in the world, even though it established wealth and liberty for billions.
People are commenting on the "real" market, that is the one at work here, that is the one that through lobbying and other practices creates the situation in US. The market you are thinking of is imaginary as it cannot in reality be implemented in healthcare. So yes, it is not the "free market" and it should be pointed out, but it is the only market that will exist in first world country in healthcare.
|
On February 24 2013 03:53 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 03:51 mcc wrote:On February 23 2013 14:28 Scarecrow wrote:
So what's different about the US system compared to other western countries? The prices just seem ridiculous as does the notion of removing insurance -.- They don't have public healthcare system, because that would be socialist/communist. And so they suffer consequences. You are ignoring the ten thousand details and reasons that make up the US health care system in order to simplistically push your political beliefs. You really aren't doing anything for the discussion here.
Nope, the US system is bastardized amalgam of "free market", public healthcare and lobbying. You can tinker with it to make it slightly better, but not much. You can theoretically go in the "free market" direction, but that is imaginary possibility, due to the fact you will never have public support for any meaningful move in this direction. And even then you have no idea if it would be better as there are no data. Or you can do what other countries do with reasonable success.
|
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free.
|
On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free.
But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it?
|
On February 24 2013 03:09 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 01:34 rackdude wrote:On February 24 2013 00:17 Sbrubbles wrote:On February 23 2013 23:36 rackdude wrote:
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal. So ... the US healthcare system is subsidizing the health sistems of the rest of the world? And this is because the rest of the world doesn't properly respect US patents? Care to link where you got this from? It sounds awfully absurd, especially considering that the biggest markets for US pharmaceutical companies are, aside from the US market, markets in other developed countries, countries tend to respect international treaties on intelectual properties. I don't know if the US patent system allows for longer-lasting patents than what is internationally accepted in treaties and conventions, but I would also think it unlikely given the US influence in negotiations of this kind. Still, if it truly does, then it's the US's own fault for not adhering to international standards. It isn't my topic of research and the professor who had the full argument is on leave, but here's a few things I could scrounge together on this. Basically, it's not the whole issue, but there is truth to the claim. Prescription drug companies overcharge US customers to account for the fact that other countries have price controls. This way they can keep funding R&D. This does not account for the entirety of the difference in the costs, but it does give a sense as to why prescription drugs have such a large cost difference. Quick Overview: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/node/4199A Little Detailed: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048158Some More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?_r=0http://ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdfThe professor also had a lot of other things to say... I can't find my notes on that though. Something about patents for vaccines and countries without firm rule of law. That's where the whole patent dispute comes in. It was quite awhile ago (3 years?). This should be enough to put you on track towards the right research in journals though. Again, this doesn't account for everything (why are doctors here payed so much more? Why are CT scans so much more?) but it does tell you about one of the factors involved. Maybe you should read more carefully what you are posting, or at least something that actually strenghtens your point? From the Consumer watchdog - link 1 you provided for overview. Show nested quote +The author of the health affairs study, Prof. Donald Light, argues that the study shows the U.S. drug industry shouldn't get the protection of exorbitant domestic drug prices.
Today's Health Affairs news release said:
"Congressional leaders and others concerned about high prices of new patented drugs will be heartened by this analysis, because lower European prices seem to be no deterrent to strong research productivity,” writes Light. He cites previous research showing that pharmaceutical companies are able to recover research costs and make a "good profit” at European prices, and he rejects the notion that Europeans are “free-riding” on American pharmaceutical research investments.
In fact, U.S. drug pricing looks more and more like the kind of "protection" money extracted by street gangs. The new England journal article basically says what Bush will do ("did" in hindsight) differently than Kerry and why - with the author having some sort of "hunch" how it would pan out if the state took more direct action in determining prices. Yet no hard facts by this Richard G. Frank Harvard Medical dude. What was interesting however is, that there generally is more money involved in the R&D and people working there in the US than anywhere else. So at least it is highly profitable for them I guess, (US) consumers paying the price for that however is not cool.
I told you it's not my topic of research and I threw those together really quickly. Guess I didn't read those enough. Still, there is a large debate in the Economic Development community about this being one of the potential causes (at least 3 years ago) and all I was doing was pointing that out to help the discussion move from normal internetness to something that has journal papers on (somewhere, someone here has to be a poliecon guy) and moving along.
|
On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it?
Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax?
|
On February 24 2013 04:54 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 03:09 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 01:34 rackdude wrote:On February 24 2013 00:17 Sbrubbles wrote:On February 23 2013 23:36 rackdude wrote:
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal. So ... the US healthcare system is subsidizing the health sistems of the rest of the world? And this is because the rest of the world doesn't properly respect US patents? Care to link where you got this from? It sounds awfully absurd, especially considering that the biggest markets for US pharmaceutical companies are, aside from the US market, markets in other developed countries, countries tend to respect international treaties on intelectual properties. I don't know if the US patent system allows for longer-lasting patents than what is internationally accepted in treaties and conventions, but I would also think it unlikely given the US influence in negotiations of this kind. Still, if it truly does, then it's the US's own fault for not adhering to international standards. It isn't my topic of research and the professor who had the full argument is on leave, but here's a few things I could scrounge together on this. Basically, it's not the whole issue, but there is truth to the claim. Prescription drug companies overcharge US customers to account for the fact that other countries have price controls. This way they can keep funding R&D. This does not account for the entirety of the difference in the costs, but it does give a sense as to why prescription drugs have such a large cost difference. Quick Overview: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/node/4199A Little Detailed: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048158Some More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?_r=0http://ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdfThe professor also had a lot of other things to say... I can't find my notes on that though. Something about patents for vaccines and countries without firm rule of law. That's where the whole patent dispute comes in. It was quite awhile ago (3 years?). This should be enough to put you on track towards the right research in journals though. Again, this doesn't account for everything (why are doctors here payed so much more? Why are CT scans so much more?) but it does tell you about one of the factors involved. Maybe you should read more carefully what you are posting, or at least something that actually strenghtens your point? From the Consumer watchdog - link 1 you provided for overview. The author of the health affairs study, Prof. Donald Light, argues that the study shows the U.S. drug industry shouldn't get the protection of exorbitant domestic drug prices.
Today's Health Affairs news release said:
"Congressional leaders and others concerned about high prices of new patented drugs will be heartened by this analysis, because lower European prices seem to be no deterrent to strong research productivity,” writes Light. He cites previous research showing that pharmaceutical companies are able to recover research costs and make a "good profit” at European prices, and he rejects the notion that Europeans are “free-riding” on American pharmaceutical research investments.
In fact, U.S. drug pricing looks more and more like the kind of "protection" money extracted by street gangs. The new England journal article basically says what Bush will do ("did" in hindsight) differently than Kerry and why - with the author having some sort of "hunch" how it would pan out if the state took more direct action in determining prices. Yet no hard facts by this Richard G. Frank Harvard Medical dude. What was interesting however is, that there generally is more money involved in the R&D and people working there in the US than anywhere else. So at least it is highly profitable for them I guess, (US) consumers paying the price for that however is not cool. I told you it's not my topic of research and I threw those together really quickly. Guess I didn't read those enough. Still, there is a large debate in the Economic Development community about this being one of the potential causes (at least 3 years ago) and all I was doing was pointing that out to help the discussion move from normal internetness to something that has journal papers on (somewhere, someone here has to be a poliecon guy) and moving along.
np, it just seemed like there was quite a bit of conviction and assurance behind an argument that sounded rather strange to me, so I dug a bit deeper. you provided nice info regardless.
|
On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax?
Beats me. I think all tax is theft.
Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection".
"You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail."
|
On February 23 2013 14:50 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:
If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. I normally stay out of these threads but you are seriously deluded if you truly believe this. If you have a serious illness and you cut insurance out of the picture then you're essentially condemning most of them to death. Many diseases have no cures and only things which treat the symptoms and hence are required to take life long meds. Once the money runs out to support that, the disease takes over and people die. The vast majority of people with serious illness take things pretty damn seriously, its quite insulting to suggest otherwise.
For example: hemophilia A. There is no "cure" for this because it is a genetic disorder. It is engrained into the biology of the affected individual. The solution in many cases is to administer prophylactic "factor 8", an essential component of the blood clotting cascade. The catch though is that this recombinant protein drug requires an outrageous amount of money to take consistently over the course of a lifetime. In fact, for some severely affected individuals it can easily cost over $100K/year simply to maintain daily dosing of the drug. This burden is essentially impossible to maintain for most normal people. Most people do not have a handy $100K/year outside of other living expenses to devote to something.
Insurance is necessary. One problem is that not enough people are insured -- not that too many people are insured.
|
On February 24 2013 01:42 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 01:18 Gheizen64 wrote:
America better stay away from our costly socialist universal healtcare that is making europe collapse. Stay free forever. No collapse here in Canada. Universal healthcare is awesome. You guys should work on paying your taxes, its amazing what the government can do with the money they are owed :D + Show Spoiler +edit: wish you americans could enjoy it. but theres a cost to it. I dont even know if establishing a universal healtchare system for 350 million ppl in 2013 is possible in terms of $ available to the government...
It would be possible if the money wasn't wasted on absurdly inefficient things (basically all non-military spending) or incredibly unnecessary things (military spending).
|
On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail."
If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise.
|
On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise.
There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them.
|
On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it?
If I don't want a military, why should my taxes go towards paying for it?
If I don't want an education, why should my taxes go towards paying for public schools?
If I don't want to be protected by law enforcement/fire officials, why should my taxes go towards paying for it?
Oh, right, because these are all essential parts of society.
|
On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them.
Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified.
|
On February 24 2013 05:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If I don't want a military, why should my taxes go towards paying for it?
If I don't want an education, why should my taxes go towards paying for public schools?
If I don't want to be protected by law enforcement/fire officials, why should my taxes go towards paying for it?
Oh, right, because these are all essential parts of society.
You can't tell a conservative that, they're all 'me, me me.'
|
Wow....a trip to the hospital is more or less the same price as my BSc...
|
On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified.
Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft...
|
On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft...
Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction...
|
On February 24 2013 05:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? If I don't want a military, why should my taxes go towards paying for it? If I don't want an education, why should my taxes go towards paying for public schools? If I don't want to be protected by law enforcement/fire officials, why should my taxes go towards paying for it? Oh, right, because these are all essential parts of society.
Law enforcement and education I don't mind so much, because they can be provided locally. It's plainly obvious what you're paying for. Law enforcement has to be public because the legislation it is meant to uphold is passed publicly as well. I suspect private schools could do better, but I'm not going to challenge local public schooling.
Nationalized healthcare and the military? not so much. If I had my way, we wouldn't have much of a military at all, but that's for another thread.
On February 24 2013 05:28 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If I don't want a military, why should my taxes go towards paying for it?
If I don't want an education, why should my taxes go towards paying for public schools?
If I don't want to be protected by law enforcement/fire officials, why should my taxes go towards paying for it?
Oh, right, because these are all essential parts of society. You can't tell a conservative that, they're all 'me, me me.'
Do you like your car? Henry Ford revolutionized the auto industry because he wanted to make money, not because he wanted to improve the world.
How about electricity? Westinghouse came up with the electrical system because he wanted money, not because he wanted to light up the world.
How about food? Farmers don't grow food just to feed everyone, they grow food to make a profit.
|
On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction...
You are choosing to live in a country that has taxes... dont want to pay taxes? Go hide in the wilderness and live like a caveman. Tax is only theft by opinion, and then it's an iddiotic one, because it would be the same as complaining that you keep getting mugged when you live in the middle of a gang's established hideout...
|
The free market cannot solve every problem. The military, schools, healthcare... these are things that cannot be provided by private entities. The consumers of these things have no purchasing power. Supply and Demand does not apply.
On February 24 2013 05:40 Millitron wrote:
Do you like your car? Henry Ford revolutionized the auto industry because he wanted to make money, not because he wanted to improve the world.
Do you like the roads you drive your car on? tax dollars paid for them.
|
On February 24 2013 05:40 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? If I don't want a military, why should my taxes go towards paying for it? If I don't want an education, why should my taxes go towards paying for public schools? If I don't want to be protected by law enforcement/fire officials, why should my taxes go towards paying for it? Oh, right, because these are all essential parts of society. Law enforcement and education I don't mind so much, because they can be provided locally. It's plainly obvious what you're paying for. Law enforcement has to be public because the legislation it is meant to uphold is passed publicly as well. I suspect private schools could do better, but I'm not going to challenge local public schooling. Nationalized healthcare and the military? not so much. If I had my way, we wouldn't have much of a military at all, but that's for another thread. Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:28 divito wrote:On February 24 2013 05:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If I don't want a military, why should my taxes go towards paying for it?
If I don't want an education, why should my taxes go towards paying for public schools?
If I don't want to be protected by law enforcement/fire officials, why should my taxes go towards paying for it?
Oh, right, because these are all essential parts of society. You can't tell a conservative that, they're all 'me, me me.' Do you like your car? Henry Ford revolutionized the auto industry because he wanted to make money, not because he wanted to improve the world. How about electricity? Westinghouse came up with the electrical system because he wanted money, not because he wanted to light up the world. How about food? Farmers don't grow food just to feed everyone, they grow food to make a profit.
As if wanting to make money is some sort of excuse for shitty behaviour? That's ridiculous. Most inventions are invented to fix some problem or make some convenience the whole making money thing is just a by-product of making something.
|
I think your existence is theft. I had more room on this planet before your sorry ass was born. Give it back please.
|
On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction...
Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization,
|
On February 24 2013 05:49 TheFish7 wrote:
The free market cannot solve every problem. The military, schools, healthcare... these are things that cannot be provided by private entities. The consumers of these things have no purchasing power. Supply and Demand does not apply.
Consumers have no purchasing power? Supply and demand does not apply? I have no idea what you are talking about. And all three of your examples have existed in private enterprise form.
The question is whether or not it is better or worse than the alternatives. You can't just say "it's not possible" when it clearly is.
|
But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it?
Because if you don't have health insurance you are still going to end up benefiting from the system once you are really sick. Hospitals aren't going to just let someone die when treatment is readily available.
|
Sup doods I think tax is theft when its used on 200,000+ bathrooms and stuff like that so until all the things like this is stopped you could think of tax as theft.There needs to be change in are ass backwards system hospitals will complain that prices on things arnt going up( my sister sells things to them and if the price hasn't gone up in a few years they will complain about it ) shit like that blows my mind .On a side note when I get my check and see that 2 or 3 days of work is taken out is like damn man really im trying to live here! Would also be nice if they told you where your money went not that we would have say where it was spent but to know where it did get spent would be nice.
|
On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization,
The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it."
We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist.
|
the real rhetorical trick is when you assume a notion of "property" that naturalizes your highly ideological position
|
On February 24 2013 06:11 sam!zdat wrote:
the real rhetorical trick is when you assume a notion of "property" that naturalizes your highly ideological position
Yes, I assume property. I'd love to hear an alternative that didn't sound like a pot head's pipe dream.
|
On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist.
Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes.
No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them.
|
On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist.
Living in this country, in a house, is giving consent. Feel free to leave wherever you live and all of the stuff you use that requires electricity and go live out of a tent-you'll be free of taxation then no problem
|
On February 24 2013 06:13 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:11 sam!zdat wrote:
the real rhetorical trick is when you assume a notion of "property" that naturalizes your highly ideological position Yes, I assume property. I'd love to hear an alternative that didn't sound like a pot head's pipe dream.
meh, why don't you say what you mean about it, where it comes from, and why it's justified, what kinds of things can be property, who can own them, so on and so forth. for things that can't be property, why not, and how are they different from the kinds of things that can.
don't accuse people of just making up definitions or smth when you can only defend it by introducing a hypostasis of your own. pure laziness. not that anyone's going to take you seriously anyway, but it might help if you put some thought into it.
edit: for an encore, you can try to explain how property rights can exist without you paying taxes to a state to protect them.
|
On February 24 2013 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist. Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes. No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them.
I was born into said country. It was not a choice. And consent cannot be implied by forcing a person to leave their nation of origin.
|
On February 24 2013 06:19 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Beats me. I think all tax is theft.
Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection".
"You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist. Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes. No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them. I was born into said country. It was not a choice. And consent cannot be implied by forcing a person to leave their nation of origin.
It was a choice to remain in that country once you reached the age of adulthood.
And for someone who seems to waive all responsibility because you were born in a nation, you seem oddly quick to take all the privileges of being born there.
|
Instead of beating the dead horse, perhaps talking about how it makes sense to charge 200 USD for a test that costs 10 USD (all costs included).
|
On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction...
If something is morally justified, it is, by any reasonable definition, not theft.
|
But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it?
Because you will benefit from it when you get old and sick. And if you don't think you will ever get sick, you should really take a look at statistics. I mean from a principal standpoint if you would agree on never complaining if you're eventually going to die because you don't get treatment, your argument may be viable, but most people who will get seriously sick and have no insurance will end up in an hospital anyway and profit from society, and thats the reason why a public insurance is a good idea.
If people are starting to argue that tax is theft i really don't know what to say at all, its ironically in itself that you are stating that on an internet board using your internet connection which is probably just there because the state pumped money into its technology infrastructure. So if you wanna be taken seriously with this argument the only legitimate place to speak it out loud is probably in a cave.
And the free market idea is nice and all, but as many people stated out before, free markets only work if there's enough competetition and the customer has leverage and power. If you're bleeding out after an accident you don't have much time to compare prices, you're just paying or dying, and guess what, most people will probably end up spending all of their money if the alternative is death. The solution is pretty simple, public insurance forced for everyone, price limits on drugs and medical services. (the health-system should be self-sustainable, and people should get paid reasonably)
Well and if the solution is that easy people may be wondering why that hasn't happened still, and i think thats mostly to blame on political failure. People who are making a business out of the health system succeed and spend billions of dollars on lobbying. That's of course not true for every problem (see the whole horse-meat mess here in europe, where you can surely say that customers are mainly responsible for what they eat and how much they want to pay for it) but regarding health and education people don't have much of a choice.
Thankfully here in Germany our healthcare system is working pretty okay, but we have king of the same lobbying problem when it comes to the agricultural sector in the EU.
|
On February 24 2013 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:
Instead of beating the dead horse, perhaps talking about how it makes sense to charge 200 USD for a test that costs 10 USD (all costs included).
It makes perfect "sense". They charge $200 because no one will charge any less than that. That's a capitalist economy at work.
|
On February 24 2013 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:19 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist. Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes. No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them. I was born into said country. It was not a choice. And consent cannot be implied by forcing a person to leave their nation of origin. It was a choice to remain in that country once you reached the age of adulthood. And for someone who seems to waive all responsibility because you were born in a nation, you seem oddly quick to take all the privileges of being born there.
A choice to remain in the country when I reached adulthood? It is my home. I cannot come into your home and make demands of you because you refuse to leave. "Your choice to stay in your home means you are granting consent for me to rape you." What????
Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed.
|
There are many culprits, in no particular order
- doctor's over-use of diagnostic tests/imaging
- high prices set by Big pharma
- high premiums set by Insurance
- skyrocketing prices due to natural technological advances
- focus on late-stage treatment/life-saving procedures versus cheaper preventative care
Let's see what we can do. 1) difficult to intervene; doctors don't want their practice to be supervised by bureaucrats. Changes to malpractice may help stop over-testing by doctors to "cover their ass" but won't change the situation all that much. 2) Would work but unfeasible due to lobbying power. Drug costs do not need to be that high, just need to convince them to make "good" profit rather than "maximum profit". 3) Would work in theory by cutting out the middle man (insurance). However that would never happen, we cannot even get a public option for healthcare because Big Insurance > our president. So we are just going to have to deal with insurance office workers who purely work towards crunching numbers to maximize profit (and contribute nothing to healthcare) sucking up a portion of the pie. 4) Can't help it. Newer stuff = pricier. 5) Will definitely help. If Obamacare works, more people with insurance will be inclined to visit primary care doctors who will keep them healthy and prevent a lot of hospitalizations.
|
On February 24 2013 06:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 04:15 Blargh wrote:
Guys, don't you want a CAPITALIST ECONOMY? You can't just introduce this "socialist" medicare system that spreads the cost over the country as a whole!! It's not like this whole country/world revolves around social interaction and communication, cooperation, etc with other individuals. When someone gets in a car accident, it's clearly all their fault and they deserve to die because I sure as hell was not responsible! Our current system works great!! Demand is always high on medical anything, and so the the costs are too!! Simple economics.
In all srsns, one of the flaws here is that a capitalist system when it comes to hospitals just isn't viable. When you are in an accident and are bleeding to death, you don't moan to the ambulance, "Hey, don't go to that hospital, go to the cheaper one 10 miles away! They have better deals!" It's stupid to leave it to capitalism or economics to decide the price for necessities of life. Hell, it's barely economics at this point. It's just abuse of a social society. For any progressive nation, this is clearly detrimental. Literally EVERY developed nation EXCEPT the United States has a national healthcare system in place. This semi-free market is a joke, especially so when it comes to the medical department. Believe me, medical costs aren't free. But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... If something is morally justified, it is, by any reasonable definition, not theft.
Ah, ok. I will tell that to the judge when I rob somebody. "It wasn't theft because I used the money for a worthwhile cause." Try again.
|
On February 24 2013 06:05 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:49 TheFish7 wrote:
The free market cannot solve every problem. The military, schools, healthcare... these are things that cannot be provided by private entities. The consumers of these things have no purchasing power. Supply and Demand does not apply.
Consumers have no purchasing power? Supply and demand does not apply? I have no idea what you are talking about. And all three of your examples have existed in private enterprise form. The question is whether or not it is better or worse than the alternatives. You can't just say "it's not possible" when it clearly is.
And all three examples, when left to the free market, have failed. The U.S. military is incredibly bloated and wastes an obnoxious amount of this nation's money. Our school system is noticeably worse than other developed countries' school systems. This thread very clearly points out why we have the worst healthcare system in the developed world.
|
On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed.
yup. welcome to the human condition. guess you'd better start thinking about what kind of government you'd like to have. "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains." bummer, huh?
|
On February 24 2013 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:
Instead of beating the dead horse, perhaps talking about how it makes sense to charge 200 USD for a test that costs 10 USD (all costs included).
What test are you talking about? You can't tunnel vision on purely the materialistic cost. Services aren't cheap, and these are professionals you are hiring.
|
On February 24 2013 06:30 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. yup. welcome to the human condition. guess you'd better start thinking about what kind of government you'd like to have. "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains." bummer, huh?
Humanity invented government. Therefore it is not inherent and cannot be part of the human condition. Some of you really live in a scary world if you think slavery is the human condition....
|
On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
A choice to remain in the country when I reached adulthood? It is my home. I cannot come into your home and make demands of you because you refuse to leave. "Your choice to stay in your home means you are granting consent for me to rape you." What????
If I own property and you are renting it from me, I can kick you out if you don't pay rent. And still charge for unpaid rent
If you live in an apartment/condo complex and you pay rent, but refuse to pay strata fees, you can be kicked out of the complex. And still get charged for those unpaid fees.
You are very fortunate, in fact, that the country can not kick you out for not paying taxes.
Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed.
Wow, seriously? Get a grip.
|
On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:19 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist. Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes. No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them. I was born into said country. It was not a choice. And consent cannot be implied by forcing a person to leave their nation of origin. It was a choice to remain in that country once you reached the age of adulthood. And for someone who seems to waive all responsibility because you were born in a nation, you seem oddly quick to take all the privileges of being born there. A choice to remain in the country when I reached adulthood? It is my home. I cannot come into your home and make demands of you because you refuse to leave. "Your choice to stay in your home means you are granting consent for me to rape you." What???? Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed.
You don't consent by staying here. You consent by benefiting from everything our society gives you, which is directly tied to the fact that you chose to stay here.
Suppose that you ran up into the wilderness and did not benefit in any way from the multitude of services offered by the government. I seriously doubt that anyone would hold you morally obligated to pay taxes. However, because you have benefited from our school system, our healthcare system, our roads, parks, law enforcement, fire officials, subsidized foods, etc. etc. etc., and you continue to do so, you owe taxes. They are not your property that is being taken. Why? Because you are morally obligated to pay them. Stealing is defined as the unlawful taking of someone's property. You both morally and legally owe taxes because of all of the benefits you have reaped by choosing to stay in this country, so take your hipster, anarcho-capitalist "taxes are theft" crap, grow up, stop being so self-centered, and realize that you belong to a society that you have benefited a LOT from and you owe it to this society to pay some damn taxes.
|
On February 24 2013 06:05 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:49 TheFish7 wrote:
The free market cannot solve every problem. The military, schools, healthcare... these are things that cannot be provided by private entities. The consumers of these things have no purchasing power. Supply and Demand does not apply.
Consumers have no purchasing power? Supply and demand does not apply? I have no idea what you are talking about. And all three of your examples have existed in private enterprise form. The question is whether or not it is better or worse than the alternatives. You can't just say "it's not possible" when it clearly is.
The statements might be inaccurate, but the point is that all the things that make market a good thing are not present in the case of healthcare. All the statements about market being efficient are depending on a lot of assumptions and those are to high degree absent from this particular market.
|
On February 24 2013 06:32 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:30 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. yup. welcome to the human condition. guess you'd better start thinking about what kind of government you'd like to have. "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains." bummer, huh? Humanity invented government. Therefore it is not inherent and cannot be part of the human condition. Some of you really live in a scary world if you think slavery is the human condition....
humanity invented your strange notion of "freedom," too. go tell the Ur-Father that you wanna be free, and see how he reacts. five bucks says he throws some poo at you and kicks you out of the troupe. nice freedom you got there
|
On February 24 2013 06:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
A choice to remain in the country when I reached adulthood? It is my home. I cannot come into your home and make demands of you because you refuse to leave. "Your choice to stay in your home means you are granting consent for me to rape you." What???? If I own property and you are renting it from me, I can kick you out if you don't pay rent. And still charged for unpaid rent If you live in an apartment/condo complex and you pay rent, but refuse to pay strata fees, you can be kicked out of the complex. And still charged for those unpaid fees. You are very fortunate, in fact, that the country can not kick you out for not paying taxes. Show nested quote +Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. Wow, seriously? Get a grip.
I'm gonna break this down very simply for you....
You are assuming I am renting my existence in my nation of birth from the government. This would indicate the government owns everything. If the government owns everything and I can only exist by "renting" my existence from them, it would follow that we are all born into indentured servitude.
Do I have this part correct, before I move on?
|
On February 24 2013 06:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:
Instead of beating the dead horse, perhaps talking about how it makes sense to charge 200 USD for a test that costs 10 USD (all costs included). It makes perfect "sense". They charge $200 because no one will charge any less than that. That's a capitalist economy at work.
Yeah, sense was the wrong word to use - "fair" would probably be better - what I was getting at was that the system seems flawed. Capitalism is a great idea when there is not a monopoly in place, but healthcare is effectively a monopoly. There is a limited amount of choices given to you (i.e. how many different hospitals are there in your area?) and with the development the US has seen recently the amount of choices is falling.
|
On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:On February 24 2013 05:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 04:52 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
But why should people who don't want in on the system be forced to pay for it? If I don't want health insurance, why should I be forced to buy it? Why should you be forced to pay ANY tax? Beats me. I think all tax is theft.Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection". "You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist.
The exception is not "unless the government is doing it", there is theft in case of government taking property, but taxes in most developed countries are not that. The exception is "unlawful" and "without right". I can also take/use someone else property even though I am not government if it is lawful use. Of course it is more complex as there is such a thing as bad laws, but then we would have to get into really tangential discussion about "rights".
|
United States42685 Posts
On February 23 2013 14:50 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:
If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. I normally stay out of these threads but you are seriously deluded if you truly believe this. If you have a serious illness and you cut insurance out of the picture then you're essentially condemning most of them to death. Many diseases have no cures and only things which treat the symptoms and hence are required to take life long meds. Once the money runs out to support that, the disease takes over and people die. The vast majority of people with serious illness take things pretty damn seriously, its quite insulting to suggest otherwise.
Plexa, it was a metaphor. The healthcare industry is sick, removing insurance is the medicine, people without insurance dying are the side effects.
|
On February 24 2013 06:31 W2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:
Instead of beating the dead horse, perhaps talking about how it makes sense to charge 200 USD for a test that costs 10 USD (all costs included). What test are you talking about? You can't tunnel vision on purely the materialistic cost. Services aren't cheap, and these are professionals you are hiring.
This isn't purely materialistic cost - this is after factoring in the professionals you are hiring - read the article, it is one of the centerpieces in it.
|
On February 24 2013 06:34 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:32 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:30 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. yup. welcome to the human condition. guess you'd better start thinking about what kind of government you'd like to have. "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains." bummer, huh? Humanity invented government. Therefore it is not inherent and cannot be part of the human condition. Some of you really live in a scary world if you think slavery is the human condition.... humanity invented your strange notion of "freedom," too. go tell the Ur-Father that you wanna be free, and see how he reacts. five bucks says he throws some poo at you and kicks you out of the troupe. nice freedom you got there
Humanity invented the term, of course. But as it is defined, it has existed before we created the term. Human beings have existed in a state characterized by the absence of human coercion.
|
On February 24 2013 06:35 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
A choice to remain in the country when I reached adulthood? It is my home. I cannot come into your home and make demands of you because you refuse to leave. "Your choice to stay in your home means you are granting consent for me to rape you." What???? If I own property and you are renting it from me, I can kick you out if you don't pay rent. And still charged for unpaid rent If you live in an apartment/condo complex and you pay rent, but refuse to pay strata fees, you can be kicked out of the complex. And still charged for those unpaid fees. You are very fortunate, in fact, that the country can not kick you out for not paying taxes. Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. Wow, seriously? Get a grip. I'm gonna break this down very simply for you.... You are assuming I am renting my existence in my nation of birth from the government. This would indicate the government owns everything. If the government owns everything and I can only exist by "renting" my existence from them, it would follow that we are all born into indentured servitude. Do I have this part correct, before I move on?
No, the government owns multitudes of services which you utilize every single day, and you are paying for the usage of those services.
If you choose not to pay for those services, then you are waiving your usage of them. If you choose to remain in your country and utilize those services, it is not "theft" to ask you to pay for them.
|
On February 24 2013 06:38 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:34 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:32 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:30 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. yup. welcome to the human condition. guess you'd better start thinking about what kind of government you'd like to have. "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains." bummer, huh? Humanity invented government. Therefore it is not inherent and cannot be part of the human condition. Some of you really live in a scary world if you think slavery is the human condition.... humanity invented your strange notion of "freedom," too. go tell the Ur-Father that you wanna be free, and see how he reacts. five bucks says he throws some poo at you and kicks you out of the troupe. nice freedom you got there Humanity invented the term, of course. But as it is defined, it has existed before we created the term. Human beings have existed in a state characterized by the absence of human coercion.
no, sorry, you know nothing of anthropology. your state of nature has never existed. it's a notion which only comes into being along with the existence of the modern state. nobody ever thought of anything like this until, oh, the 17th century. that's when you start seeing "state of nature" stories being told
|
On February 24 2013 06:19 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:On February 24 2013 05:15 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 05:09 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Beats me. I think all tax is theft.
Not that being forced to buy insurance is even a tax. You're being forced to pay a private company for a service. That's not a tax, its like paying the mafia "protection".
"You really should pay Humana, it'd be a real SHAME if you ended up in jail." If that is your perspective I do not think it would be possible for me, or anyone else to convince you otherwise. There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist. Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes. No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them. I was born into said country. It was not a choice. And consent cannot be implied by forcing a person to leave their nation of origin.
You do not actually have to leave the nation, you just need to leave the society, because if you want to be part of that society you are giving consent. You can easily stay in your country, go live in some wilderness and not interact with the society, I am pretty sure noone will care about you paying taxes.
|
On February 24 2013 06:39 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:38 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:34 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:32 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:30 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. yup. welcome to the human condition. guess you'd better start thinking about what kind of government you'd like to have. "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains." bummer, huh? Humanity invented government. Therefore it is not inherent and cannot be part of the human condition. Some of you really live in a scary world if you think slavery is the human condition.... humanity invented your strange notion of "freedom," too. go tell the Ur-Father that you wanna be free, and see how he reacts. five bucks says he throws some poo at you and kicks you out of the troupe. nice freedom you got there Humanity invented the term, of course. But as it is defined, it has existed before we created the term. Human beings have existed in a state characterized by the absence of human coercion. no, sorry, you know nothing of anthropology. your state of nature has never existed.
It is not common, but it has existed. You are definitely wrong about that. In fact, an individual living alone in the wild would fulfill this criteria perfectly.
|
On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:19 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:18 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
There is this weird group of hardcore anarcho-capitalists that appear in every single political discussion in this forum with absurdly weird theories. It is best to simply ignore them. Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist. Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes. No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them. I was born into said country. It was not a choice. And consent cannot be implied by forcing a person to leave their nation of origin. It was a choice to remain in that country once you reached the age of adulthood. And for someone who seems to waive all responsibility because you were born in a nation, you seem oddly quick to take all the privileges of being born there. A choice to remain in the country when I reached adulthood? It is my home. I cannot come into your home and make demands of you because you refuse to leave. "Your choice to stay in your home means you are granting consent for me to rape you." What???? Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed.
Not government, society. And yes society you live in dictates the rules. That is fact of life, it is not ethical position, there is no escaping it.
|
|
|
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this.
|
On February 24 2013 06:42 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:19 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On February 24 2013 05:27 rusedeguerre wrote:
[quote]
Just because you acknowledge that taxation is theft doesn't make you a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. The only question is when and how much theft can be morally justified. Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist. Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes. No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them. I was born into said country. It was not a choice. And consent cannot be implied by forcing a person to leave their nation of origin. It was a choice to remain in that country once you reached the age of adulthood. And for someone who seems to waive all responsibility because you were born in a nation, you seem oddly quick to take all the privileges of being born there. A choice to remain in the country when I reached adulthood? It is my home. I cannot come into your home and make demands of you because you refuse to leave. "Your choice to stay in your home means you are granting consent for me to rape you." What???? Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. Not government, society. And yes society you live in dictates the rules. That is fact of life, it is not ethical position, there is no escaping it.
The government is the one taking the money. You can say government is synonymous with "society," whatever that means, but you cannot say it is not government.
|
On February 24 2013 06:38 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:34 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:32 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:30 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. yup. welcome to the human condition. guess you'd better start thinking about what kind of government you'd like to have. "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains." bummer, huh? Humanity invented government. Therefore it is not inherent and cannot be part of the human condition. Some of you really live in a scary world if you think slavery is the human condition.... humanity invented your strange notion of "freedom," too. go tell the Ur-Father that you wanna be free, and see how he reacts. five bucks says he throws some poo at you and kicks you out of the troupe. nice freedom you got there Humanity invented the term, of course. But as it is defined, it has existed before we created the term. Human beings have existed in a state characterized by the absence of human coercion.
Such state never existed, sorry to bring it up to you, but history disagrees with you.
|
On February 24 2013 06:40 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:39 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:38 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:34 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:32 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:30 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. yup. welcome to the human condition. guess you'd better start thinking about what kind of government you'd like to have. "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains." bummer, huh? Humanity invented government. Therefore it is not inherent and cannot be part of the human condition. Some of you really live in a scary world if you think slavery is the human condition.... humanity invented your strange notion of "freedom," too. go tell the Ur-Father that you wanna be free, and see how he reacts. five bucks says he throws some poo at you and kicks you out of the troupe. nice freedom you got there Humanity invented the term, of course. But as it is defined, it has existed before we created the term. Human beings have existed in a state characterized by the absence of human coercion. no, sorry, you know nothing of anthropology. your state of nature has never existed. It is not common, but it has existed. You are definitely wrong about that. In fact, an individual living alone in the wild would fulfill this criteria perfectly.
Person living alone in the wilderness is irrelevant when talking about society.
|
On February 24 2013 06:44 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:42 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:19 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:
[quote]
Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist. Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes. No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them. I was born into said country. It was not a choice. And consent cannot be implied by forcing a person to leave their nation of origin. It was a choice to remain in that country once you reached the age of adulthood. And for someone who seems to waive all responsibility because you were born in a nation, you seem oddly quick to take all the privileges of being born there. A choice to remain in the country when I reached adulthood? It is my home. I cannot come into your home and make demands of you because you refuse to leave. "Your choice to stay in your home means you are granting consent for me to rape you." What???? Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. Not government, society. And yes society you live in dictates the rules. That is fact of life, it is not ethical position, there is no escaping it. The government is the one taking the money. You can say government is synonymous with "society," whatever that means, but you cannot say it is not government.
The government is a construct of society built as a centralized system of leadership.
|
On February 24 2013 06:44 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:42 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:19 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:
[quote]
Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist. Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes. No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them. I was born into said country. It was not a choice. And consent cannot be implied by forcing a person to leave their nation of origin. It was a choice to remain in that country once you reached the age of adulthood. And for someone who seems to waive all responsibility because you were born in a nation, you seem oddly quick to take all the privileges of being born there. A choice to remain in the country when I reached adulthood? It is my home. I cannot come into your home and make demands of you because you refuse to leave. "Your choice to stay in your home means you are granting consent for me to rape you." What???? Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. Not government, society. And yes society you live in dictates the rules. That is fact of life, it is not ethical position, there is no escaping it. The government is the one taking the money. You can say government is synonymous with "society," whatever that means, but you cannot say it is not government.
It is not synonymous, it is tool of society. Society creates a lot of coercion that states have absolutely no say in.
|
On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this.
"We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway."
Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government.
|
On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government.
It's far more sad to discount all of reality to justify some anti-government grudge.
|
On February 24 2013 06:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. It's far more sad to discount all of reality to justify some anti-government grudge.
What anti-government grudge? I started this whole conversation off by calling much government action morally justified.
|
On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government.
lol you have no idea about my philosophy. i'm just explaining why yours is a) wrong and b) impotent. because you are already trapped in statist logic when you make recourse to the "state of nature."
|
On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government.
That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say.
|
On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government.
Pseudo intellectual trolling, combined with thread derailment. That's the stuff.
|
On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say.
I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government."
And I am not anarcho-capitalist.
|
On February 24 2013 06:38 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:31 W2 wrote:On February 24 2013 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:
Instead of beating the dead horse, perhaps talking about how it makes sense to charge 200 USD for a test that costs 10 USD (all costs included). What test are you talking about? You can't tunnel vision on purely the materialistic cost. Services aren't cheap, and these are professionals you are hiring. This isn't purely materialistic cost - this is after factoring in the professionals you are hiring - read the article, it is one of the centerpieces in it.
Okay I read the article. What the article references are Medicare's compensation, which I think you might have mistaken for the true "cost" of a service. Medicare compensation is notoriously low (way lower than what regular insurances pay) and many clinics/hospitals lose money by accepting medicare patients. If you had a Chest x-ray from a good institution, you'd know the service deserves way more than $20. The "cost" is decided by some bureaucrat and does not take into the quality of service most of the time (rather, it corresponds to bare minimum)
|
On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist.
So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you.
If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government.
|
On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government.
You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments.
|
On February 24 2013 07:02 W2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:38 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 06:31 W2 wrote:On February 24 2013 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:
Instead of beating the dead horse, perhaps talking about how it makes sense to charge 200 USD for a test that costs 10 USD (all costs included). What test are you talking about? You can't tunnel vision on purely the materialistic cost. Services aren't cheap, and these are professionals you are hiring. This isn't purely materialistic cost - this is after factoring in the professionals you are hiring - read the article, it is one of the centerpieces in it. Okay I read the article. What the article references are Medicare's compensation, which I think you might have mistaken for the true "cost" of a service. Medicare compensation is notoriously low (way lower than what regular insurances pay) and many clinics/hospitals lose money by accepting medicare patients. If you had a Chest x-ray from a good institution, you'd know the service deserves way more than $20. The "cost" is decided by some bureaucrat and does not take into the quality of service most of the time (rather, it corresponds to bare minimum)
Hospitals are not losing money by accepting medicare patients - go back and read the article again - that too is explained in there. Alongside with how medicare calculate the compensation.
|
On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments.
well, no. capital owns everything, and the government works for it
|
On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments.
No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no".
So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up.
|
On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up.
But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society?
|
On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society?
yes, obviously
|
On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously
But this is not indentured servitude?
|
On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist.
Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes.
Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave.
|
On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society?
No. You don't pay anything simply for being born, you pay for services that you use while you are living in your society.
In fact, most of those services you don't even have to pay for until you're legally an adult.
|
On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude?
no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt.
all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal.
|
On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave.
The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders.
On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:
[quote]
"We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway."
Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal.
But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing.
|
um...
the government doesn't own everything I need and use. mostly that's owned by private capital...
|
On February 24 2013 07:19 sam!zdat wrote:
um...
the government doesn't own everything I need and use. mostly that's owned by private capital...
Sam, I am debating several people at once. I am not arguing against you solely. Some people are relying on premises you do not.
|
I'm objecting to your response to mcc. I can do that.
|
On February 24 2013 07:21 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm objecting to your response to mcc. I can do that.
No, you are rejecting a premise that someone else proposed, not me.
|
|
|
On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:
[quote]
That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing.
So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for?
|
On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:
[quote]
I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government."
And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for?
I never said any of these things..... In fact I said taxation is justified theft.
Can you actually debate without leaping from one straw man to another?
|
On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:
[quote]
I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government."
And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for?
have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly
|
On February 24 2013 07:32 Lightswarm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you.
If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly
I think maybe subconsciously they know that we actually can't change those prices. Medical + Pharmacy companies keep the prices high. Meanwhile our representatives enjoy kickbacks in congress, so nothing will ever change. I really don't think you can change that amount of corruption. Eventually anyone who attempts to make a dent in that widespread corruption will be stopped.
|
On February 24 2013 07:32 Lightswarm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you.
If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly
People think they know the solution to a problem before they even understand the problem. That's part one of the issues with partisan ideologies.
|
On February 24 2013 07:32 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you.
If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? I never said any of these things..... In fact I said taxation is justified theft. Can you actually debate without leaping from one straw man to another?
How is asking you to pay for things that you use theft?
|
On February 24 2013 07:40 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:32 Lightswarm wrote:On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:
[quote]
You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly I think maybe subconsciously they know that we actually can't change those prices. Medical + Pharmacy companies keep the prices high. Meanwhile our representatives enjoy kickbacks in congress, so nothing will ever change. I really don't think you can change that amount of corruption. Eventually anyone who attempts to make a dent in that widespread corruption will be stopped.
Black markets tend to be the best cures for widespread corruption of this sort. They force competition to take place.
On February 24 2013 07:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:32 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:
[quote]
You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? I never said any of these things..... In fact I said taxation is justified theft. Can you actually debate without leaping from one straw man to another? How is asking you to pay for things that you use theft?
Because I never asked to use them. Lack of consent is the criteria which defines theft. If I buy you a cheeseburger I can't steal five dollars from your wallet.
|
On February 24 2013 07:45 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:40 NoobSkills wrote:On February 24 2013 07:32 Lightswarm wrote:On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no".
So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly I think maybe subconsciously they know that we actually can't change those prices. Medical + Pharmacy companies keep the prices high. Meanwhile our representatives enjoy kickbacks in congress, so nothing will ever change. I really don't think you can change that amount of corruption. Eventually anyone who attempts to make a dent in that widespread corruption will be stopped. Black markets tend to be the best cures for widespread corruption of this sort. They force competition to take place. Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:32 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no".
So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? I never said any of these things..... In fact I said taxation is justified theft. Can you actually debate without leaping from one straw man to another? How is asking you to pay for things that you use theft? Because I never asked to use them. Lack of consent is the criteria which defines theft. If I buy you a cheeseburger I can't steal a dollar from your wallet.
The very fact that you have the right to anything means you're using them...
|
On February 24 2013 07:45 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:40 NoobSkills wrote:On February 24 2013 07:32 Lightswarm wrote:On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes. Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no".
So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly I think maybe subconsciously they know that we actually can't change those prices. Medical + Pharmacy companies keep the prices high. Meanwhile our representatives enjoy kickbacks in congress, so nothing will ever change. I really don't think you can change that amount of corruption. Eventually anyone who attempts to make a dent in that widespread corruption will be stopped. Black markets tend to be the best cures for widespread corruption of this sort. They force competition to take place.
Which backroom doctor are you going to trust to put in your new heart? Also I don't think there is a black market big enough to support what the US needs. We would really need a warrior of a president, his staff, and leaders in congress to really combat this issue, but again they would probably waste 4 years battling something and wont turn in good results.
|
On February 24 2013 07:45 rusedeguerre wrote:
Because I never asked to use them. Lack of consent is the criteria which defines theft. If I buy you a cheeseburger I can't steal five dollars from your wallet.
You didn't ask, you just used them. You also didn't ask for permission to use the streets or utilities, did you? You can't just take a cheeseburger and not pay just because no one asked if you wanted it.
And, as I have mentioned several times over, which you have ignored just as many times, a large percentage of taxes aren't applicable until you are legally an adult. You had plenty of time to refuse to say no to taxes and move somewhere that wouldn't have them (or utilities or services).
|
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things.
|
No idea about that. If I have acute pain, I go to the ER and get it checked out.
I had surgery once in my life, the doctor wanted to wait for six week for it to clear up by itself, when it didn't, I got it done a couple of days afterwards.
|
On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things.
As you said, it depends on the urgency. But if you don't want to wait -for whatever reason- you can always use the private/expensive alternative, and get it done without the waiting. In fact this is not uncommon at all. Still, I'm glad I get to choose.
|
On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things.
I have never heard of someone waiting years for an MRI scan. The worst case I have heard was 6 months and doing the scan in the first place was a dubious assessment.
|
Well, it is kinda old storry, really.
The goverment doesn`t need to strongly regulate a lot of markets, you do not like new celphones or cars? No problem use your old, buy used or do not use it at all.
With food, water, healthcare, law enforcement and to an extend education it is not like this, and that is why strong goverment regulations are needed. And the goverment actions need to be strongly overseen by public, to ensure as little corruption as possible.
Goverment is not some sort of remote body. Goverment is representatives and employes of we the people, and it is perfectly fine for we the people to bargan for prices as collective. And if current medical companies do not like it, we have money that we can spent to create new healthcare companies. They, on the other hand, will not get different customers.
And, we must finally fix the patent system, and "intelectual property" rights. Allow paralel importation. Make sure patents are not overprotecting producers from competition. That are things goverment does, that in fact make things worse. Need a fix, big time.
|
On February 24 2013 07:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:45 rusedeguerre wrote:
Because I never asked to use them. Lack of consent is the criteria which defines theft. If I buy you a cheeseburger I can't steal five dollars from your wallet. You didn't ask, you just used them. You also didn't ask for permission to use the streets or utilities, did you? You can't just take a cheeseburger and not pay just because no one asked if you wanted it. And, as I have mentioned several times over, which you have ignored just as many times, a large percentage of taxes aren't applicable until you are legally an adult. You had plenty of time to refuse to say no to taxes and move somewhere that wouldn't have them (or utilities or services).
Sorry, this argument doesn't work for you. All I have to do is show that there are government services I am not using and yet still being taxed for.
Again, showing that some taxation is justified does not mean that all taxation is justified. It depends upon the purpose employed. This is why it is important to regard taxation as morally justified theft. People make the mistake of justifying one taxation purpose and then make the erroneous leap that ALL taxation and all actions of government are now permissible.
|
On February 24 2013 09:10 naastyOne wrote:
Well, it is kinda old storry, really.
The goverment doesn`t need to strongly regulate a lot of markets, you do not like new celphones or cars? No problem use your old, buy used or do not use it at all.
With food, water, healthcare, law enforcement and to an extend education it is not like this, and that is why strong goverment regulations are needed. And the goverment actions need to be strongly overseen by public, to ensure as little corruption as possible.
Goverment is not some sort of remote body. Goverment is representatives and employes of we the people, and it is perfectly fine for we the people to bargan for prices as collective. And if current medical companies do not like it, we have money that we can spent to create new healthcare companies. They, on the other hand, will not get different customers.
It is funny that you use the example of cell phones as something that isn't necessary or doesn't need to be regulated. Because the US government is providing cell phones to the poor.
The problem with this sort of argument is that there are no limiting criteria. Anything can be justified or included. Why choose only food, water, health care, education, and law enforcement? Why not choose fewer, or more? Transportation could also be regarded as some sort of crucial necessity that needs to be regulated. In fact, anything could be included in this category. We could argue that failure to brush your teeth will have social costs because of the cavities and tooth decay, and so toothpaste and brushes need to be subsidized and regulated. This sort of logic can be applied to everything.
You either have to accept that the government should regulate absolutely everything in life, or you have to come up with some specific limiting criteria which can define and distinguish what is justified and what is not.
|
On February 24 2013 09:00 xN.07)MaK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things. As you said, it depends on the urgency. But if you don't want to wait -for whatever reason- you can always use the private/expensive alternative, and get it done without the waiting. In fact this is not uncommon at all. Still, I'm glad I get to choose.
Indeed. That's what I find rather peculiar, yes for all intents and purposes, socialized medicine means, allocating resources accordingly, giving emergency priority - and rationalize to some extent. Resources are endless, as is the money for a lot of insured(!) people in the US. However, if one is willing and capable to pay you get first class treatment very quickly even in countries with "socialized health care". Advocates for the "current"/"free market" US system seem to forget about that little detail.
|
Despite the attempts of the UK government to fuck it over, it's threads like these that make me glad of our NHS.
|
On February 24 2013 09:32 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 09:00 xN.07)MaK wrote:On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things. As you said, it depends on the urgency. But if you don't want to wait -for whatever reason- you can always use the private/expensive alternative, and get it done without the waiting. In fact this is not uncommon at all. Still, I'm glad I get to choose. Indeed. That's what I find rather peculiar, yes for all intents and purposes, socialized medicine means, allocating resources accordingly, giving emergency priority - and rationalize to some extent. Resources are endless, as is the money for a lot of insured(!) people in the US. However, if one is willing and capable to pay you get first class treatment very quickly even in countries with "socialized health care". Advocates for the "current"/"free market" US system seem to forget about that little detail.
"current"/"free market"
Do you really think these are synonymous?
"If you are super rich, you can afford to pay for two health care systems at once" isn't a very compelling argument unfortunately.
|
On February 24 2013 09:38 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 09:32 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 09:00 xN.07)MaK wrote:On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things. As you said, it depends on the urgency. But if you don't want to wait -for whatever reason- you can always use the private/expensive alternative, and get it done without the waiting. In fact this is not uncommon at all. Still, I'm glad I get to choose. Indeed. That's what I find rather peculiar, yes for all intents and purposes, socialized medicine means, allocating resources accordingly, giving emergency priority - and rationalize to some extent. Resources are endless, as is the money for a lot of insured(!) people in the US. However, if one is willing and capable to pay you get first class treatment very quickly even in countries with "socialized health care". Advocates for the "current"/"free market" US system seem to forget about that little detail. "current"/"free market" Do you really think these are synonymous? "If you are super rich, you can afford to pay for two health care systems at once" isn't a very compelling argument unfortunately.
I did not equate the two, apparently my quotation marks have failed horribly.
|
On February 24 2013 09:38 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 09:32 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 09:00 xN.07)MaK wrote:On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things. As you said, it depends on the urgency. But if you don't want to wait -for whatever reason- you can always use the private/expensive alternative, and get it done without the waiting. In fact this is not uncommon at all. Still, I'm glad I get to choose. Indeed. That's what I find rather peculiar, yes for all intents and purposes, socialized medicine means, allocating resources accordingly, giving emergency priority - and rationalize to some extent. Resources are endless, as is the money for a lot of insured(!) people in the US. However, if one is willing and capable to pay you get first class treatment very quickly even in countries with "socialized health care". Advocates for the "current"/"free market" US system seem to forget about that little detail. "current"/"free market" Do you really think these are synonymous? "If you are super rich, you can afford to pay for two health care systems at once" isn't a very compelling argument unfortunately.
Apparently more than 33% of the population belong in the "super rich" group who can afford it without breaking a sweat. Furthermore the Danish social healthcare is on the same level as the healthcare for an insured american.
|
You either have to accept that the government should regulate absolutely everything in life, or you have to come up with some specific limiting criteria which can define and distinguish what is justified and what is not.
ehhm no, because in fact, the world is not black and white. And in fact i can give you some criteria on what government should regulate and what not.
As the poster you quoted said: food , water, healthcare, education. Why? because these things are essential for a working society. Food and water and healthcares for our body, education so people actually can get qualified work and be all nice and happy.
What government shouldn't regulate is basically everything that is not included above and what can be regulated by a free market itself.
Of course there are some grey zones, but thats actually what we should be talking about instead of discussing unpracticable fundamentalistic positions that don't make any sense at all.
And regarding the disadvantages of a public health - care sytem and waiting times:
well i can only speak for germany, but here it's really uncommon to wait several weaks for an important medical service. if you have something urgent you get it done as fast as it needs to be done, u probably have to wait just a few days.
And you can of course get complete or partial private insurance if you want everything done really fast and extra comfortable.
|
I didn't know it was that serious, but seeing the bill after I was discharged from my week and a half stay at the psych hospital gave me quite the shock.
|
On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:
[quote]
That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing.
right, that's why it's not equivalent to indentured servitude. among other reasons.
|
On February 24 2013 09:57 fugs wrote:
I didn't know it was that serious, but seeing the bill after I was discharged from my week and a half stay at the psych hospital gave me quite the shock.
heh, and psych is supposed to be one of the cheaper ones as far as I know
|
On February 24 2013 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +You either have to accept that the government should regulate absolutely everything in life, or you have to come up with some specific limiting criteria which can define and distinguish what is justified and what is not. ehhm no, because in fact, the world is not black and white. And in fact i can give you some criteria on what government should regulate and what not. As the poster you quoted said: food , water, healthcare, education. Why? because these things are essential for a working society. Food and water and healthcares for our body, education so people actually can get qualified work and be all nice and happy. What government shouldn't regulate is basically everything that is not included above and what can be regulated by a free market itself. Of course there are some grey zones, but thats actually what we should be talking about instead of discussing unpracticable fundamentalistic positions that don't make any sense at all.
Ummm, what I described is not a "fundamentalist position," it is simple common sense. If you have limiting criteria, then it is limited. If you don't, then there is no limit. You can call that black and white thinking, but it is practically a logical truism.
You say "these things are essential" and leave it at that as if it is an argument. Transportation is essential, why didn't you include that? Could I not argue that toothpaste is essential? What about fruits and vegetables? What about internet service?
They can all be defined as essential, and they can all be provided by either government or a market. Just like education, etc.
You really have no argument here whatsoever, only ad hominems.
|
On February 24 2013 10:06 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:You either have to accept that the government should regulate absolutely everything in life, or you have to come up with some specific limiting criteria which can define and distinguish what is justified and what is not. ehhm no, because in fact, the world is not black and white. And in fact i can give you some criteria on what government should regulate and what not. As the poster you quoted said: food , water, healthcare, education. Why? because these things are essential for a working society. Food and water and healthcares for our body, education so people actually can get qualified work and be all nice and happy. What government shouldn't regulate is basically everything that is not included above and what can be regulated by a free market itself. Of course there are some grey zones, but thats actually what we should be talking about instead of discussing unpracticable fundamentalistic positions that don't make any sense at all. Ummm, what I described is not a "fundamentalist position," it is simple common sense. If you have limiting criteria, then it is limited. If you don't, then there is no limit. You can call that black and white thinking, but it is practically a logical truism.
it's not a tautology. sometimes you just decide to limit things. then you have limits, but no "limiting criteria" in the sense of formally stated rules.
|
On February 24 2013 10:07 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 10:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:You either have to accept that the government should regulate absolutely everything in life, or you have to come up with some specific limiting criteria which can define and distinguish what is justified and what is not. ehhm no, because in fact, the world is not black and white. And in fact i can give you some criteria on what government should regulate and what not. As the poster you quoted said: food , water, healthcare, education. Why? because these things are essential for a working society. Food and water and healthcares for our body, education so people actually can get qualified work and be all nice and happy. What government shouldn't regulate is basically everything that is not included above and what can be regulated by a free market itself. Of course there are some grey zones, but thats actually what we should be talking about instead of discussing unpracticable fundamentalistic positions that don't make any sense at all. Ummm, what I described is not a "fundamentalist position," it is simple common sense. If you have limiting criteria, then it is limited. If you don't, then there is no limit. You can call that black and white thinking, but it is practically a logical truism. it's not a tautology. sometimes you just decide to limit things. then you have limits, but no "limiting criteria" in the sense of formally stated rules.
If the limit set is both arbitrary and malleable, then it should not be defined as a limit at all.
|
Ummm, what I described is not a "fundamentalist position," it is simple common sense. If you have limiting criteria, then it is limited. If you don't, then there is no limit. You can call that black and white thinking, but it is practically a logical truism.
You say "these things are essential" and leave it at that as if it is an argument. Transportation is essential, why didn't you include that? Could I not argue that toothpaste is essential? What about fruits and vegetables? What about internet service?
They can all be defined as essential, and they can all be provided by either government or a market. Just like education, etc.
You really have no argument here whatsoever, only ad hominems.
Well regarding your specific examples, transportation is of course necessary so people can actually get education and food so yes, that should be supported by the state, as it is already is in most countries. and atleast i regard fruit and vegetables as essential parts of a diet, so yes. Same goes for information infrastructure like the internet which is necessary for education and communication. if you buy toothpaste is probably up to yourself, you probably won't die if you don't use any.
Well of course i see what you're trying to get at , but your argument isn't really going anywhere. it's clearly not that hard to distinguish to between whats necessary and what is totally not necessary as i just said before, so i still don't see why my argument should be invalid.
And your "it's arbitrary so it's unvalid" argument isnt going to get you anywhere. Every line we draw is arbitrary. Even in science. If something is statistically proven , that only means the chance its an coincidence is very very low, in fact below a mark we consider low enough so that we are pleased with it.
Theres no absolute truth nowhere, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt do research or we shouldnt regulate something. We just do it , look if it works , and if it does not we change it again.
|
@Ruse
You may not value some things you are being taxed for, but what you're basically saying is that you're being stolen from because a small amount of what you are paying for is not being used how you want. In theory, I think it'd be okay if people decided what taxes they paid, but then they would not be able to use the services that they didn't pay for. Except that isn't at all enforceable. Clearly though, many services like public education, transportation (includes roads), etc. are all necessary in order to have a functioning society. Would you argue against those?
Also, since a health system helps keep the whole society afloat by keeping people alive, every one of your interactions with any individual taking part in the socialized healthcare system would be affecting you personally. You fail to see how beneficial a socialized healthcare system could be to you personally, even if you never have to use any medical services yourself. Since you depend on society (you buy things constantly, gas, water, everything basically), and since society is benefited from socialized healthcare, you too are benefited. I'd gladly pay $10,000 out of a $60,000 salary just to have a healthcare system in place (those are made up numbers). It'd benefit the society as a whole a huge amount.
Edited: slight changes for neatness and clarification.
|
I'm surprised that singapore isn't mentioned anywhere in this thread
It's private healthcare over there - the way it works is that every person is forced to put x amount of money (of various subsidised levels) aside, and people can choose how to use this money to spend on their healthcare (expensive or cheap)
It's capitalism at it's best. Theres HUGE competition for specialists and healthcare over there. If i don't like the price of one guy i can literally move 10 minutes down the road to find a cheaper guy
Costs seem very reasonable. One time i had an emergency with my breathing as i could barely move and breathing was hurting, so i admitted into a hospital (driven by my parents). The whole cost for that day ended up being about 200-300 dollars to be seen to by a doctor, given some time in the hospital and given a diagnosis + some treatment
Saw a sinus specialist there once, he advised me specifically on prices of stuff before we did it and suggested the most cheap route for what he thought was appropriate. Did an endoscopy, some tests, prescribed all the right treatment and medicine, all amounted to about 300-400 dollars
The healthcare there is fantastic. You can see a doctor on the day (from hundreds to choose from) for about 50 dollars cheap to 100 dollars (or more depending on who you choose)
----
I suspect prices are cheap because it's capitalism. Everyone has money saved away to spend on healthcare, and naturally people will choose what they can afford. Many spend that money on insurance, others choose not to and there is tons of competition between doctors and specialists (and hospitals) to get stuff checked out
|
it's clearly not that hard to distinguish to between whats necessary and what is totally not necessary
Clearly it is hard to distinguish.... that's why we have an endless debate about it in society. I don't know how you can say this when I just now made you double your own list of the things that are necessary.
|
Clearly it is hard to distinguish.... that's why we have an endless debate about it in society. I don't know how you can say this when I just now made you double your own list of the things that are necessary.
Just because you made me list examples, doesn't mean i doubled anything, please tell me what i added what was not in the list before.
To put it simply again. Everything that makes a society , in it's core, work , i consider necessary. That is in our modern society, food and education and health, plain and simple. And everything down in the chain that is required to get these three things. Making me list every single kind of bread or transport vehicle does not make it harder to distinguish.
And i don't know what society u are specifically talking about, but atleast here in germany, we are not really debating about wether we should throw our public healthcare system away, or if schools shouldn't be public or not. Basically everyone here is glad that these things exist.
edit: and about singapore,
With a population of 5 million people and an average GDP of 61k Dollar per capita, i think its atleast doubtful if the sytem can work as an example for a much bigger country. I assume there are not that many people. The relatively small number of citizens kind of prevents many of the problems we discussed in the thread, that may only appear in bigger countries with lower income and worse infrastructure. You can't really choose between many hospitals if only one or two are near enough in case of an emergency and if you don't have much money for travelling left to spend, which makes , for that reason, competition nearly non-existant for many larger and poorer countries.
|
On February 24 2013 10:19 BrTarolg wrote:
I'm surprised that singapore isn't mentioned anywhere in this thread
It's private healthcare over there - the way it works is that every person is forced to put x amount of money (of various subsidised levels) aside, and people can choose how to use this money to spend on their healthcare (expensive or cheap)
It's capitalism at it's best. Theres HUGE competition for specialists and healthcare over there. If i don't like the price of one guy i can literally move 10 minutes down the road to find a cheaper guy
Costs seem very reasonable. One time i had an emergency with my breathing as i could barely move and breathing was hurting, so i admitted into a hospital (driven by my parents). The whole cost for that day ended up being about 200-300 dollars to be seen to by a doctor, given some time in the hospital and given a diagnosis + some treatment
Saw a sinus specialist there once, he advised me specifically on prices of stuff before we did it and suggested the most cheap route for what he thought was appropriate. Did an endoscopy, some tests, prescribed all the right treatment and medicine, all amounted to about 300-400 dollars
The healthcare there is fantastic. You can see a doctor on the day (from hundreds to choose from) for about 50 dollars cheap to 100 dollars (or more depending on who you choose)
----
I suspect prices are cheap because it's capitalism. Everyone has money saved away to spend on healthcare, and naturally people will choose what they can afford. Many spend that money on insurance, others choose not to and there is tons of competition between doctors and specialists (and hospitals) to get stuff checked out
I really like this train of thought. Some potential issues I can think of however include emergency care, and ambulance costs where its neccessary for to seek help from the closeest possible provider. Also, what if costs exceed the money you were required to set aside? Does the government step in?
A lot of Americans would be averse to being required to set aside money, but in my opinion its better than having the money pass in and out of the government. In my mind there are 2 distinct solutions, either more capitalism (more competition, however im not sure how to introduce this) or complete government oversight, and price regulations. Of course this is the main dividing line for the country, so nothing will ever get done,
|
On February 24 2013 10:35 Dagan159 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 10:19 BrTarolg wrote:
I'm surprised that singapore isn't mentioned anywhere in this thread
It's private healthcare over there - the way it works is that every person is forced to put x amount of money (of various subsidised levels) aside, and people can choose how to use this money to spend on their healthcare (expensive or cheap)
It's capitalism at it's best. Theres HUGE competition for specialists and healthcare over there. If i don't like the price of one guy i can literally move 10 minutes down the road to find a cheaper guy
Costs seem very reasonable. One time i had an emergency with my breathing as i could barely move and breathing was hurting, so i admitted into a hospital (driven by my parents). The whole cost for that day ended up being about 200-300 dollars to be seen to by a doctor, given some time in the hospital and given a diagnosis + some treatment
Saw a sinus specialist there once, he advised me specifically on prices of stuff before we did it and suggested the most cheap route for what he thought was appropriate. Did an endoscopy, some tests, prescribed all the right treatment and medicine, all amounted to about 300-400 dollars
The healthcare there is fantastic. You can see a doctor on the day (from hundreds to choose from) for about 50 dollars cheap to 100 dollars (or more depending on who you choose)
----
I suspect prices are cheap because it's capitalism. Everyone has money saved away to spend on healthcare, and naturally people will choose what they can afford. Many spend that money on insurance, others choose not to and there is tons of competition between doctors and specialists (and hospitals) to get stuff checked out I really like this train of thought. Some potential issues I can think of however include emergency care, and ambulance costs where its neccessary for to seek help from the closeest possible provider. Also, what if costs exceed the money you were required to set aside? Does the government step in? A lot of Americans would be averse to being required to set aside money, but in my opinion its better than having the money pass in and out of the government. In my mind there are 2 distinct solutions, either more capitalism (more competition, however im not sure how to introduce this) or complete government oversight, and price regulations. Of course this is the main dividing line for the country, so nothing will ever get done,
AFAIK, ambulances are free for emergencies. They classify what is and isn't an emergency. Otherwise its a 180$ fee if it isn't an emergency
Also they will just take you to the nearest hospital in the case of an emergency (a real, life threatening one)
In my case, i was healthy enough to be driven by parents to a hospital of my choice (though not healthy enough to make it there on my own thats for sure haha)
edit:
let me clarify. An emergency ambulance will take you to a government hospital. You can of course, call a private hospital for a private ambulance if you so wish.
|
Can you just stop talking to Ruse?
That is a guy with 4 posts prior to this thread, and a pretty trolly name completely derailing a thread with anarcho-capitalist nonsense, changing definitions of words, the whole stuff we have seen in just about any political thread here. Do you really not notice that he is just trolling you? He will never accept what you say, and when driven into a corner he will just ignore what you said, act smug, and tell you that you are sheep. And it is apparently pretty effective trolling because even if they do it for them 100ths time on another new alt, people will still bite it because it is just so delicious to try to make someone acting in that way understand just how much bullshit they are sprouting. But they are just trolling you. So ignore them, report, and continue with the discussion this thread is actually about instead of the 100th debate of why taxation is not theft, why we are not slaves owned by human farmers, etc.... Just ignore it.
User was warned for this post
|
What is flawed is the way the citizens are cornered into thinking they are zombies who can't do nothing for themselves whenever they feel ill, but rush to the nearest hospital to get robbed by the big pharmaceutical companies. The dependency on hospitals and doctors and mostly,drugs, that's the real issue. I've read more terrifiant articles wich pointed out how alot of drugs are made to prolongue a disease while easening the pain and others to play a role in future development of new random diseases to be treated and man I'm sure it's all real.
Why ? mostly because whenever a citizen feels ill, his highest concern is to put or find out the name of whatever he "has". Strange but that's why the modern medicine never fails to deliver because doctors ,CT's and what not can put a name on whatever it is, be it wrong or right and that somehow is more than enough for the patient. Once he finds out ,he's ready to take whatever drug is needed against that particular named disease.This wouldn't be a problem if the guys who are in charge with the development of drugs were actually well intended good people but they are far from that.
There used to be times when you became ill because there was a reason to it and if the disease was deadly you would simply die unless you had a will strong enough to overcome it and learn from that what is to be learned. Nowadays is nothing like that, nowadays the hospitals are nothing different than fast food stands.
|
On February 24 2013 10:48 Simberto wrote:
Can you just stop talking to Ruse?
That is a guy with 4 posts prior to this thread, and a pretty trolly name completely derailing a thread with anarcho-capitalist nonsense, changing definitions of words, the whole stuff we have seen in just about any political thread here. Do you really not notice that he is just trolling you? He will never accept what you say, and when driven into a corner he will just ignore what you said, act smug, and tell you that you are sheep. And it is apparently pretty effective trolling because even if they do it for them 100ths time on another new alt, people will still bite it because it is just so delicious to try to make someone acting in that way understand just how much bullshit they are sprouting. But they are just trolling you. So ignore them, report, and continue with the discussion this thread is actually about instead of the 100th debate of why taxation is not theft, why we are not slaves owned by human farmers, etc.... Just ignore it.
I am not an anarcho-capitalist, and I am not a troll, and I have every right to discuss ideas in this thread as anyone else.
You aren't a moderator, so don't backseat moderate by telling people to ignore/report me.
|
On February 24 2013 10:43 BrTarolg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 10:35 Dagan159 wrote:On February 24 2013 10:19 BrTarolg wrote:
I'm surprised that singapore isn't mentioned anywhere in this thread
It's private healthcare over there - the way it works is that every person is forced to put x amount of money (of various subsidised levels) aside, and people can choose how to use this money to spend on their healthcare (expensive or cheap)
It's capitalism at it's best. Theres HUGE competition for specialists and healthcare over there. If i don't like the price of one guy i can literally move 10 minutes down the road to find a cheaper guy
Costs seem very reasonable. One time i had an emergency with my breathing as i could barely move and breathing was hurting, so i admitted into a hospital (driven by my parents). The whole cost for that day ended up being about 200-300 dollars to be seen to by a doctor, given some time in the hospital and given a diagnosis + some treatment
Saw a sinus specialist there once, he advised me specifically on prices of stuff before we did it and suggested the most cheap route for what he thought was appropriate. Did an endoscopy, some tests, prescribed all the right treatment and medicine, all amounted to about 300-400 dollars
The healthcare there is fantastic. You can see a doctor on the day (from hundreds to choose from) for about 50 dollars cheap to 100 dollars (or more depending on who you choose)
----
I suspect prices are cheap because it's capitalism. Everyone has money saved away to spend on healthcare, and naturally people will choose what they can afford. Many spend that money on insurance, others choose not to and there is tons of competition between doctors and specialists (and hospitals) to get stuff checked out I really like this train of thought. Some potential issues I can think of however include emergency care, and ambulance costs where its neccessary for to seek help from the closeest possible provider. Also, what if costs exceed the money you were required to set aside? Does the government step in? A lot of Americans would be averse to being required to set aside money, but in my opinion its better than having the money pass in and out of the government. In my mind there are 2 distinct solutions, either more capitalism (more competition, however im not sure how to introduce this) or complete government oversight, and price regulations. Of course this is the main dividing line for the country, so nothing will ever get done, AFAIK, ambulances are free for emergencies. They classify what is and isn't an emergency. Otherwise its a 180$ fee if it isn't an emergency Also they will just take you to the nearest hospital in the case of an emergency (a real, life threatening one) In my case, i was healthy enough to be driven by parents to a hospital of my choice (though not healthy enough to make it there on my own thats for sure haha) edit: let me clarify. An emergency ambulance will take you to a government hospital. You can of course, call a private hospital for a private ambulance if you so wish.
Interesting, so they have government hospitals that compete with the private sector? You can bet Americans would NEVER go for government run hospitals at the moment =P
This is proabably one of the very few instances in which the government could compete with the private market and win, it shoudnt be hard to beat 2000% markups.
Am I correct in understanding that they make you set aside money for healthcare, and most people use that money to buy insurance? How is this enforced?
|
On February 24 2013 10:53 terranu1 wrote:
What is flawed is the way the citizens are cornered into thinking they are zombies who can't do nothing for themselves whenever they feel ill, but rush to the nearest hospital to get robbed by the big pharmaceutical companies. The dependency on hospitals and doctors and mostly,drugs, that's the real issue. I've read more terrifiant articles wich pointed out how alot of drugs are made to prolongue a disease while easening the pain and others to play a role in future development of new random diseases to be treated and man I'm sure it's all real.
Why ? mostly because whenever a citizen feels ill, his highest concern is to put or find out the name of whatever he "has". Strange but that's why the modern medicine never fails to deliver because doctors ,CT's and what not can put a name on whatever it is, be it wrong or right and that somehow is more than enough for the patient. Once he finds out ,he's ready to take whatever drug is needed against that particular named disease.This wouldn't be a problem if the guys who are in charge with the development of drugs were actually well intended good people but they are far from that.
There used to be times when you became ill because there was a reason to it and if the disease was deadly you would simply die unless you had a will strong enough to overcome it and learn from that what is to be learned. Nowadays is nothing like that, nowadays the hospitals are nothing different than fast food stands.
Stop wasting oxygen please.
|
On February 24 2013 10:53 terranu1 wrote:
What is flawed is the way the citizens are cornered into thinking they are zombies who can't do nothing for themselves whenever they feel ill, but rush to the nearest hospital to get robbed by the big pharmaceutical companies. The dependency on hospitals and doctors and mostly,drugs, that's the real issue. I've read more terrifiant articles wich pointed out how alot of drugs are made to prolongue a disease while easening the pain and others to play a role in future development of new random diseases to be treated and man I'm sure it's all real.
Why ? mostly because whenever a citizen feels ill, his highest concern is to put or find out the name of whatever he "has". Strange but that's why the modern medicine never fails to deliver because doctors ,CT's and what not can put a name on whatever it is, be it wrong or right and that somehow is more than enough for the patient. Once he finds out ,he's ready to take whatever drug is needed against that particular named disease.This wouldn't be a problem if the guys who are in charge with the development of drugs were actually well intended good people but they are far from that.
There used to be times when you became ill because there was a reason to it and if the disease was deadly you would simply die unless you had a will strong enough to overcome it and learn from that what is to be learned. Nowadays is nothing like that, nowadays the hospitals are nothing different than fast food stands.
What the...
|
On February 24 2013 10:53 terranu1 wrote:
What is flawed is the way the citizens are cornered into thinking they are zombies who can't do nothing for themselves whenever they feel ill, but rush to the nearest hospital to get robbed by the big pharmaceutical companies. The dependency on hospitals and doctors and mostly,drugs, that's the real issue. I've read more terrifiant articles wich pointed out how alot of drugs are made to prolongue a disease while easening the pain and others to play a role in future development of new random diseases to be treated and man I'm sure it's all real.
Why ? mostly because whenever a citizen feels ill, his highest concern is to put or find out the name of whatever he "has". Strange but that's why the modern medicine never fails to deliver because doctors ,CT's and what not can put a name on whatever it is, be it wrong or right and that somehow is more than enough for the patient. Once he finds out ,he's ready to take whatever drug is needed against that particular named disease.This wouldn't be a problem if the guys who are in charge with the development of drugs were actually well intended good people but they are far from that.
There used to be times when you became ill because there was a reason to it and if the disease was deadly you would simply die unless you had a will strong enough to overcome it and learn from that what is to be learned. Nowadays is nothing like that, nowadays the hospitals are nothing different than fast food stands.
Sure the pharm companies might conceive a pill like that. But they have very good reasons not to. First PR, if you lose credibility as a pharm company that will cost you millions of dollars. Secondly doctors arent going to prescribe it. If you think that doctors perscribe medicine to purposefully keep a person in a sickly state then your off your rocker. Most doctors truely care about their patients, and have made enourmous sacrifices to understand exactly what drugs do to the body. Dont demonize everyone in the industry because of the failings of a few.
|
CA10828 Posts
On February 24 2013 10:53 terranu1 wrote:
What is flawed is the way the citizens are cornered into thinking they are zombies who can't do nothing for themselves whenever they feel ill, but rush to the nearest hospital to get robbed by the big pharmaceutical companies. The dependency on hospitals and doctors and mostly,drugs, that's the real issue. I've read more terrifiant articles wich pointed out how alot of drugs are made to prolongue a disease while easening the pain and others to play a role in future development of new random diseases to be treated and man I'm sure it's all real.
Why ? mostly because whenever a citizen feels ill, his highest concern is to put or find out the name of whatever he "has". Strange but that's why the modern medicine never fails to deliver because doctors ,CT's and what not can put a name on whatever it is, be it wrong or right and that somehow is more than enough for the patient. Once he finds out ,he's ready to take whatever drug is needed against that particular named disease.This wouldn't be a problem if the guys who are in charge with the development of drugs were actually well intended good people but they are far from that.
There used to be times when you became ill because there was a reason to it and if the disease was deadly you would simply die unless you had a will strong enough to overcome it and learn from that what is to be learned. Nowadays is nothing like that, nowadays the hospitals are nothing different than fast food stands.
this is so dumb i don't even know where to begin. i'm guessing you have zero medical education? do you even know how many steps there are in getting a new drug on the market and how expensive that process is?
|
On February 24 2013 11:05 Dagan159 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 10:53 terranu1 wrote:
What is flawed is the way the citizens are cornered into thinking they are zombies who can't do nothing for themselves whenever they feel ill, but rush to the nearest hospital to get robbed by the big pharmaceutical companies. The dependency on hospitals and doctors and mostly,drugs, that's the real issue. I've read more terrifiant articles wich pointed out how alot of drugs are made to prolongue a disease while easening the pain and others to play a role in future development of new random diseases to be treated and man I'm sure it's all real.
Why ? mostly because whenever a citizen feels ill, his highest concern is to put or find out the name of whatever he "has". Strange but that's why the modern medicine never fails to deliver because doctors ,CT's and what not can put a name on whatever it is, be it wrong or right and that somehow is more than enough for the patient. Once he finds out ,he's ready to take whatever drug is needed against that particular named disease.This wouldn't be a problem if the guys who are in charge with the development of drugs were actually well intended good people but they are far from that.
There used to be times when you became ill because there was a reason to it and if the disease was deadly you would simply die unless you had a will strong enough to overcome it and learn from that what is to be learned. Nowadays is nothing like that, nowadays the hospitals are nothing different than fast food stands. Sure the pharm companies might conceive a pill like that. But they have very good reasons not to. First PR, if you lose credibility as a pharm company that will cost you millions of dollars. Secondly doctors arent going to prescribe it. If you think that doctors perscribe medicine to purposefully keep a person in a sickly state then your off your rocker. Most doctors truely care about their patients, and have made enourmous sacrifices to understand exactly what drugs do to the body. Dont demonize everyone in the industry because of the failings of a few.
Yes there's a huge battle between good and bad people here and yes, most of the drugs are made to aid not to harm but do you really think that at the end of the day the good doctors win over the billions of dollars profit that could be made off a drug not properly tested and not developed to it's best ? Talk about the corruption in the healthcare system but no corruption in the drug production system ? I was mostly responding to the first post using my common sense so there's no need for anyone else to quote me wether they think i'm talking trash or not.Really.
|
On February 24 2013 10:53 terranu1 wrote:
There used to be times when you became ill because there was a reason to it and if the disease was deadly you would simply die unless you had a will strong enough to overcome it and learn from that what is to be learned. Nowadays is nothing like that, nowadays the hospitals are nothing different than fast food stands.
I was not aware that willpower had the ability to beat any disease. You sound like that politician that said women have the ability to not become pregnant from rape (something to that effect).
|
On February 24 2013 11:13 terranu1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 11:05 Dagan159 wrote:On February 24 2013 10:53 terranu1 wrote:
What is flawed is the way the citizens are cornered into thinking they are zombies who can't do nothing for themselves whenever they feel ill, but rush to the nearest hospital to get robbed by the big pharmaceutical companies. The dependency on hospitals and doctors and mostly,drugs, that's the real issue. I've read more terrifiant articles wich pointed out how alot of drugs are made to prolongue a disease while easening the pain and others to play a role in future development of new random diseases to be treated and man I'm sure it's all real.
Why ? mostly because whenever a citizen feels ill, his highest concern is to put or find out the name of whatever he "has". Strange but that's why the modern medicine never fails to deliver because doctors ,CT's and what not can put a name on whatever it is, be it wrong or right and that somehow is more than enough for the patient. Once he finds out ,he's ready to take whatever drug is needed against that particular named disease.This wouldn't be a problem if the guys who are in charge with the development of drugs were actually well intended good people but they are far from that.
There used to be times when you became ill because there was a reason to it and if the disease was deadly you would simply die unless you had a will strong enough to overcome it and learn from that what is to be learned. Nowadays is nothing like that, nowadays the hospitals are nothing different than fast food stands. Sure the pharm companies might conceive a pill like that. But they have very good reasons not to. First PR, if you lose credibility as a pharm company that will cost you millions of dollars. Secondly doctors arent going to prescribe it. If you think that doctors perscribe medicine to purposefully keep a person in a sickly state then your off your rocker. Most doctors truely care about their patients, and have made enourmous sacrifices to understand exactly what drugs do to the body. Dont demonize everyone in the industry because of the failings of a few. Yes there's a huge battle between good and bad people here and yes, most of the drugs are made to aid not to harm but do you really think that at the end of the day the good doctors win over the billions of dollars profit that could be made off a drug not properly tested and not developed to it's best ? Talk about the corruption in the healthcare system but no corruption in the drug production system ? I was mostly responding to the first post using my common sense so there's no need for anyone else to quote me wether they think i'm talking trash or not.Really.
You are not using common sense. You are using idiocy. You are essentially alluding that the pharmaceutical companies have bought the FDA and every single doctor out there. Even the most ridiculous conspiracy-nut I have ever met would probably agree that it is impossible to buy off millions of people.
|
Not every doctor out there because not every doctor out there has the power to confront those companies.
Besides that, my point is that a disease can be cured without the aid off doctors and with really cheap and effective ways ,the so called and widely hated "alternative" medicine wich I have rarely seen in hospitals .I did spent over 2 years as a patient for different severe problems wether you believe it or not and many doctors told me that unless I have the will to fight the disease, drugs won't help much. Most of the good doctors tell you that if they care about you.
Do you want to be cured ? They ask me. If yes, then start acting like it, don't count on the pills to do the job everytime.
|
On February 24 2013 11:27 terranu1 wrote:
Not every doctor out there because not every doctor out there has the power to confront those companies.
Besides that, my point is that a disease can be cured without the aid off doctors and with really cheap and effective ways ,the so called and widely hated "alternative" medicine wich I have rarely seen in hospitals .I did spent over 2 years as a patient for different severe problems wether you believe it or not and many doctors told me that unless I have the will to fight the disease, drugs won't help much. Most of the good doctors tell you that if they care about you.
Do you want to be cured ? They ask me. If yes, then start acting like it, don't count on the pills to do the job everytime.
You really do have zero clue about the medical community and how it works? Whilst there are still things pharmaceutical companies could and should do better it is not a question of power for someone to change it. If you have a good cause it is incredibly easy to get the rest of the medical community behind you - none of us became doctors because we wanted to hurt our patients. Furthermore, do you really believe that any doctor would continue to prescribe medicine if he saw only detrimental effects and no positive outcomes? You are right now accusing a lot of people of being straight up murderers!
EDIT: And no, I do not hate alternative medicine - I just do not believe in it. Most of it shows zero effect when tested in a double-blind placebocontrolled study or in head-to-head tests. Some of it even shows detrimental effects.
|
CA10828 Posts
On February 24 2013 11:27 terranu1 wrote:
Not every doctor out there because not every doctor out there has the power to confront those companies.
Besides that, my point is that a disease can be cured without the aid off doctors and with really cheap and effective ways ,the so called and widely hated "alternative" medicine wich I have rarely seen in hospitals .I did spent over 2 years as a patient for different severe problems wether you believe it or not and many doctors told me that unless I have the will to fight the disease, drugs won't help much. Most of the good doctors tell you that if they care about you.
Do you want to be cured ? They ask me. If yes, then start acting like it, don't count on the pills to do the job everytime.
ah yes, "alternative medicine". believe me, i see it's potential as well in certain cases. but the problem with the vast majority of alternative medicine is that it is NOT evidence-based medicine. meaning, there is no quality research about it. sure you might have your occasional case series, but nothing substantial like an RCT to prove that the benefits are actually due to the medicine. so you're saying that you want physicians to revert back to their practices pre-20th century and practice medicine based on anecdotal stories of things working rather than based on actual statistical outcomes... nice.
|
On February 24 2013 11:27 terranu1 wrote:
Not every doctor out there because not every doctor out there has the power to confront those companies.
Besides that, my point is that a disease can be cured without the aid off doctors and with really cheap and effective ways ,the so called and widely hated "alternative" medicine wich I have rarely seen in hospitals .I did spent over 2 years as a patient for different severe problems wether you believe it or not and many doctors told me that unless I have the will to fight the disease, drugs won't help much. Most of the good doctors tell you that if they care about you.
Do you want to be cured ? They ask me. If yes, then start acting like it, don't count on the pills to do the job everytime.
I understand that there may be a basis for alternative medicine which has spanned over centuries in its use. The truth is that alternative medicine is largely unregulated and unproven. There is little if any well recognized critically evaluated evidence base for its use and efficacy.
Doctors, however, prescribe drugs on evidence based medicine. Large independent research groups derive guidelines and protocols based on proven drug efficacy. We don't give you Simvastatin because we get kickbacks from it. We give it because we know it lowers your risk of cardiovascular disease.
FYI, its not a difference of opinion. You are just misinformed.
|
Geat well ,I'll go on with my 0 faith in proven medicine with no worries. I had hearth surgery at the age of 3 and I forgot the number of times doctors told me to stay away from any kind of physical effort or prescribed me ridiculously expensive medicine just to prevent strokes. I never took most of those drugs because they were expensive and I never had any strokes despite my years of playing soccer and do all those things they strongly advised me not to, because I'd be dead soon.
You guys just go on and ignore my posts alltogheter now ,I might be a rare happy scenario and that's all.
|
Unfortunately, Medicare and insurance companies underpay so much that the hospitals are losing a pretty penny treating people. Thus, hospitals are forced to markup the prices for the uninsured just so that they can keep their doors open.
For instance, did you know that without uninsured people and their markups, we would have no dialysis centers?
Did you know that many practices are forced to pass limits on how many patients with Medicare they can accept just so that they can stay in business?
Source: My father, who is an important doctor in his hospital and directly handles bills related to the parts pertaining to his job.
|
On February 24 2013 11:58 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Unfortunately, Medicare and insurance companies underpay so much that the hospitals are losing a pretty penny treating people. Thus, hospitals are forced to markup the prices for the uninsured just so that they can keep their doors open.
For instance, did you know that without uninsured people and their markups, we would have no dialysis centers?
Did you know that many practices are forced to pass limits on how many patients with Medicare they can accept just so that they can stay in business?
Source: My father, who is an important doctor in his hospital and directly handles bills related to the parts pertaining to his job.
This is BS if you read the article and watch the interview.
|
On February 24 2013 11:58 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Unfortunately, Medicare and insurance companies underpay so much that the hospitals are losing a pretty penny treating people. Thus, hospitals are forced to markup the prices for the uninsured just so that they can keep their doors open.
For instance, did you know that without uninsured people and their markups, we would have no dialysis centers?
Did you know that many practices are forced to pass limits on how many patients with Medicare they can accept just so that they can stay in business?
Source: My father, who is an important doctor in his hospital and directly handles bills related to the parts pertaining to his job.
My parents are part of a business that benefits heavily from government regulations (FAA) as well as government DOD contracts. Their stated biggest fear are increased taxes and overregulation, even though cuts in spending and regulations would likely kill their business, or at the very least cut it in half.
Moral of the story, people in the middle of these industries don't always know what's going on, especially when looking at the big picture.
|
On February 24 2013 11:54 terranu1 wrote:
Geat well ,I'll go on with my 0 faith in proven medicine with no worries. I had hearth surgery at the age of 3 and I forgot the number of times doctors told me to stay away from any kind of physical effort or prescribed me ridiculously expensive medicine just to prevent strokes. I never took most of those drugs because they were expensive and I never had any strokes despite my years of playing soccer and do all those things they strongly advised me not to, because I'd be dead soon.
You guys just go on and ignore my posts alltogheter now ,I might be a rare happy scenario and that's all.
The moment my father started to experiment with reducing the amount of the drugs he was told to take, those drugs relating to his heart problems and a past heart attack, he got a stroke. It was literally within the first month he started with his experiments.
|
On February 24 2013 11:58 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Unfortunately, Medicare and insurance companies underpay so much that the hospitals are losing a pretty penny treating people. Thus, hospitals are forced to markup the prices for the uninsured just so that they can keep their doors open.
For instance, did you know that without uninsured people and their markups, we would have no dialysis centers?
Did you know that many practices are forced to pass limits on how many patients with Medicare they can accept just so that they can stay in business?
Source: My father, who is an important doctor in his hospital and directly handles bills related to the parts pertaining to his job.
Did you read the article? The part starting from page 7 directly disproves your (dads) statement:
"The ManorCare convalescent center, which Alan A. says gave him “good care” in an “O.K. but not luxurious room,” got paid $11,982 by Medicare for his three-week stay. That is about $571 a day for all the physical therapy, tests and other services. As with all hospitals in nonemergency situations, ManorCare does not have to accept Medicare patients and their discounted rates. But it does accept them. In fact, it welcomes them and encourages doctors to refer them."
|
On February 24 2013 11:58 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Unfortunately, Medicare and insurance companies underpay so much that the hospitals are losing a pretty penny treating people. Thus, hospitals are forced to markup the prices for the uninsured just so that they can keep their doors open.
For instance, did you know that without uninsured people and their markups, we would have no dialysis centers?
Did you know that many practices are forced to pass limits on how many patients with Medicare they can accept just so that they can stay in business?
Source: My father, who is an important doctor in his hospital and directly handles bills related to the parts pertaining to his job.
Exactly so. The government sets by fiat how much Medicare will pay for this and that. It's a huge market distortion that does not let prices gradually readjust to reflect the costs and scarcities involved. The government's got a heavy hand in the medical care industry, and it recently got bigger under the PPACA. Such reforms like getting your health benefits in a HSA to find the best bang for your buck would go a long way in fixing this mess. As it stands, costs will continue to rise as the government mandates what insurers must provide for and the prices that hospitals must accept.
|
On February 24 2013 12:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 11:58 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Unfortunately, Medicare and insurance companies underpay so much that the hospitals are losing a pretty penny treating people. Thus, hospitals are forced to markup the prices for the uninsured just so that they can keep their doors open.
For instance, did you know that without uninsured people and their markups, we would have no dialysis centers?
Did you know that many practices are forced to pass limits on how many patients with Medicare they can accept just so that they can stay in business?
Source: My father, who is an important doctor in his hospital and directly handles bills related to the parts pertaining to his job. Exactly so. The government sets by fiat how much Medicare will pay for this and that. It's a huge market distortion that does not let prices gradually readjust to reflect the costs and scarcities involved. The government's got a heavy hand in the medical care industry, and it recently got bigger under the PPACA. Such reforms like getting your health benefits in a HSA to find the best bang for your buck would go a long way in fixing this mess. As it stands, costs will continue to rise as the government mandates what insurers must provide for and the prices that hospitals must accept.
Actually the government did a bang up job actually accounting for cost when they set the medicare thesholds. The government does not decide what prices the hospital must accept from insurers, only government programs, at least from my understanding. Hospitals still make a decent profit margin on medicare patients, its just the enourmous gains made on insurance or (God help you) uninsured patients.
|
On February 24 2013 13:30 Dagan159 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 12:22 Danglars wrote:On February 24 2013 11:58 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Unfortunately, Medicare and insurance companies underpay so much that the hospitals are losing a pretty penny treating people. Thus, hospitals are forced to markup the prices for the uninsured just so that they can keep their doors open.
For instance, did you know that without uninsured people and their markups, we would have no dialysis centers?
Did you know that many practices are forced to pass limits on how many patients with Medicare they can accept just so that they can stay in business?
Source: My father, who is an important doctor in his hospital and directly handles bills related to the parts pertaining to his job. Exactly so. The government sets by fiat how much Medicare will pay for this and that. It's a huge market distortion that does not let prices gradually readjust to reflect the costs and scarcities involved. The government's got a heavy hand in the medical care industry, and it recently got bigger under the PPACA. Such reforms like getting your health benefits in a HSA to find the best bang for your buck would go a long way in fixing this mess. As it stands, costs will continue to rise as the government mandates what insurers must provide for and the prices that hospitals must accept. Actually the government did a bang up job actually accounting for cost when they set the medicare thesholds. The government does not decide what prices the hospital must accept from insurers, only government programs, at least from my understanding. Hospitals still make a decent profit margin on medicare patients, its just the enourmous gains made on insurance or (God help you) uninsured patients.
This is the post that deserves the "Exactly so".
|
All I know if with the recent obamacare my place of work is looking at 20% of our franchisee's having to close their door's and pack up shop.
Personally I always felt that government drives up cost, and medicare was designed poorly in the first place.
|
Of course Doctors and Hospitals willing accept Medicare as they know they will be paid rather than say someone with no insurance or even patients with private insurance.
|
On February 24 2013 14:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Of course Doctors and Hospitals willing accept Medicare as they know they will be paid rather than say someone with no insurance or even patients with private insurance.
A lot of upper management in healthcare cite that medicare patients cost the hospital money and therefor drive up cost to compensate for everyone else. It seems this is a lie, they do indeed make a healthy profit margin of medicare patients. This was one of the primary arguments agiasnt obamacare.
|
On February 24 2013 11:58 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Unfortunately, Medicare and insurance companies underpay so much that the hospitals are losing a pretty penny treating people. Thus, hospitals are forced to markup the prices for the uninsured just so that they can keep their doors open.
For instance, did you know that without uninsured people and their markups, we would have no dialysis centers?
Did you know that many practices are forced to pass limits on how many patients with Medicare they can accept just so that they can stay in business?
Source: My father, who is an important doctor in his hospital and directly handles bills related to the parts pertaining to his job.
Your father is biased. Of course he thinks his services are worth more than they actually are, and is willing to rationalize overcharging the uninsured for providing the same service to the insured.
The brutal truth is that cost of healthcare in the states can be attributed to administrative fees, marked-up drugs and straight-up price gouging. The US has the least efficient healthcare system in the world.
|
Just out of interest, is there anything stopping anyone from opening a hospital in the US as long as it meets government standards and undercutting current prices or are there just much easier ways to make dollars?
I mean everyone is saying there's a monopoly and stuff, but is that just because nobody else wants to try and make dollars from a hospital budget airline style?
Anyways, my take is that it's a common attidude found all over business. If you can make a dollar that's great, if you can make 10 dollars, thats 10 times as great. Why should healthcare be regarded with different rules and standards to invetment banking, it's all about bringing in profits isn't it?
|
On February 24 2013 15:33 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Just out of interest, is there anything stopping anyone from opening a hospital in the US as long as it meets government standards and undercutting current prices or are there just much easier ways to make dollars?
I mean everyone is saying there's a monopoly and stuff, but is that just because nobody else wants to try and make dollars from a hospital budget airline style?
Anyways, my take is that it's a common attidude found all over business. If you can make a dollar that's great, if you can make 10 dollars, thats 10 times as great. Why should healthcare be regarded with different rules and standards to invetment banking, it's all about bringing in profits isn't it?
You would never get any profit out of it since almost all of your hospital patients are people who want the service as soon as possible. If a hospital were to undercut every other hospital's prices, they would possibly get a few more people, but most of the people who went there would still be emergency patients and whatnot. Someone could transfer after the initial emergency I suppose, but I don't think such a thing will ever be viable. It's a silly market.
Also, when you're talking about the health of everyone around you, the last thing you want is the #1 priority to be a profit. Health, unlike other businesses/services, is sort of a necessity to live. When I go to a hospital responsible for my life, survival, health, etc. I don't want them "in it for the money". Money is an incentive for better performance, but it's far easier to just cut corners (or very often, it is literally the opposite where they give you procedures/medicines/cures that do far more than necessary). In order to have a progressive society, health needs to be easily accessible for everyone. Society runs on everyone, after all.
|
On February 24 2013 10:59 Dagan159 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 10:43 BrTarolg wrote:On February 24 2013 10:35 Dagan159 wrote:On February 24 2013 10:19 BrTarolg wrote:
I'm surprised that singapore isn't mentioned anywhere in this thread
It's private healthcare over there - the way it works is that every person is forced to put x amount of money (of various subsidised levels) aside, and people can choose how to use this money to spend on their healthcare (expensive or cheap)
It's capitalism at it's best. Theres HUGE competition for specialists and healthcare over there. If i don't like the price of one guy i can literally move 10 minutes down the road to find a cheaper guy
Costs seem very reasonable. One time i had an emergency with my breathing as i could barely move and breathing was hurting, so i admitted into a hospital (driven by my parents). The whole cost for that day ended up being about 200-300 dollars to be seen to by a doctor, given some time in the hospital and given a diagnosis + some treatment
Saw a sinus specialist there once, he advised me specifically on prices of stuff before we did it and suggested the most cheap route for what he thought was appropriate. Did an endoscopy, some tests, prescribed all the right treatment and medicine, all amounted to about 300-400 dollars
The healthcare there is fantastic. You can see a doctor on the day (from hundreds to choose from) for about 50 dollars cheap to 100 dollars (or more depending on who you choose)
----
I suspect prices are cheap because it's capitalism. Everyone has money saved away to spend on healthcare, and naturally people will choose what they can afford. Many spend that money on insurance, others choose not to and there is tons of competition between doctors and specialists (and hospitals) to get stuff checked out I really like this train of thought. Some potential issues I can think of however include emergency care, and ambulance costs where its neccessary for to seek help from the closeest possible provider. Also, what if costs exceed the money you were required to set aside? Does the government step in? A lot of Americans would be averse to being required to set aside money, but in my opinion its better than having the money pass in and out of the government. In my mind there are 2 distinct solutions, either more capitalism (more competition, however im not sure how to introduce this) or complete government oversight, and price regulations. Of course this is the main dividing line for the country, so nothing will ever get done, AFAIK, ambulances are free for emergencies. They classify what is and isn't an emergency. Otherwise its a 180$ fee if it isn't an emergency Also they will just take you to the nearest hospital in the case of an emergency (a real, life threatening one) In my case, i was healthy enough to be driven by parents to a hospital of my choice (though not healthy enough to make it there on my own thats for sure haha) edit: let me clarify. An emergency ambulance will take you to a government hospital. You can of course, call a private hospital for a private ambulance if you so wish. Interesting, so they have government hospitals that compete with the private sector? You can bet Americans would NEVER go for government run hospitals at the moment =P This is proabably one of the very few instances in which the government could compete with the private market and win, it shoudnt be hard to beat 2000% markups. Am I correct in understanding that they make you set aside money for healthcare, and most people use that money to buy insurance? How is this enforced?
Well it's like tax, you are forced to save some of your money deducted from your payroll for medical care. This money saved can accumulate to large amounts over time, and it can be pooled between family members etc.
There is public healthcare, but the key is that it's not free - almost nothing is free (except i think for immediate life and death such as an ambulance due to a car crash or heart attack etc.) The government actively competes against the private sector and of course the government self regulates its own pricing scheme
I think there are various levels of subsidy which determine how expensive something can be but nothing is ever free which stops people overusing the medical system to lavishly splash on expensive and exotic medical treatment (like in the UK). A lot of the time the public health cost is basically the same as the private cost
Government over there spends something like 3-4% of GDP on healthcare and government expenditure on healthcare is really low
|
On February 24 2013 11:58 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Unfortunately, Medicare and insurance companies underpay so much that the hospitals are losing a pretty penny treating people. Thus, hospitals are forced to markup the prices for the uninsured just so that they can keep their doors open.
For instance, did you know that without uninsured people and their markups, we would have no dialysis centers?
Did you know that many practices are forced to pass limits on how many patients with Medicare they can accept just so that they can stay in business?
Source: My father, who is an important doctor in his hospital and directly handles bills related to the parts pertaining to his job.
Actually, hospitals markup the prices for EVERYONE. If person is insured; insurance companies pay it out, insurance company can't really complain about medical bill prices tons of exuberent charges (over charged xrays; medication; room costs; care costs; ambulence fees; etc etc.). If person is uninsured; chance are they couldn't afford insurance in first place, can't even afford care; Hospital ends up footing the bill (supplemented a little by gov't). That's why costs are going up. Hospital end up having a lot of costs because of uninsured.
|
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn.
|
On February 24 2013 14:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Of course Doctors and Hospitals willing accept Medicare as they know they will be paid rather than say someone with no insurance or even patients with private insurance.
what do you mean here? and you werent the mod i was referring to...
i'm fairly ill informed on the matter, which is funny, and somewhat ironic, but i won't get into that
I have bluecross, and blueshield. What is the difference between that, and say, "wellcare"? Is that what you mean by it being "private"?
|
Seems that by 2017 a lot of states are going to opt out of Obamacare
|
On February 24 2013 20:00 Bill Murray wrote:
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn.
Absolutely correct. It basically is "Socialism for Managers". As soon as this scheme where banks hold the tax payer hostage is not tackled ("Too big to fail, sorry you can't take money from us or you will get hurt too in the process", that's where the main financial problems come from in mere numerical terms. Bailouts, people losing jobs, losing their home, losing their insurance, can't pay their bills and provide a good environment for their children, need assistance from somewhere - most of the time it's the government with a safety net. That's doing huge economic damage.
While the Dow hits over 14k again. Something is terribly wrong here.
|
Solution, raise taxes on wealthy/corporation's with massive profit margins (Monsanto, ect) cut military spending, apply revenue to healthcare system? That is exactly what should be done.
If I was from the US, my birth and the complications surrounding it would have put my family in the gutter for many years. Instead we ended up paying a total of $0 for what would have cost an insane amount.
It's time for you to wake up, go, have a coffee. And while you are sipping that warm delight, think about what your taxes go towards now, and imagine what you could have if they went towards other things.
Good luck friends, I honestly hope for your own sakes you guys sort this out before it's too late.
|
On February 24 2013 16:47 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 15:33 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Just out of interest, is there anything stopping anyone from opening a hospital in the US as long as it meets government standards and undercutting current prices or are there just much easier ways to make dollars?
I mean everyone is saying there's a monopoly and stuff, but is that just because nobody else wants to try and make dollars from a hospital budget airline style?
Anyways, my take is that it's a common attidude found all over business. If you can make a dollar that's great, if you can make 10 dollars, thats 10 times as great. Why should healthcare be regarded with different rules and standards to invetment banking, it's all about bringing in profits isn't it? You would never get any profit out of it since almost all of your hospital patients are people who want the service as soon as possible. If a hospital were to undercut every other hospital's prices, they would possibly get a few more people, but most of the people who went there would still be emergency patients and whatnot. Someone could transfer after the initial emergency I suppose, but I don't think such a thing will ever be viable. It's a silly market. Also, when you're talking about the health of everyone around you, the last thing you want is the #1 priority to be a profit. Health, unlike other businesses/services, is sort of a necessity to live. When I go to a hospital responsible for my life, survival, health, etc. I don't want them "in it for the money". Money is an incentive for better performance, but it's far easier to just cut corners (or very often, it is literally the opposite where they give you procedures/medicines/cures that do far more than necessary). In order to have a progressive society, health needs to be easily accessible for everyone. Society runs on everyone, after all.
But the main point that people seem to be throwing around is "hospitals mark shit up to insurance companies", sort of like utility companies in the UK (electicity falls under similar needs to health I assume). That would imply that there is a place for someone to offer a cheaper service and keep the books green without tax subsidies. I bet if you offered outpatient endoscopes at £50 less you would get a shitload of jobs. My point stands, there is room for less markup is anyone has the balls and capital to do it.
The nature of patients in the UK is they want everything under the sun done for them. It means you are forced to do lots of unnecessary scans and procedures because if you miss even 1%, you are fucked. Negative scans are an effective way of defending yourself, and also meeting patient expectations. There are a lot of crazies that just turn up for the weakest things.
Of course in an ideal world everyone would do things for the good of it, but that will never happen.
|
On February 24 2013 21:21 Mo0Rauder wrote:
Solution, raise taxes on wealthy/corporation's with massive profit margins (Monsanto, ect) cut military spending, apply revenue to healthcare system? That is exactly what should be done.
If I was from the US, my birth and the complications surrounding it would have put my family in the gutter for many years. Instead we ended up paying a total of $0 for what would have cost an insane amount.
It's time for you to wake up, go, have a coffee. And while you are sipping that warm delight, think about what your taxes go towards now, and imagine what you could have if they went towards other things.
Good luck friends, I honestly hope for your own sakes you guys sort this out before it's too late.
You're totally correct. People need to wake the fuck up and stop settling for mediocrity that will constantly devolve and become worse. IMO huge corporations like Monsanto are the biggest threat to the USA, and eventually to the rest of the world.
|
On February 24 2013 21:21 Mo0Rauder wrote:
Solution, raise taxes on wealthy/corporation's with massive profit margins (Monsanto, ect) cut military spending, apply revenue to healthcare system? That is exactly what should be done.
If I was from the US, my birth and the complications surrounding it would have put my family in the gutter for many years. Instead we ended up paying a total of $0 for what would have cost an insane amount.
It's time for you to wake up, go, have a coffee. And while you are sipping that warm delight, think about what your taxes go towards now, and imagine what you could have if they went towards other things.
Good luck friends, I honestly hope for your own sakes you guys sort this out before it's too late.
If you read the article, the problem isnt that we are not throwing enough money at healthcare. USA pays 50% more per capita than any other country. (20% of gdp). THe problem is that the healthcare system is charging insane rates simply because they can.
|
It's not like socialised healthcare systems are without problems...especially to do with customer service...but yeah the price that America spends on welfare is beyond the pale and it's because of the seller's market issue. Perhaps a government price regulator. We have privatised rail travel in England but the government still owns the tracks and they essentially lease them out to the rail companies, whose prices are regulated by the government. Have a set price that drug companies and healthcare institutions cannot exceed for each type of treatment. Perhaps also create legislation that prevents large excesses accruing to run-of-the-mill treatments.
|
On February 25 2013 01:22 Dagan159 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 21:21 Mo0Rauder wrote:
Solution, raise taxes on wealthy/corporation's with massive profit margins (Monsanto, ect) cut military spending, apply revenue to healthcare system? That is exactly what should be done.
If I was from the US, my birth and the complications surrounding it would have put my family in the gutter for many years. Instead we ended up paying a total of $0 for what would have cost an insane amount.
It's time for you to wake up, go, have a coffee. And while you are sipping that warm delight, think about what your taxes go towards now, and imagine what you could have if they went towards other things.
Good luck friends, I honestly hope for your own sakes you guys sort this out before it's too late. If you read the article, the problem isnt that we are not throwing enough money at healthcare. USA pays 50% more per capita than any other country. (20% of gdp). THe problem is that the healthcare system is charging insane rates simply because they can. Yep, that's just about the whole story right there. Well said!
|
I was just talking to a good friend of mine who is one of the head accounts for the major (only) hospital in our tricity area and he told me they are losing $1 million/month. The problem is that more and more patients are on medicare/medicaid (getting older and poorer) which pays pretty pitifully and the commercial industry which is literally where they make all their profit is shrinking quickly.
|
On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:04 Dagan159 wrote:On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Demand never falls. People dont stop being sick. Insurance companies usually get 40-50% of chargemaster prices. You will initially be charged 100% of chargemaster costs unless you get outside help. Demand will fall. Yes people keep getting sick, but they can't actually get the care, because they can't afford it. That counts as falling demand. Yes, it will suck like shit at first, but things will improve eventually, and once they do they will be better than they are now. If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. Likewise, the healthcare industry is seriously flawed, and only extreme measures will suffice. I suppose you could lessen the impact by slowly phasing out insurance instead of just dismantling it overnight, but I think it should be done.
Ah, the view of the healthy.
Let's have millions casualties right now, let the current generation suffer so the system works better for me once I'm sick.
Don't mind the cancer patients who will suffer horridly, it's for the greater good, right?
|
On February 25 2013 03:16 theinfamousone wrote:
I was just talking to a good friend of mine who is one of the head accounts for the major (only) hospital in our tricity area and he told me they are losing $1 million/month. The problem is that more and more patients are on medicare/medicaid (getting older and poorer) which pays pretty pitifully and the commercial industry which is literally where they make all their profit is shrinking quickly.
Sure, and they can't reduce costs for some reason (regulations, lack of capital, etc.) so they'll just pressure to increase prices to make up the difference. And on and on it goes...
Edit: The cost of healthcare in the US has crept up over a period of decades. The core problem is that costs have not been contained and now the industry is bloated.
|
On February 25 2013 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Edit: The cost of healthcare in the US has crept up over a period of decades. The core problem is that costs have not been contained and now the industry is bloated.
also our society's total inability to take any steps toward preventive maintenance, lifestyle changes, etc., and also a culture which thinks that keeping old people alive as techno-vegetables is a thing that makes sense.
edit: we should make fast food and big ag companies pay for the shortfall in medical budget. it's their externalities everyone else is dealing with.
edit: but of course, as we all know, somebody NOT getting sick doesn't do jack shit for your gdp now does it
|
On February 25 2013 04:29 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Edit: The cost of healthcare in the US has crept up over a period of decades. The core problem is that costs have not been contained and now the industry is bloated. edit: we should make fast food and big ag companies pay for the shortfall in medical budget. it's their externalities everyone else is dealing with.
I'm sorry but...wtf?...
I guess regular people are just numbskulls and don't need a shred of personal responsibility...
It's up to you to figure out if a product someone is advertising is good for your health or not, not the fucking government or the CEO trying to make money.
|
It's impossible. Too much misinformation, layers of mediation, food lobbyists. No way for an individual to be able to make rational informed choices in this environment. People simply don't have the time, access to information, interest, and so on to investigate these things for themselves. They just get fooled and fucked over. This is why liberalism is breaking down in postmodernity. I could rant about this for hours though. You should go read Food Politics by Marion Nestle, you might find it enlightening.
This "personal responsibility" stuff sounds all grand and nice and happy, but we've got a society to run here, and it's not just individuals who have to deal with the consequences.
|
On February 25 2013 01:45 sc4k wrote:
It's not like socialised healthcare systems are without problems...especially to do with customer service...but yeah the price that America spends on welfare is beyond the pale and it's because of the seller's market issue. Perhaps a government price regulator. We have privatised rail travel in England but the government still owns the tracks and they essentially lease them out to the rail companies, whose prices are regulated by the government. Have a set price that drug companies and healthcare institutions cannot exceed for each type of treatment. Perhaps also create legislation that prevents large excesses accruing to run-of-the-mill treatments.
In Canada, the only real issues with our healthcare right now is speed (having to wait for non-emergency service) and highly specialized or experimental care.
Beyond that, the system of taxing everyone so healthcare providers can offer care to everyone is just swell, and works for 95% of most people.
Sometimes you'll hear about Canadians complain about their healthcare, but these Canadians are the ones that usually have no clue how bloody expensive healthcare in the US actually is. They can't fathom the implications of say, owing $40,000 for your hospital visit after breaking your leg. Or not going to the doctor if you have a cough, simply because a 15 minute conversation might cost a couple hundred dollars.
The best part of socialized medicine is that there is no incentive for healthcare providers to deny service you need, or recommend and pressure patients into service they don't need, in order to increase their profit. That's a huge difference in the Canadian and US systems.
I don't think people realize how much profit there is to be made in the US just by recommending unnecessary diagnostic test or marked-up drug prescriptions. In the US, providers profit more the longer you are sick and insured. In Canada, providers can recommend any service, procedure or drug they want because they know it's already paid for.
And imagine how much of healthcare cost is a result of administrating the US system. Sheesh. I've can't imagine having to haggle with an insurance provider about paying for my medical service. That would be a fucking nightmare to deal with if you were terminally ill.
|
On February 25 2013 04:43 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:29 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Edit: The cost of healthcare in the US has crept up over a period of decades. The core problem is that costs have not been contained and now the industry is bloated. edit: we should make fast food and big ag companies pay for the shortfall in medical budget. it's their externalities everyone else is dealing with. I'm sorry but...wtf?... I guess regular people are just numbskulls and don't need a shred of personal responsibility... It's up to you to figure out if a product someone is advertising is good for your health or not, not the fucking government or the CEO trying to make money.
This is inaccurate. Merchants are generally (supposed) to be responsible for what they sell. If you're selling arsenic with your coca cola, that's generally a problem. That's why we have an entire government agency to police this. Have you ever heard of the Food and Drug Administration?
The question facing us is where we can tackle this issue. The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef.
|
On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef.
mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz.
|
On February 25 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:
It's impossible. Too much misinformation, layers of mediation, food lobbyists. No way for an individual to be able to make rational informed choices in this environment. People simply don't have the time, access to information, interest, and so on to investigate these things for themselves. They just get fooled and fucked over. This is why liberalism is breaking down in postmodernity. I could rant about this for hours though. You should go read Food Politics by Marion Nestle, you might find it enlightening.
That doesn't matter, there's always something you can do in life. Just accepting the system and making them pay towards medicare is so rediculously stupid. I'm sick of people making excuses for themselves in life. Life is and always will be tough. You want to be completely healthy? Find 3 families who think like you do, pool your money together, live on a farm together in which you grow and raise all your own food. Strange? certainly, but it's possible. The problem is it takes a tiny bit of human responsibility and understanding that you must adapt to life, not it to you
This is inaccurate. Merchants are generally (supposed) to be responsible for what they sell. If you're selling arsenic with your coca cola, that's generally a problem. That's why we have an entire government agency to police this. Have you ever heard of the Food and Drug Administration?
They are responsible to tell you what's in it, that's it. It's up to you to do your research to find out if that's possibly unhealthy for you
|
On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz.
As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa.
|
On February 25 2013 04:56 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:
It's impossible. Too much misinformation, layers of mediation, food lobbyists. No way for an individual to be able to make rational informed choices in this environment. People simply don't have the time, access to information, interest, and so on to investigate these things for themselves. They just get fooled and fucked over. This is why liberalism is breaking down in postmodernity. I could rant about this for hours though. You should go read Food Politics by Marion Nestle, you might find it enlightening. That doesn't matter, there's always something you can do in life. Just accepting the system and making them pay towards medicare is so rediculously stupid. I'm sick of people making excuses for themselves in life. Life is and always will be tough. You want to be completely healthy? Find 3 families who think like you do, pool your money together, live on a farm together in which you grow and raise all your own food. Strange? certainly, but it's possible. The problem is it takes a tiny bit of human responsibility and understanding that you must adapt to life, not it to you Show nested quote +This is inaccurate. Merchants are generally (supposed) to be responsible for what they sell. If you're selling arsenic with your coca cola, that's generally a problem. That's why we have an entire government agency to police this. Have you ever heard of the Food and Drug Administration? They are responsible to tell you what's in it, that's it. It's up to you to do your research to find out if that's possibly unhealthy for you
I don't know what system you think it is I'm accepting.
but you seem like an ideologue and a child so I don't know if I want to get into it with you
On February 25 2013 04:56 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz. As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa.
it's just hyperbole. i also eat meat
|
On February 25 2013 04:29 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Edit: The cost of healthcare in the US has crept up over a period of decades. The core problem is that costs have not been contained and now the industry is bloated. also our society's total inability to take any steps toward preventive maintenance, lifestyle changes, etc., and also a culture which thinks that keeping old people alive as techno-vegetables is a thing that makes sense.edit: we should make fast food and big ag companies pay for the shortfall in medical budget. it's their externalities everyone else is dealing with. edit: but of course, as we all know, somebody NOT getting sick doesn't do jack shit for your gdp now does it
who are you to decide on a topic like this?
This thread has been derailed so much from the point of the article. The article and interview explain that health insurance companies are only one side of the coin. The fact of the matter is the health care industry is charging way too fucking much for stuff that isn't a scarce resource. Its a joke.
Why do MRI's cost 5k and things like that? You aren't using a resource up. With the population aging more people need more scans and such which should drive prices down. Hospitals should be able to spread out the costs over more patients using the services now. But thats exactly the opposite of what is happening.
This is the only industry where a resource that isnt limited has costs being driven up by more buyers in the market. Anywhere else the cost of producing/buying something goes down the more units you sell because your start up costs are spread out more.
|
On February 25 2013 04:58 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:29 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Edit: The cost of healthcare in the US has crept up over a period of decades. The core problem is that costs have not been contained and now the industry is bloated. also our society's total inability to take any steps toward preventive maintenance, lifestyle changes, etc., and also a culture which thinks that keeping old people alive as techno-vegetables is a thing that makes sense.edit: we should make fast food and big ag companies pay for the shortfall in medical budget. it's their externalities everyone else is dealing with. edit: but of course, as we all know, somebody NOT getting sick doesn't do jack shit for your gdp now does it who are you to decide on a topic like this?
An intelligent, well-educated person who's put a great deal of thought into it, and for whom having opinions on things like this is part of my job in society. Don't give me this "that's just, like, your opinion, man" bullshit
|
On February 25 2013 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:I don't know what system you think it is I'm accepting. but you seem like an ideologue and a child so I don't know if I want to get into it with you Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:56 Jormundr wrote:On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz. As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa. it's just hyperbole. i also eat meat
You're accepting the system by keeping the way things are but just imposing that they pay a (unaccountable) amount of money towards medicare for being bad people.
The idea that companies should pay towards medicare because of their products doesn't make sense at all economically. How do you predict how much money you will receive from them?
|
On February 25 2013 05:00 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:I don't know what system you think it is I'm accepting. but you seem like an ideologue and a child so I don't know if I want to get into it with you On February 25 2013 04:56 Jormundr wrote:On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz. As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa. it's just hyperbole. i also eat meat You're accepting the system by keeping the way things are but just imposing that they pay a (unaccountable) amount of money towards medicare for being bad people.
I recommend you go read what I said, because that's the opposite of what I'm saying.
When have I ever on this board advocated "keeping things the way they are." LOL
|
On February 25 2013 05:00 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:I don't know what system you think it is I'm accepting. but you seem like an ideologue and a child so I don't know if I want to get into it with you On February 25 2013 04:56 Jormundr wrote:On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz. As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa. it's just hyperbole. i also eat meat You're accepting the system by keeping the way things are but just imposing that they pay a (unaccountable) amount of money towards medicare for being bad people. The idea that companies should pay towards medicare because of their products doesn't make sense at all economically. How do you predict how much money you will receive from them?
Please, O great philosopher of Glorious Capitalism, tell us how the free market will eventually solve everything by existing.
|
On February 25 2013 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:00 Dawski wrote:On February 25 2013 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:I don't know what system you think it is I'm accepting. but you seem like an ideologue and a child so I don't know if I want to get into it with you On February 25 2013 04:56 Jormundr wrote:On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz. As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa. it's just hyperbole. i also eat meat You're accepting the system by keeping the way things are but just imposing that they pay a (unaccountable) amount of money towards medicare for being bad people. I recommend you go read what I said, because that's the opposite of what I'm saying. When have I ever on this board advocated "keeping things the way they are." LOL
i suggest not ending your posts with "LOL". Comes off incredibly rude.
All you suggested was that they pay an amount of money towards medicare. Does that dictate a change in that companies policies? no it doesn't.
You still haven't said how we'd calculate how much money these companies would have to pay towards medicare
|
On February 25 2013 05:04 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:00 Dawski wrote:On February 25 2013 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:I don't know what system you think it is I'm accepting. but you seem like an ideologue and a child so I don't know if I want to get into it with you On February 25 2013 04:56 Jormundr wrote:On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz. As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa. it's just hyperbole. i also eat meat You're accepting the system by keeping the way things are but just imposing that they pay a (unaccountable) amount of money towards medicare for being bad people. The idea that companies should pay towards medicare because of their products doesn't make sense at all economically. How do you predict how much money you will receive from them? Please, O great philosopher of Glorious Capitalism, tell us how the free market will eventually solve everything by existing.
I didn't fucking say that. I just said his solution wasn't a solution at all.
I'm all for changes, I just hate the entitlement era
|
Dunno why everyone always flames universal health care. Not letting people die is pretty good.
|
On February 25 2013 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:00 Dawski wrote:On February 25 2013 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:I don't know what system you think it is I'm accepting. but you seem like an ideologue and a child so I don't know if I want to get into it with you On February 25 2013 04:56 Jormundr wrote:On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz. As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa. it's just hyperbole. i also eat meat You're accepting the system by keeping the way things are but just imposing that they pay a (unaccountable) amount of money towards medicare for being bad people. I recommend you go read what I said, because that's the opposite of what I'm saying. When have I ever on this board advocated "keeping things the way they are." LOL
What he means is that you're trying to change something that he doesn't want changed, while not changing something that he sees as a problem (personal accountability lol).
Next election I'm voting for the personal accountability platform!
|
On February 25 2013 05:06 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 05:00 Dawski wrote:On February 25 2013 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:I don't know what system you think it is I'm accepting. but you seem like an ideologue and a child so I don't know if I want to get into it with you On February 25 2013 04:56 Jormundr wrote:On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz. As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa. it's just hyperbole. i also eat meat You're accepting the system by keeping the way things are but just imposing that they pay a (unaccountable) amount of money towards medicare for being bad people. I recommend you go read what I said, because that's the opposite of what I'm saying. When have I ever on this board advocated "keeping things the way they are." LOL What he means is that you're trying to change something that he doesn't want changed, while not changing something that he sees as a problem (personal accountability lol). Next election I'm voting for the personal accountability platform!
again...w..t..f. I'm saying you arn't changing the problem of food services selling awful products.
|
On February 25 2013 05:05 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:04 Jormundr wrote:On February 25 2013 05:00 Dawski wrote:On February 25 2013 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:I don't know what system you think it is I'm accepting. but you seem like an ideologue and a child so I don't know if I want to get into it with you On February 25 2013 04:56 Jormundr wrote:On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz. As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa. it's just hyperbole. i also eat meat You're accepting the system by keeping the way things are but just imposing that they pay a (unaccountable) amount of money towards medicare for being bad people. The idea that companies should pay towards medicare because of their products doesn't make sense at all economically. How do you predict how much money you will receive from them? Please, O great philosopher of Glorious Capitalism, tell us how the free market will eventually solve everything by existing. I didn't fucking say that. I just said his solution wasn't a solution at all. I'm all for changes, I just hate the entitlement era
You haven't said much of anything, which is why you're being ridiculed. As for your little jab at the "entitlement era", of which era do you speak? Are you talking about the era between the formation of our government and extending to the future where christian businesses (read: churches) are entitled to not have to pay taxes? Are we talking about social security entitlements? Are we talking about military service entitlements? Which entitlements have made this the "entitlement era"?
I personally believe that an "entitlement era" is as hard to find as a "traditional family".
|
I don't know why I bothered posting in this thread. I tell someone that a solution they are proposing isn't a solution at all and all of a sudden i'm labeled as a libertarian? You guys act like I agree that a company should be able to send out misinformation and sell awful food products. I don't btw. The thing about personal responsibility was a rant on the side how people will keep blaming the system and not doing anything to fix their life themselves. Is the system bad and should be changed? yes. Should we just accept the fact that the system is bad and not do what I suggested in a radical answer to grow your own food? it was something that annoyed me about todays people. Just because the government isn't changing anything doesn't mean you and your family have to sit on the sidewalk in sadness. Do something about it to better your family in a dark age
|
On February 25 2013 05:05 Elegance wrote:
Dunno why everyone always flames universal health care. Not letting people die is pretty good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
The ironic thing is, not letting people die is one of the major sources of our high costs. Sam!zdat made a good point about end-of-life care. We expect everyone to live forever at any cost.
|
On February 25 2013 05:13 Dawski wrote:
I don't know why I bothered posting in this thread. I tell someone that a solution they are proposing isn't a solution at all and all of a sudden i'm labeled as a libertarian? You guys act like I agree that a company should be able to send out misinformation and sell awful food products. I don't btw. The thing about personal responsibility was a rant on the side how people will keep blaming the system and not doing anything to fix their life themselves. Is the system bad and should be changed? yes. Should we just accept the fact that the system is bad and not do what I suggested in a radical answer to grow your own food? it was something that annoyed me about todays people
Yeah, that's the norm around here. They tried to straw man me for an hour by calling me an anarcho-capitalist. Get used to guilt by involuntary association.
|
On February 25 2013 05:00 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:I don't know what system you think it is I'm accepting. but you seem like an ideologue and a child so I don't know if I want to get into it with you On February 25 2013 04:56 Jormundr wrote:On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz. As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa. it's just hyperbole. i also eat meat You're accepting the system by keeping the way things are but just imposing that they pay a (unaccountable) amount of money towards medicare for being bad people. The idea that companies should pay towards medicare because of their products doesn't make sense at all economically. How do you predict how much money you will receive from them?
You can tax their products and direct that money towards healthcare system. And you do predictions as companies do. It does not have to be perfect, you can adjust with time to find correct balance.
|
On February 25 2013 05:14 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:05 Elegance wrote:
Dunno why everyone always flames universal health care. Not letting people die is pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaThe ironic thing is, not letting people die is one of the major sources of our high costs. Sam!zdat made a good point about end-of-life care. We expect everyone to live forever at any cost.
I'll concede that point. It costs a shit ton of money to keep people alive in the tail end of their lives and that's a whole ethical crap that i'm not even gonna try to discuss. But let's think for a moment that most diseases require early detection (and most of those symptoms are quite common symptoms). Most people in Canada wouldn't mind going down to the local ER to get it checked out (i mean why not?) and move on with their lives knowing with almost certainty that it won't be a huge problem. In the US that might cost you a bit if you don't have the insurance. Let's say for example, a kid feels like his heart is pounding so he goes down to the ER, gets in pretty quick and gets it all checked out at which point the docs will tell him whether or not hes ok. All that without having to worry about a ridiculous medical bill. That kid could be anyone.
Okay, let's say "nah, that won't be me" or maybe you think most diseases happen because of bad lifesstyle choices. Well consider that there is an individual pre-disposed to get type 2 diabetes because his mother had it or whatever. He could make all the right decisions in his diet and w/e and still get diabetes. Even after getting diabetes, he could have it under control 100% and he will still run into complication due to diabetes if he is over the age of 40 (ie. blood vessels in your retina start popping etc.). So then you are fucked if you don't have the money to manage that. I use this example because many people here probably have relatives with type 2 diabetes.
|
On February 25 2013 05:13 Dawski wrote:
I don't know why I bothered posting in this thread. I tell someone that a solution they are proposing isn't a solution at all and all of a sudden i'm labeled as a libertarian? You guys act like I agree that a company should be able to send out misinformation and sell awful food products. I don't btw. The thing about personal responsibility was a rant on the side how people will keep blaming the system and not doing anything to fix their life themselves. Is the system bad and should be changed? yes. Should we just accept the fact that the system is bad and not do what I suggested in a radical answer to grow your own food? it was something that annoyed me about todays people
Ok ok, I'll take you seriously for a second:
Everybody grows their own food in an anarcho-capitalist Ayn Rand fantasyland
You have problems which you haven't worked out in your so-called 'solution'.
How are these farms established in the first place? Who pays for the land? Is the immediate cost of buying the land going to outweigh the benefits of subsistence farming? How should the communal trade structures be modeled? Is this supposed to be a revolution on a local scale (I believe you said something about a "few" families) or will this be a national movement? How do you expect this to take root in the inner cities (pun intended)? Will urban areas be forced into hydroponics or will all cultivatable land be free game? If hydroponics are used on such a large scale, won't this create a problem for law enforcement to track coca and cannabis growers?
|
|
|
On February 25 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:13 Dawski wrote:
I don't know why I bothered posting in this thread. I tell someone that a solution they are proposing isn't a solution at all and all of a sudden i'm labeled as a libertarian? You guys act like I agree that a company should be able to send out misinformation and sell awful food products. I don't btw. The thing about personal responsibility was a rant on the side how people will keep blaming the system and not doing anything to fix their life themselves. Is the system bad and should be changed? yes. Should we just accept the fact that the system is bad and not do what I suggested in a radical answer to grow your own food? it was something that annoyed me about todays people Ok ok, I'll take you seriously for a second: Everybody grows their own food in an anarcho-capitalist Ayn Rand fantasyland You have problems which you haven't worked out in your so-called 'solution'. How are these farms established in the first place? Who pays for the land? Is the immediate cost of buying the land going to outweigh the benefits of subsistence farming? How should the communal trade structures be modeled? Is this supposed to be a revolution on a local scale (I believe you said something about a "few" families) or will this be a national movement? How do you expect this to take root in the inner cities (pun intended)? Will urban areas be forced into hydroponics or will all cultivatable land be free game? If hydroponics are used on such a large scale, won't this create a problem for law enforcement to track coca and cannabis growers?
it seems like you arn't taking me seriously like you said you were.
I wasn't proposing that every single person in the entire country get their own land plot and that's how the country will be run. I was saying that if you don't want your family to have health issues and don't trust companies then you are able to find other likeminded families and live together on a landplot you bought together to grow your own food. It's a possible solution for your family to do in dark times.
I was complaining about the entitlement era and what I mean by that is pretty simple. People nowadays feel entitled to their own home. They feel entitled to own a car or another means of transportation. There are many other examples of things like this. I feel like if there was a giant economic collapse a lot of people would just sit around sulking that life sucks now instead of realizing that it is their reality that they must fight their way through.
|
On February 25 2013 05:14 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:05 Elegance wrote:
Dunno why everyone always flames universal health care. Not letting people die is pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaThe ironic thing is, not letting people die is one of the major sources of our high costs. Sam!zdat made a good point about end-of-life care. We expect everyone to live forever at any cost.
End of life care does cost a huge amount of money. There are actually a really good Frontline episode about this....it does seem rather ridiculous to have someone sick and old go through an expensive surgery, that she didn't even say she wanted (her daughters made the decision), only to die one week later. I understand that we should give people a chance to live and everything but at some point enough is enough and you just cause them more pain.
Not to mention the real problem is that so many people shun preventative care as it isn't always cheap (MRI's and the like) then the illness that could have been caught and dealt with in its infantile stages is now a full blown disease or cancer and will require several times more money to fix.
I would bet that if preventative care and tests in this country were more affordable, more people would them done and would end up saving a shitload of money in the end. People don't seem to understand this though and just view everything that actually helps people as handouts. Until people stop thinking like this, I don't see the situation in this country changing for the better.
Edit: Link to said Frontline episode: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/facing-death/
|
On February 25 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:13 Dawski wrote:
I don't know why I bothered posting in this thread. I tell someone that a solution they are proposing isn't a solution at all and all of a sudden i'm labeled as a libertarian? You guys act like I agree that a company should be able to send out misinformation and sell awful food products. I don't btw. The thing about personal responsibility was a rant on the side how people will keep blaming the system and not doing anything to fix their life themselves. Is the system bad and should be changed? yes. Should we just accept the fact that the system is bad and not do what I suggested in a radical answer to grow your own food? it was something that annoyed me about todays people Ok ok, I'll take you seriously for a second: Everybody grows their own food in an anarcho-capitalist Ayn Rand fantasyland You have problems which you haven't worked out in your so-called 'solution'. How are these farms established in the first place? Who pays for the land? Is the immediate cost of buying the land going to outweigh the benefits of subsistence farming? How should the communal trade structures be modeled? Is this supposed to be a revolution on a local scale (I believe you said something about a "few" families) or will this be a national movement? How do you expect this to take root in the inner cities (pun intended)? Will urban areas be forced into hydroponics or will all cultivatable land be free game? If hydroponics are used on such a large scale, won't this create a problem for law enforcement to track coca and cannabis growers?
I usually dont like to contribute to the further derailment of this thread but... what the hell does Ayn Rand's philosophy have to do with everyone growing their own food? I think you have no clue what your talking about.
|
On February 25 2013 05:41 Enki wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:14 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 25 2013 05:05 Elegance wrote:
Dunno why everyone always flames universal health care. Not letting people die is pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaThe ironic thing is, not letting people die is one of the major sources of our high costs. Sam!zdat made a good point about end-of-life care. We expect everyone to live forever at any cost. End of life care does cost a huge amount of money. There are actually a really good Frontline episode about this....it does seem rather ridiculous to have someone sick and old go through an expensive surgery, that she didn't even say she wanted (her daughters made the decision), only to die one week later. I understand that we should give people a chance to live and everything but at some point enough is enough and you just cause them more pain. Not to mention the real problem is that so many people shun preventative care as it isn't always cheap (MRI's and the like) then the illness that could have been caught and dealt with in its infantile stages is now a full blown disease or cancer and will require several times more money to fix.
I would bet that if preventative care and tests in this country were more affordable, more people would them done and would end up saving a shitload of money in the end. People don't seem to understand this though and just view everything that actually helps people as handouts. Until people stop thinking like this, I don't see the situation in this country changing for the better.
Edit: Link to said Frontline episode: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/facing-death/
This is actually a very good point.
|
On February 25 2013 05:04 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 05:00 Dawski wrote:On February 25 2013 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:I don't know what system you think it is I'm accepting. but you seem like an ideologue and a child so I don't know if I want to get into it with you On February 25 2013 04:56 Jormundr wrote:On February 25 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On February 25 2013 04:53 Jormundr wrote:
The best one in my opinion would be to show kids the engineering behind chicken nuggets and fast food beef. mandatory field trips to industrial agriculture facilities, 90 percent of your kids become vegetarians, ezpz. As a meat eater who has done this (a lot), I have to say that that percentage seems awfully high. However, it would definitely provide food for thought or vice versa. it's just hyperbole. i also eat meat You're accepting the system by keeping the way things are but just imposing that they pay a (unaccountable) amount of money towards medicare for being bad people. I recommend you go read what I said, because that's the opposite of what I'm saying. When have I ever on this board advocated "keeping things the way they are." LOL i suggest not ending your posts with "LOL". Comes off incredibly rude. All you suggested was that they pay an amount of money towards medicare. Does that dictate a change in that companies policies? no it doesn't. You still haven't said how we'd calculate how much money these companies would have to pay towards medicare
you mistook a polemical attack against industrial agriculture as a serious policy suggestion. of course we shouldn't just have industrial agriculture keep making people unhealthy and then tax them to pay for it. we should outlaw industrial agriculture and fix the problem at its source. we should teach people how to eat healthily and provide them with access to wholesome, healthy foodstuffs. we have huge subsidies for producing hamburgers, and then we subsidize the medical care for people who eat too many hamburgers. fast food isn't actually as cheap as it seems - the taxpayer helps you buy your mcdonald's, and then they help buy your healthcare for being unhealthy and obese.
|
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Five things:
I'm of the opinion that health insurance should be a zero-sum business where profit margins are purposely designed to be absolutely minimal, and any profit that does come out of it should go back to the people paying in. Administrative costs should be kept to a minimum and there should be a strong focus on efficiency. People should not be making huge profits by gambling with people's health in a rigged system. A single-payer system is the only morally acceptable option, period.
Health insurance should not cover routine visits. Consumers should be more intimately connected with healthcare pricing, at the routine level especially. Insurance is there in case something truly unforeseen happens (cancer, car accident, etc.). This also gives people incentive to reduce healthcare usage by living a healthier lifestyle, because they see the monetary effects on their pocket book.
Tort reform. Like the author points out in the article, we should not be incentivizing over testing because doctors and hospitals feel like they have to cover their asses from multi-million dollar lawsuits. Shit happens in every industry, it just has far more serious consequences in healthcare, and you should be compensated, but there comes a point when ever more enormous sums of money will not bring back that wrongly amputated limb. Shit happens and there should be caps to payout amounts.
Hospitals should be far more transparent with their finances. They are very much public-service institutions and should be treated as much. I should be able to call up any hospital and ask them the prices of a list of procedures, and they should be able to tell me, straight up.
Medicare should be able to aggressively negotiate drug-prices and durable medical equipment. This is quite straight forward and the case for this was clearly made in the article. Pharma companies are insanely profitable, which is great, but they are insanely profitable not because they make incredible products (see side effects), but because they operate in a healthcare system that allows them to charge whatever they feel like to consumers who are not choosing to be consumers (see first paragraph).
That's my two cents.
|
On February 25 2013 05:45 Elegance wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:41 Enki wrote:On February 25 2013 05:14 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 25 2013 05:05 Elegance wrote:
Dunno why everyone always flames universal health care. Not letting people die is pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaThe ironic thing is, not letting people die is one of the major sources of our high costs. Sam!zdat made a good point about end-of-life care. We expect everyone to live forever at any cost. End of life care does cost a huge amount of money. There are actually a really good Frontline episode about this....it does seem rather ridiculous to have someone sick and old go through an expensive surgery, that she didn't even say she wanted (her daughters made the decision), only to die one week later. I understand that we should give people a chance to live and everything but at some point enough is enough and you just cause them more pain. Not to mention the real problem is that so many people shun preventative care as it isn't always cheap (MRI's and the like) then the illness that could have been caught and dealt with in its infantile stages is now a full blown disease or cancer and will require several times more money to fix.
I would bet that if preventative care and tests in this country were more affordable, more people would them done and would end up saving a shitload of money in the end. People don't seem to understand this though and just view everything that actually helps people as handouts. Until people stop thinking like this, I don't see the situation in this country changing for the better.
Edit: Link to said Frontline episode: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/facing-death/ This is actually a very good point.
Yeah but that means we actually have to think about the future.
|
On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Five things:
I'm of the opinion that health insurance should be a zero-sum business where profit margins are purposely designed to be absolutely minimal, and any profit that does come out of it should go back to the people paying in. Administrative costs should be kept to a minimum and there should be a strong focus on efficiency. People should not be making huge profits by gambling with people's health in a rigged system. A single-payer system is the only morally acceptable option, period.
Health insurance should not cover routine visits. Consumers should be more intimately connected with healthcare pricing, at the routine level especially. Insurance is there in case something truly unforeseen happens (cancer, car accident, etc.). This also gives people incentive to reduce healthcare usage by living a healthier lifestyle, because they see the monetary effects on their pocket book.
Tort reform. Like the author points out in the article, we should not be incentivizing over testing because doctors and hospitals feel like they have to cover their asses from multi-million dollar lawsuits. Shit happens in every industry, it just has far more serious consequences in healthcare, and you should be compensated, but there comes a point when ever more enormous sums of money will not bring back that wrongly amputated limb. Shit happens and there should be caps to payout amounts.
Hospitals should be far more transparent with their finances. They are very much public-service institutions and should be treated as much. I should be able to call up any hospital and ask them the prices of a list of procedures, and they should be able to tell me, straight up.
Medicare should be able to aggressively negotiate drug-prices and durable medical equipment. This is quite straight forward and the case for this was clearly made in the article. Pharma companies are insanely profitable, which is great, but they are insanely profitable not because they make incredible products (see side effects), but because they operate in a healthcare system that allows them to charge whatever they feel like to consumers who are not choosing to be consumers (see first paragraph).
That's my two cents.
All of that sounds good and well but doesnt even begin to discuss people with Chronic Conditions.
Also, you can't do the bolded until you after you start capping profits in the medical industry.
|
On February 25 2013 06:05 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:45 Elegance wrote:On February 25 2013 05:41 Enki wrote:On February 25 2013 05:14 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 25 2013 05:05 Elegance wrote:
Dunno why everyone always flames universal health care. Not letting people die is pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaThe ironic thing is, not letting people die is one of the major sources of our high costs. Sam!zdat made a good point about end-of-life care. We expect everyone to live forever at any cost. End of life care does cost a huge amount of money. There are actually a really good Frontline episode about this....it does seem rather ridiculous to have someone sick and old go through an expensive surgery, that she didn't even say she wanted (her daughters made the decision), only to die one week later. I understand that we should give people a chance to live and everything but at some point enough is enough and you just cause them more pain. Not to mention the real problem is that so many people shun preventative care as it isn't always cheap (MRI's and the like) then the illness that could have been caught and dealt with in its infantile stages is now a full blown disease or cancer and will require several times more money to fix.
I would bet that if preventative care and tests in this country were more affordable, more people would them done and would end up saving a shitload of money in the end. People don't seem to understand this though and just view everything that actually helps people as handouts. Until people stop thinking like this, I don't see the situation in this country changing for the better.
Edit: Link to said Frontline episode: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/facing-death/ This is actually a very good point. Yeah but that means we actually have to think about the future.
yeah that's just too bad
|
On February 25 2013 06:05 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Five things:
I'm of the opinion that health insurance should be a zero-sum business where profit margins are purposely designed to be absolutely minimal, and any profit that does come out of it should go back to the people paying in. Administrative costs should be kept to a minimum and there should be a strong focus on efficiency. People should not be making huge profits by gambling with people's health in a rigged system. A single-payer system is the only morally acceptable option, period.
Health insurance should not cover routine visits. Consumers should be more intimately connected with healthcare pricing, at the routine level especially. Insurance is there in case something truly unforeseen happens (cancer, car accident, etc.). This also gives people incentive to reduce healthcare usage by living a healthier lifestyle, because they see the monetary effects on their pocket book.
Tort reform. Like the author points out in the article, we should not be incentivizing over testing because doctors and hospitals feel like they have to cover their asses from multi-million dollar lawsuits. Shit happens in every industry, it just has far more serious consequences in healthcare, and you should be compensated, but there comes a point when ever more enormous sums of money will not bring back that wrongly amputated limb. Shit happens and there should be caps to payout amounts.
Hospitals should be far more transparent with their finances. They are very much public-service institutions and should be treated as much. I should be able to call up any hospital and ask them the prices of a list of procedures, and they should be able to tell me, straight up.
Medicare should be able to aggressively negotiate drug-prices and durable medical equipment. This is quite straight forward and the case for this was clearly made in the article. Pharma companies are insanely profitable, which is great, but they are insanely profitable not because they make incredible products (see side effects), but because they operate in a healthcare system that allows them to charge whatever they feel like to consumers who are not choosing to be consumers (see first paragraph).
That's my two cents. All of that sounds good and well but doesnt even begin to discuss people with Chronic Conditions. Also, you can't do the bolded until you after you start capping profits in the medical industry.
Chronic conditions fall under two major categories, with some gray area inbetween. First are the chronic conditions that we acquire through no fault of our own (ie. genetic/congenital). Second we have chronic conditions which we acquire largely through our own carelessness, with a bit of bad luck (ie. emphysema through smoking, type two diabetes, etc.).
Ideally, the first category should be fully covered by a social safety net since everyone is at risk regardless of their own actions, while the second category should be partially covered since there is a definite gray area here. If you choose an unhealthy lifestyle, you should feel the effects of that on your pocket book. It should not bankrupt you, but you should be expected to bear a heavier burden.
In other words, insurance should have high deductibles for chronic conditions that fall into category two, and low deductibles for category one. Obviously there is a ton of gray area here, in which we should err on the side of giving people the benefit of the doubt. But seriously, if you smoke, you should have a higher deductible for respiratory related issues later in life than someone who has never smoked a day in their life... that's just common sense.
|
On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play.
In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare.
|
On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare.
Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it.
|
One of the things that I quickly learned after coming to the US, is to never get sick and try to live a healthy life style by learning by myself about healthy foods and lifestyle. A doctor's visit cost me around 500 for the doctor, 200 for hospital, 150 for exams. The hospital was covered by medicaid or something like that but the rest i had to pay out of my own pocket. All that and the doctor said that there was nothing wrong with me. I hate medicine in the United States and i will travel to my country to get attention next time.
|
On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it.
Would you really say elective plastic surgery is medicine, though?
|
On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it.
Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest.
|
On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare.
I think one of the biggest obstacles is that while in big cities you may have 3-4 or more hospitals in a metro area, any medium to small sized cities will only have one (though some may have two). This is due to the massive cost of providing comprehensive medical care, which only a hospital is truly capable of providing. This creates a scenario where a single hospital can basically monopolize a regional area. In other industries where this is the case such as electricity, as was mentioned in the article, the government is able to heavily restrict prices, since the inherent monopoly makes the industry essentially immune to market pressures. If the government were able to do that, as they already do with medicare pricing, then that would be a completely different story and in which case you might as well just go with a single-payer system to consolidate and normalize insurance plans, increasing efficiency.
|
people want to make money and when theres money to be made and people who are willing to pay(yeah yeah i know theyre sick) its not going to change. if everything was perfect the world would either be boring or collapse entirely. i have no idea why everyone gets so worked on stuff like this... i mean seriously its like some people are only happy when theyre mad.
|
this is why leading a healthy lifestyle is important...
|
On February 25 2013 08:25 MattMannion wrote:
people want to make money and when theres money to be made and people who are willing to pay(yeah yeah i know theyre sick) its not going to change. if everything was perfect the world would either be boring or collapse entirely. i have no idea why everyone gets so worked on stuff like this... i mean seriously its like some people are only happy when theyre mad.
You do realize that there are tons of countries (basically all developed ones...) have a national healthcare system except USA? Some people just like doing things efficiently and intelligently.
|
On February 25 2013 08:25 MattMannion wrote:
people want to make money and when theres money to be made and people who are willing to pay(yeah yeah i know theyre sick) its not going to change. if everything was perfect the world would either be boring or collapse entirely. i have no idea why everyone gets so worked on stuff like this... i mean seriously its like some people are only happy when theyre mad.
Civil discourse is what this country is founded on. It is not about complaining, it is about trying to navigate the complicated nature of healthcare in order to make it better (more accessibility and efficiency, less waste, higher quality of care). We should always strive to do things better. Your argument against this discussion because "if everything was perfect the world would either be boring or collapse entirely" is simply pathetic. That is all.
|
On February 25 2013 08:18 Kyrao wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. I think one of the biggest obstacles is that while in big cities you may have 3-4 or more hospitals in a metro area, any medium to small sized cities will only have one (though some may have two). This is due to the massive cost of providing comprehensive medical care, which only a hospital is truly capable of providing. This creates a scenario where a single hospital can basically monopolize a regional area. In other industries where this is the case such as electricity, as was mentioned in the article, the government is able to heavily restrict prices, since the inherent monopoly makes the industry essentially immune to market pressures. If the government were able to do that, as they already do with medicare pricing, then that would be a completely different story and in which case you might as well just go with a single-payer system to consolidate and normalize insurance plans, increasing efficiency.
You'd need to explain that a bit more. Healthcare is provided for on many fronts (hospitals, pharmacies, doctor's offices, clinics, etc.) so I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly. If certain parts of healthcare lend to natural monopolies then yeah you'd need to regulate that pricing. But I can't see that as true for all healthcare.
|
On February 25 2013 07:53 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it. Would you really say elective plastic surgery is medicine, though?
Well the pricing and models should be comparable. The big difference is the necessity. As said before, nobody is stopping anyone from setting up shop and filling that niche, nobody is stopping that competetion.
I would bet the mark up on cosmetic surgery is comparable to essential surgery though.
|
On February 25 2013 08:34 Aveng3r wrote:
this is why leading a healthy lifestyle is important...
I'm sure everyone is all for eating healthy, and having the actual food producers stop putting so much shit into the foot supply. A Healthy diet can only take you so far. If you get into bad car accident it doesn't matter how much fruit you eat...most likely you need hospital care and surgery, both of which can destroy your financial well-being for years. Not to mention cancer does not discriminate and has struck down perfectly healthy people.
I think it is a good start though. People should be more educated about proper food choices, but part of the responsibility has to go to the actually producers of the food as they are ultimately in control of what goes into it. Also, people would love to eat healthier and organic and all that shit but the fact is that it's more expensive and a lot of families can't afford it in this economy, especially with food prices to get even higher.
|
On February 25 2013 08:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 08:18 Kyrao wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. I think one of the biggest obstacles is that while in big cities you may have 3-4 or more hospitals in a metro area, any medium to small sized cities will only have one (though some may have two). This is due to the massive cost of providing comprehensive medical care, which only a hospital is truly capable of providing. This creates a scenario where a single hospital can basically monopolize a regional area. In other industries where this is the case such as electricity, as was mentioned in the article, the government is able to heavily restrict prices, since the inherent monopoly makes the industry essentially immune to market pressures. If the government were able to do that, as they already do with medicare pricing, then that would be a completely different story and in which case you might as well just go with a single-payer system to consolidate and normalize insurance plans, increasing efficiency. You'd need to explain that a bit more. Healthcare is provided for on many fronts (hospitals, pharmacies, doctor's offices, clinics, etc.) so I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly. If certain parts of healthcare lend to natural monopolies then yeah you'd need to regulate that pricing. But I can't see that as true for all healthcare.
Good point. In this case I am referring to having things like a CT scanner, MRI, Angio equipment, Nuclear medicine, and other expensive, non-mobile machinery all in one general location. Most doctor's offices refer patients to the hospital when he/she needs one of these tests done, rather than bearing the expense on a piece of equipment that will take far too long to pay off with his/her expected usage to be feasible. This is a powerful way to reduce medical expenses for a regional population, so while you might be able to fragment this kind of equipment between a network of doctors' offices, it would be far more ideal to have a central hospital to house these (which is also especially important in emergency medicine). Also, drugs will always be a separate case because of their mobility (you can bring them to the patient rather than the other way around). The real barrier to reducing drug prices outside of a hospital (where it is heavily marked up for some god forsaken reason) seems to be patent rights, which at its core is necessary for a pharma company's R&D to pay off. I'm not saying there couldn't be better ways of rewarding/regulating patents, but that would be a totally different discussion that I feel completely noobish trying to even talk about.
|
On February 25 2013 09:19 Kyrao wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 08:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 08:18 Kyrao wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. I think one of the biggest obstacles is that while in big cities you may have 3-4 or more hospitals in a metro area, any medium to small sized cities will only have one (though some may have two). This is due to the massive cost of providing comprehensive medical care, which only a hospital is truly capable of providing. This creates a scenario where a single hospital can basically monopolize a regional area. In other industries where this is the case such as electricity, as was mentioned in the article, the government is able to heavily restrict prices, since the inherent monopoly makes the industry essentially immune to market pressures. If the government were able to do that, as they already do with medicare pricing, then that would be a completely different story and in which case you might as well just go with a single-payer system to consolidate and normalize insurance plans, increasing efficiency. You'd need to explain that a bit more. Healthcare is provided for on many fronts (hospitals, pharmacies, doctor's offices, clinics, etc.) so I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly. If certain parts of healthcare lend to natural monopolies then yeah you'd need to regulate that pricing. But I can't see that as true for all healthcare. Good point. In this case I am referring to having things like a CT scanner, MRI, Angio equipment, Nuclear medicine, and other expensive, non-mobile machinery all in one general location. Most doctor's offices refer patients to the hospital when he/she needs one of these tests done, rather than bearing the expense on a piece of equipment that will take far too long to pay off with his/her expected usage to be feasible. This is a powerful way to reduce medical expenses for a regional population, so while you might be able to fragment this kind of equipment between a network of doctors' offices, it would be far more ideal to have a central hospital to house these (which is also especially important in emergency medicine). Also, drugs will always be a separate case because of their mobility (you can bring them to the patient rather than the other way around). The real barrier to reducing drug prices outside of a hospital (where it is heavily marked up for some god forsaken reason) seems to be patent rights, which at its core is necessary for a pharma company's R&D to pay off. I'm not saying there couldn't be better ways of rewarding/regulating patents, but that would be a totally different discussion that I feel completely noobish trying to even talk about.
Yeah, the problem is that it's so complex that everyone involved can throw smoke in our eyes. They can tell us that a cost is 'necessary' and how would we know better? Really the only reason we know that healthcare in the US is 'too expensive' is because we can look to other countries and see that it's true!
Anyways, it's obvious we've got problems. Personally I'd like to see the market deregulated (allow more suppliers in to lower costs, transparent costs, etc.) but I'm not obsessed with that option. There's more than one way to skin a cat and I'm happy so long as the little fucker gets skinned 
|
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post?
|
On February 25 2013 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it. Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest.
There is no competition to be had in the world of healthcare. The vast, vast majority of patients are involuntary consumers and are not in a position to choose one hospital over another depending on price.
|
On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post?
I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread.
|
On February 25 2013 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post? I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread.
Albeit the cycle for making bread can be a complex one with running the company and small steps, it is nowhere as complex as medical supplies or medical care.
The bread buyer isn't in the same position as a patient either. If he feels he don't know if the price is high or low for the bread he is getting, he can just go buy something else to eat.
|
On February 25 2013 10:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it. Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest. There is no competition to be had in the world of healthcare. The vast, vast majority of patients are involuntary consumers and are not in a position to choose one hospital over another depending on price.
I don't think that's accurate. You don't get cancer surgery on a whim you schedule the procedure in advance. If you can demonstrate otherwise I'll gladly change my opinion.
|
On February 25 2013 10:55 Arevall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post? I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread. Albeit the cycle for making bread can be a complex one with running the company and small steps, it is nowhere as complex as medical supplies or medical care. The bread buyer isn't in the same position as a patient either. If he feels he don't know if the price is high or low for the bread he is getting, he can just go buy something else to eat.
OK, building skyscrapers is pretty complex - let's use that comparison.
The healthcare consumer can go to a different provider. So the analogy holds on the second point.
Edit: I wasn't just referring to the complexity of baking a loaf of bread. I'm talking about the whole supply chain. I could easily throw smoke in your face regarding the complexity of the push-pull boundary, stochastic demand and the necessity of a high service level to justify a higher than necessary price. But whatever, building a skyscraper should be complex enough.
|
On February 25 2013 10:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 10:55 Arevall wrote:On February 25 2013 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post? I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread. Albeit the cycle for making bread can be a complex one with running the company and small steps, it is nowhere as complex as medical supplies or medical care. The bread buyer isn't in the same position as a patient either. If he feels he don't know if the price is high or low for the bread he is getting, he can just go buy something else to eat. OK, building skyscrapers is pretty complex - let's use that comparison. The healthcare consumer can go to a different provider. So the analogy holds on the second point. Edit: I wasn't just referring to the complexity of baking a loaf of bread. I'm talking about the whole supply chain. I could easily throw smoke in your face regarding the complexity of the push-pull boundary, stochastic demand and the necessity of a high service level to justify a higher than necessary price. But whatever, building a skyscraper should be complex enough.
Building a multi-level building, or skyscraper, or even a large house is immensely complex and extremely expensive for a property owner or developer. For anything with a construction value over a million, you need to hire a project manager, construction management team and architecture firm, who in turn hire engineering consultants to design and manage the implementation of mechanical and electrical services.
It can take two years just to hire all these people, finalize a design, and get the necessary permits to build it.
Are you saying that people should spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours requesting and reviewing quotes, contracting specialists from different healthcare providers, sourcing their own drugs and equipment, securing their own permits and licenses to treat themselves etc, etc?
I'm sure if I did that I could save money on my hypothetical cancer treatment ... although just managing my own treatment would likely be a 40 to 50 hour a week job, which would be kind of hard to do when you literally have lie in bed all day and shit in a pan.
TLDR; why are you comparing health care to building a skyscraper, exactly? If you're point is that shopping for healthcare in a free market would be a nightmare, than you're right.
|
On February 25 2013 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post? I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread.
Curious how you think the market should be deregulated.
Because if I was a medical company, and I know that the Feds are completely out of my hair, I'm just going to straight up dump addictive substances into my drugs. I hear from the tobacco industry that addiction is good for customer loyalty.
|
On February 25 2013 11:39 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 10:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:55 Arevall wrote:On February 25 2013 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post? I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread. Albeit the cycle for making bread can be a complex one with running the company and small steps, it is nowhere as complex as medical supplies or medical care. The bread buyer isn't in the same position as a patient either. If he feels he don't know if the price is high or low for the bread he is getting, he can just go buy something else to eat. OK, building skyscrapers is pretty complex - let's use that comparison. The healthcare consumer can go to a different provider. So the analogy holds on the second point. Edit: I wasn't just referring to the complexity of baking a loaf of bread. I'm talking about the whole supply chain. I could easily throw smoke in your face regarding the complexity of the push-pull boundary, stochastic demand and the necessity of a high service level to justify a higher than necessary price. But whatever, building a skyscraper should be complex enough. Building a multi-level building, or skyscraper, or even a large house is immensely complex and extremely expensive for a property owner or developer. For anything with a construction value over a million, you need to hire a project manager, construction management team and architecture firm, who in turn hire engineering consultants to design and manage the implementation of mechanical and electrical services. It can take two years just to hire all these people, finalize a design, and get the necessary permits to build it. Are you saying that people should spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours requesting and reviewing quotes, contracting specialists from different healthcare providers, sourcing their own drugs and equipment, securing their own permits and licenses to treat themselves etc, etc? I'm sure if I did that I could save money on my hypothetical cancer treatment ... although just managing my own treatment would likely be a 40 to 50 hour a week job, which would be kind of hard to do when you literally have lie in bed all day and shit in a pan. TLDR; why are you comparing health care to building a skyscraper, exactly? If you're point is that shopping for healthcare in a free market would be a nightmare, than you're right.
Clarification - building the skyscraper is complex, renting space within it is not.
The excuse that 'providing medical care is too complex for consumers to understand' is just that - an excuse. The complexity of the supply doesn't have to translate into complexity for the consumer.
|
On February 25 2013 09:17 Enki wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 08:34 Aveng3r wrote:
this is why leading a healthy lifestyle is important... I'm sure everyone is all for eating healthy, and having the actual food producers stop putting so much shit into the foot supply. A Healthy diet can only take you so far. If you get into bad car accident it doesn't matter how much fruit you eat...most likely you need hospital care and surgery, both of which can destroy your financial well-being for years. Not to mention cancer does not discriminate and has struck down perfectly healthy people. I think it is a good start though. People should be more educated about proper food choices, but part of the responsibility has to go to the actually producers of the food as they are ultimately in control of what goes into it. Also, people would love to eat healthier and organic and all that shit but the fact is that it's more expensive and a lot of families can't afford it in this economy, especially with food prices to get even higher.
agreed. I dont follow politics too closely, but isnt the mandatory health insurance policy (which I think is socialist, against the constitution, and just plain retarded) supposed to confront some of the hospital bill issues presented in the OP?
|
On February 25 2013 11:48 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post? I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread. Curious how you think the market should be deregulated. Because if I was a medical company, and I know that the Feds are completely out of my hair, I'm just going to straight up dump addictive substances into my drugs. I hear from the tobacco industry that addiction is good for customer loyalty.
Deregulated means allowing new entrants to compete on service and price. Deregulated doesn't mean getting rid of health and safety regulations.
Ex. Airlines were deregulated. Safety is still regulated by the FAA.
|
On February 25 2013 12:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 11:48 Tarot wrote:On February 25 2013 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post? I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread. Curious how you think the market should be deregulated. Because if I was a medical company, and I know that the Feds are completely out of my hair, I'm just going to straight up dump addictive substances into my drugs. I hear from the tobacco industry that addiction is good for customer loyalty. Deregulated means allowing new entrants to compete on service and price. Deregulated doesn't mean getting rid of health and safety regulations. Ex. Airlines were deregulated. Safety is still regulated by the FAA.
Honest question, so what specific regulations are stopping new entrants from being competitive on price?
|
i really don't understand why the fear of regulation is so huge. it may be an american thing (and no i'm not trying to make an anti-american post or something like that, it's just that most of the posts that share the kind of tone i want to talk about come from american posters) but many posts seem to share the view, that privately run businesses are the heaven of competition and efficiency, and that companies owned by state are run bei lazy monkeys who don't get anything done.
I find it kinda odd that people are still advocating a deregulated market in the healthcare sector. There isn't really any good argument in this thread even after 16 pages , which explains why people who have an accident and need to get treatment fast and are forced to visit the nearest hospital and can't choose between alternatives is not a problem in a free market. Instead people advocating deregulation simply switch to other topics.
Its not like every patient on this planet is treated for cancer, in fact most people who may need medical help may either have had an accident, and in that case you can't choose where to go, or they may have something that requires such simple treatment that driving 60 miles to treat it may be more expensive than just going to the nearest hospital/clinic.
And coming back to state owned/regulated businesses, they're actually doing pretty well. If we for example take the police, or public transport companies, yes they may all be a little bit slow and have some of the typical problems that are associated with state-run organisations, but in fact most of them work pretty reasonably.
It's not like our trains here are all three ours late and crashing into each other just because the "Deutsche-Bahn" is a public corporation.
|
On February 25 2013 12:06 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 12:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 11:48 Tarot wrote:On February 25 2013 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post? I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread. Curious how you think the market should be deregulated. Because if I was a medical company, and I know that the Feds are completely out of my hair, I'm just going to straight up dump addictive substances into my drugs. I hear from the tobacco industry that addiction is good for customer loyalty. Deregulated means allowing new entrants to compete on service and price. Deregulated doesn't mean getting rid of health and safety regulations. Ex. Airlines were deregulated. Safety is still regulated by the FAA. Honest question, so what specific regulations are stopping new entrants from being competitive on price?
It's more restricting new entrants in general than specific restrictions on price.
Ex. States have their own licensing boards which makes it harder for providers to move into other states. Same goes for retail clinics and what they're allowed to provide (regs vary by state, sometimes overly restricted). Most states have "certificate of need" programs (state regulator has to approve major capital expenditures or service changes).
|
On February 25 2013 12:16 Nyxisto wrote:
i really don't understand why the fear of regulation is so huge. it may be an american thing (and no i'm not trying to make an anti-american post or something like that, it's just that most of the posts that share the kind of tone i want to talk about come from american posters) but many posts seem to share the view, that privately run businesses are the heaven of competition and efficiency, and that companies owned by state are run bei lazy monkeys who don't get anything done.
I find it kinda odd that people are still advocating a deregulated market in the healthcare sector. There isn't really any good argument in this thread even after 16 pages , which explains why people who have an accident and need to get treatment fast and are forced to visit the nearest hospital and can't choose between alternatives is not a problem in a free market. Instead people advocating deregulation simply switch to other topics.
Its not like every patient on this planet is treated for cancer, in fact most people who may need medical help may either have had an accident, and in that case you can't choose where to go, or they may have something that requires such simple treatment that driving 60 miles to treat it may be more expensive than just going to the nearest hospital/clinic.
And coming back to state owned/regulated businesses, they're actually doing pretty well. If we for example take the police, or public transport companies, yes they may all be a little bit slow and have some of the typical problems that are associated with state-run organisations, but in fact most of them work pretty reasonably.
It's not like our trains here are all three ours late and crashing into each other just because the "Deutsche-Bahn" is a public corporation.
I completely agree with this post.
As a rhetorical question, why don't doctors themselves take more accountability on the subject of skyrocketing medical costs for their patients? It's not like they have no idea that the people they are treating will suffer tragic consequences from debt. All doctors swear oaths to do no harm. Can an argument be made that doctors do in fact harm their patients when they prescribe those patients treatments they know will cause permanent social/economic harm? Or how about the potential harm those patients may suffer when they decline to seek future treatment because they're still paying for the last drug?
Much like the doctors in the Time article who stood up to the cancer drug company for overcharging and caused it to cut prices by 50% (down to the level of other comparable drugs with comparable effectiveness), maybe there is potential for doctors to make a big difference here? I honestly don't know how I come down on this, but the one thing that I do know is that it seems odd that we ignore the possibility that doctors could maybe make a difference if they took accountability for the cost of the treatments they prescribe.
Edit: I'm not proposing that doctors just decline to treat patients overall if they know those patients are poor. I'm just offering the idea that maybe a visit to the doctor's office should involve a frank discussion that considers the patient's overall economic situation and tries to take that into account when forming a treatment plan (perhaps cutting out some surplus diagnostics or something).
|
On February 25 2013 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 10:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it. Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest. There is no competition to be had in the world of healthcare. The vast, vast majority of patients are involuntary consumers and are not in a position to choose one hospital over another depending on price. I don't think that's accurate. You don't get cancer surgery on a whim you schedule the procedure in advance. If you can demonstrate otherwise I'll gladly change my opinion.
The medical industry is actually very averse to competition. As an involuntary consumer, you don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate and decide what service you want when you need to call an ambulance or run to the emergency room. This is why there is one number to call for emergencies.
Think of a situation where there were two competing hospitals with competing emergency services in the area. For this to work, there would need to be A) a system for individuals calling for an ambulance to pick a hospital to go to while under the duress of the situation, or B) different phone numbers for them to call so they can choose their hospital by virtue of who they call. Both of these are incredibly impractical, and this is why it is set up so that 9-1-1 just gets you an ambulance that goes to a particular hospital. If it weren't set up this way, then competition would be snuffed out by the ambulance service that is lucky enough to be on the receiving end of 9-1-1 calls.
Not all hospitals are equal. Hospitals are set up in a fashion so that their specialties are utilized. If competition were to ensue, then the level 1 trauma centers in a metro area would run all of the other hospitals out of the out-patient business necessary to keep them afloat. This is a similar problem to a privatized school voucher system; you'd force many hospitals out of business, leaving many people in less urban areas with long travel times to get to a hospital. Furthermore, the system is specifically set up in a way to take advantage of this specialization. Hospitals will transfer you to other hospitals that have better particular departments; if you tried to make the system competitive, every hospital would have to have an adequate department for every part of medical healthcare, and this isn't financially feasible, especially for hospitals that aren't in very urban areas.
There is literally nothing about the medical industry that is in favor of privatized, competitive healthcare. You'd end up with some hospitals monopolizing emergency healthcare and others monopolizing everyday out-patient healthcare. Both of these would, no doubt, be necessary for a hospital to survive on a competitive business model. Competitive healthcare is completely illogical and the socialized health systems in every other developed nation that put ours to shame shows us exactly this.
agreed. I dont follow politics too closely, but isnt the mandatory health insurance policy (which I think is socialist, against the constitution, and just plain retarded) supposed to confront some of the hospital bill issues presented in the OP?
It isn't socialist. There is a clear definition of socialism, and if you think "Obamacare" is socialist, you are objectively wrong. You can argue about constitutionality, but don't use BS conservative buzz-phrases to try to demonize policy you don't agree with.
Shit, if Obamacare WAS socialist, it would be a step in the right direction for this country.
|
On February 25 2013 12:16 Nyxisto wrote:
i really don't understand why the fear of regulation is so huge. it may be an american thing (and no i'm not trying to make an anti-american post or something like that, it's just that most of the posts that share the kind of tone i want to talk about come from american posters) but many posts seem to share the view, that privately run businesses are the heaven of competition and efficiency, and that companies owned by state are run bei lazy monkeys who don't get anything done.
I find it kinda odd that people are still advocating a deregulated market in the healthcare sector. There isn't really any good argument in this thread even after 16 pages , which explains why people who have an accident and need to get treatment fast and are forced to visit the nearest hospital and can't choose between alternatives is not a problem in a free market. Instead people advocating deregulation simply switch to other topics.
Its not like every patient on this planet is treated for cancer, in fact most people who may need medical help may either have had an accident, and in that case you can't choose where to go, or they may have something that requires such simple treatment that driving 60 miles to treat it may be more expensive than just going to the nearest hospital/clinic.
And coming back to state owned/regulated businesses, they're actually doing pretty well. If we for example take the police, or public transport companies, yes they may all be a little bit slow and have some of the typical problems that are associated with state-run organisations, but in fact most of them work pretty reasonably.
It's not like our trains here are all three ours late and crashing into each other just because the "Deutsche-Bahn" is a public corporation.
The argument that government is inefficient is an extremely popular belief for one of the two major parties here in the US, which constantly argues for deregulation and less government spending (aside from military/defense spending). The logic behind it is usually ass-backwards, but they spin it really well through repetition to the point that a lot of people just take it as fact that government is inherently really inefficient at doing anything. This same party then uses stall tactics whenever they're not in power, proving to all their constituents (who still aren't pay much attention aside from listening to highly partisan pundits who espouse the same beliefs) that government can't get anything done because its just so damn inefficient. The solution is apparently to set us back to the guilded age with deregulation.
|
On February 25 2013 12:47 Gonff wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 12:16 Nyxisto wrote:
i really don't understand why the fear of regulation is so huge. it may be an american thing (and no i'm not trying to make an anti-american post or something like that, it's just that most of the posts that share the kind of tone i want to talk about come from american posters) but many posts seem to share the view, that privately run businesses are the heaven of competition and efficiency, and that companies owned by state are run bei lazy monkeys who don't get anything done.
I find it kinda odd that people are still advocating a deregulated market in the healthcare sector. There isn't really any good argument in this thread even after 16 pages , which explains why people who have an accident and need to get treatment fast and are forced to visit the nearest hospital and can't choose between alternatives is not a problem in a free market. Instead people advocating deregulation simply switch to other topics.
Its not like every patient on this planet is treated for cancer, in fact most people who may need medical help may either have had an accident, and in that case you can't choose where to go, or they may have something that requires such simple treatment that driving 60 miles to treat it may be more expensive than just going to the nearest hospital/clinic.
And coming back to state owned/regulated businesses, they're actually doing pretty well. If we for example take the police, or public transport companies, yes they may all be a little bit slow and have some of the typical problems that are associated with state-run organisations, but in fact most of them work pretty reasonably.
It's not like our trains here are all three ours late and crashing into each other just because the "Deutsche-Bahn" is a public corporation. I completely agree with this post. As a rhetorical question, why don't doctors themselves take more accountability on the subject of skyrocketing medical costs for their patients? It's not like they have no idea that the people they are treating will suffer tragic consequences from debt. All doctors swear oaths to do no harm. Can an argument be made that doctors do in fact harm their patients when they prescribe those patients treatments they know will cause permanent social/economic harm? Or how about the potential harm those patients may suffer when they decline to seek future treatment because they're still paying for the last drug? Much like the doctors in the Time article who stood up to the cancer drug company for overcharging and caused it to cut prices by 50% (down to the level of other comparable drugs with comparable effectiveness), maybe there is potential for doctors to make a big difference here? I honestly don't know how I come down on this, but the one thing that I do know is that it seems odd that we ignore the possibility that doctors could maybe make a difference if they took accountability for the cost of the treatments they prescribe. Edit: I'm not proposing that doctors just decline to treat patients overall if they know those patients are poor. I'm just offering the idea that maybe a visit to the doctor's office should involve a frank discussion that considers the patient's overall economic situation and tries to take that into account when forming a treatment plan (perhaps cutting out some surplus diagnostics or something).
I think one problem is that doctors don't necessarily know how to run hospitals well.
Atul Gawande has written a lot on it. I read his book "The Checklist Manifesto" back in B-school and a some of his articles too.
|
On February 25 2013 13:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it. Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest. There is no competition to be had in the world of healthcare. The vast, vast majority of patients are involuntary consumers and are not in a position to choose one hospital over another depending on price. I don't think that's accurate. You don't get cancer surgery on a whim you schedule the procedure in advance. If you can demonstrate otherwise I'll gladly change my opinion. The medical industry is actually very averse to competition. As an involuntary consumer, you don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate and decide what service you want when you need to call an ambulance or run to the emergency room. This is why there is one number to call for emergencies. Think of a situation where there were two competing hospitals with competing emergency services in the area. For this to work, there would need to be A) a system for individuals calling for an ambulance to pick a hospital to go to while under the duress of the situation, or B) different phone numbers for them to call so they can choose their hospital by virtue of who they call. Both of these are incredibly impractical, and this is why it is set up so that 9-1-1 just gets you an ambulance that goes to a particular hospital. If it weren't set up this way, then competition would be snuffed out by the ambulance service that is lucky enough to be on the receiving end of 9-1-1 calls. Furthermore, not all hospitals are equal. Hospitals are set up in a fashion so that their specialties are utilized. If competition were to ensue, then the level 1 trauma centers in a metro area would run all of the other hospitals out of the out-patient business necessary to keep them afloat. This is a similar problem to a privatized school voucher system; you'd force many hospitals out of business, leaving many people in less urban areas with long travel times to get to a hospital. There is literally nothing about the medical industry that is in favor of privatized, competitive healthcare. You'd end up with some hospitals monopolizing emergency healthcare and others monopolizing everyday out-patient healthcare. Both of these would, no doubt, be necessary for a hospital to survive on a competitive business model. Competitive healthcare is completely illogical and the socialized health systems in every other developed nation that put ours to shame shows us exactly this.
No one is arguing for competition during 911 calls. Quit being stupid.
|
On February 25 2013 13:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 13:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it. Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest. There is no competition to be had in the world of healthcare. The vast, vast majority of patients are involuntary consumers and are not in a position to choose one hospital over another depending on price. I don't think that's accurate. You don't get cancer surgery on a whim you schedule the procedure in advance. If you can demonstrate otherwise I'll gladly change my opinion. The medical industry is actually very averse to competition. As an involuntary consumer, you don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate and decide what service you want when you need to call an ambulance or run to the emergency room. This is why there is one number to call for emergencies. Think of a situation where there were two competing hospitals with competing emergency services in the area. For this to work, there would need to be A) a system for individuals calling for an ambulance to pick a hospital to go to while under the duress of the situation, or B) different phone numbers for them to call so they can choose their hospital by virtue of who they call. Both of these are incredibly impractical, and this is why it is set up so that 9-1-1 just gets you an ambulance that goes to a particular hospital. If it weren't set up this way, then competition would be snuffed out by the ambulance service that is lucky enough to be on the receiving end of 9-1-1 calls. Furthermore, not all hospitals are equal. Hospitals are set up in a fashion so that their specialties are utilized. If competition were to ensue, then the level 1 trauma centers in a metro area would run all of the other hospitals out of the out-patient business necessary to keep them afloat. This is a similar problem to a privatized school voucher system; you'd force many hospitals out of business, leaving many people in less urban areas with long travel times to get to a hospital. There is literally nothing about the medical industry that is in favor of privatized, competitive healthcare. You'd end up with some hospitals monopolizing emergency healthcare and others monopolizing everyday out-patient healthcare. Both of these would, no doubt, be necessary for a hospital to survive on a competitive business model. Competitive healthcare is completely illogical and the socialized health systems in every other developed nation that put ours to shame shows us exactly this. No one is arguing for competition during 911 calls. Quit being stupid.
You didn't read my post. If there is no competition on 9-1-1 calls, then one or two hospitals would get a monopoly on emergency ambulance care, which would, then and there, run many hospitals out of business. Functioning healthcare systems that are good for the consumer are, by their very nature, anti-competitive.
|
On February 25 2013 12:47 Gonff wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 12:16 Nyxisto wrote:
i really don't understand why the fear of regulation is so huge. it may be an american thing (and no i'm not trying to make an anti-american post or something like that, it's just that most of the posts that share the kind of tone i want to talk about come from american posters) but many posts seem to share the view, that privately run businesses are the heaven of competition and efficiency, and that companies owned by state are run bei lazy monkeys who don't get anything done.
I find it kinda odd that people are still advocating a deregulated market in the healthcare sector. There isn't really any good argument in this thread even after 16 pages , which explains why people who have an accident and need to get treatment fast and are forced to visit the nearest hospital and can't choose between alternatives is not a problem in a free market. Instead people advocating deregulation simply switch to other topics.
Its not like every patient on this planet is treated for cancer, in fact most people who may need medical help may either have had an accident, and in that case you can't choose where to go, or they may have something that requires such simple treatment that driving 60 miles to treat it may be more expensive than just going to the nearest hospital/clinic.
And coming back to state owned/regulated businesses, they're actually doing pretty well. If we for example take the police, or public transport companies, yes they may all be a little bit slow and have some of the typical problems that are associated with state-run organisations, but in fact most of them work pretty reasonably.
It's not like our trains here are all three ours late and crashing into each other just because the "Deutsche-Bahn" is a public corporation. I completely agree with this post. As a rhetorical question, why don't doctors themselves take more accountability on the subject of skyrocketing medical costs for their patients? It's not like they have no idea that the people they are treating will suffer tragic consequences from debt. All doctors swear oaths to do no harm. Can an argument be made that doctors do in fact harm their patients when they prescribe those patients treatments they know will cause permanent social/economic harm? Or how about the potential harm those patients may suffer when they decline to seek future treatment because they're still paying for the last drug? Much like the doctors in the Time article who stood up to the cancer drug company for overcharging and caused it to cut prices by 50% (down to the level of other comparable drugs with comparable effectiveness), maybe there is potential for doctors to make a big difference here? I honestly don't know how I come down on this, but the one thing that I do know is that it seems odd that we ignore the possibility that doctors could maybe make a difference if they took accountability for the cost of the treatments they prescribe. Edit: I'm not proposing that doctors just decline to treat patients overall if they know those patients are poor. I'm just offering the idea that maybe a visit to the doctor's office should involve a frank discussion that considers the patient's overall economic situation and tries to take that into account when forming a treatment plan (perhaps cutting out some surplus diagnostics or something).
I agree that more could be done by doctors in this respect. But you can only expect so much from people in a system that so incentivizes them to do the opposite. The system needs to be fixed.
|
On February 25 2013 13:15 Kyrao wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 12:47 Gonff wrote:On February 25 2013 12:16 Nyxisto wrote:
i really don't understand why the fear of regulation is so huge. it may be an american thing (and no i'm not trying to make an anti-american post or something like that, it's just that most of the posts that share the kind of tone i want to talk about come from american posters) but many posts seem to share the view, that privately run businesses are the heaven of competition and efficiency, and that companies owned by state are run bei lazy monkeys who don't get anything done.
I find it kinda odd that people are still advocating a deregulated market in the healthcare sector. There isn't really any good argument in this thread even after 16 pages , which explains why people who have an accident and need to get treatment fast and are forced to visit the nearest hospital and can't choose between alternatives is not a problem in a free market. Instead people advocating deregulation simply switch to other topics.
Its not like every patient on this planet is treated for cancer, in fact most people who may need medical help may either have had an accident, and in that case you can't choose where to go, or they may have something that requires such simple treatment that driving 60 miles to treat it may be more expensive than just going to the nearest hospital/clinic.
And coming back to state owned/regulated businesses, they're actually doing pretty well. If we for example take the police, or public transport companies, yes they may all be a little bit slow and have some of the typical problems that are associated with state-run organisations, but in fact most of them work pretty reasonably.
It's not like our trains here are all three ours late and crashing into each other just because the "Deutsche-Bahn" is a public corporation. I completely agree with this post. As a rhetorical question, why don't doctors themselves take more accountability on the subject of skyrocketing medical costs for their patients? It's not like they have no idea that the people they are treating will suffer tragic consequences from debt. All doctors swear oaths to do no harm. Can an argument be made that doctors do in fact harm their patients when they prescribe those patients treatments they know will cause permanent social/economic harm? Or how about the potential harm those patients may suffer when they decline to seek future treatment because they're still paying for the last drug? Much like the doctors in the Time article who stood up to the cancer drug company for overcharging and caused it to cut prices by 50% (down to the level of other comparable drugs with comparable effectiveness), maybe there is potential for doctors to make a big difference here? I honestly don't know how I come down on this, but the one thing that I do know is that it seems odd that we ignore the possibility that doctors could maybe make a difference if they took accountability for the cost of the treatments they prescribe. Edit: I'm not proposing that doctors just decline to treat patients overall if they know those patients are poor. I'm just offering the idea that maybe a visit to the doctor's office should involve a frank discussion that considers the patient's overall economic situation and tries to take that into account when forming a treatment plan (perhaps cutting out some surplus diagnostics or something). I agree that more could be done by doctors in this respect. But you can only expect so much from people in a system that so incentivizes them to do the opposite. The system needs to be fixed.
Yeah I think you're right on this point. Implementing even just a few of the systemic changes that the article's author suggested would almost certainly make a much greater difference than just telling doctors, "watch out for your patients' finances."
|
On February 25 2013 13:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 13:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 13:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it. Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest. There is no competition to be had in the world of healthcare. The vast, vast majority of patients are involuntary consumers and are not in a position to choose one hospital over another depending on price. I don't think that's accurate. You don't get cancer surgery on a whim you schedule the procedure in advance. If you can demonstrate otherwise I'll gladly change my opinion. The medical industry is actually very averse to competition. As an involuntary consumer, you don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate and decide what service you want when you need to call an ambulance or run to the emergency room. This is why there is one number to call for emergencies. Think of a situation where there were two competing hospitals with competing emergency services in the area. For this to work, there would need to be A) a system for individuals calling for an ambulance to pick a hospital to go to while under the duress of the situation, or B) different phone numbers for them to call so they can choose their hospital by virtue of who they call. Both of these are incredibly impractical, and this is why it is set up so that 9-1-1 just gets you an ambulance that goes to a particular hospital. If it weren't set up this way, then competition would be snuffed out by the ambulance service that is lucky enough to be on the receiving end of 9-1-1 calls. Furthermore, not all hospitals are equal. Hospitals are set up in a fashion so that their specialties are utilized. If competition were to ensue, then the level 1 trauma centers in a metro area would run all of the other hospitals out of the out-patient business necessary to keep them afloat. This is a similar problem to a privatized school voucher system; you'd force many hospitals out of business, leaving many people in less urban areas with long travel times to get to a hospital. There is literally nothing about the medical industry that is in favor of privatized, competitive healthcare. You'd end up with some hospitals monopolizing emergency healthcare and others monopolizing everyday out-patient healthcare. Both of these would, no doubt, be necessary for a hospital to survive on a competitive business model. Competitive healthcare is completely illogical and the socialized health systems in every other developed nation that put ours to shame shows us exactly this. No one is arguing for competition during 911 calls. Quit being stupid. You didn't read my post. If there is no competition on 9-1-1 calls, then one or two hospitals would get a monopoly on emergency ambulance care, which would, then and there, run many hospitals out of business. Functioning healthcare systems that are good for the consumer are, by their very nature, anti-competitive.
Says you. Frankly I don't see how that makes any sense at all.
|
CA10828 Posts
On February 25 2013 13:25 Gonff wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 13:15 Kyrao wrote:On February 25 2013 12:47 Gonff wrote:On February 25 2013 12:16 Nyxisto wrote:
i really don't understand why the fear of regulation is so huge. it may be an american thing (and no i'm not trying to make an anti-american post or something like that, it's just that most of the posts that share the kind of tone i want to talk about come from american posters) but many posts seem to share the view, that privately run businesses are the heaven of competition and efficiency, and that companies owned by state are run bei lazy monkeys who don't get anything done.
I find it kinda odd that people are still advocating a deregulated market in the healthcare sector. There isn't really any good argument in this thread even after 16 pages , which explains why people who have an accident and need to get treatment fast and are forced to visit the nearest hospital and can't choose between alternatives is not a problem in a free market. Instead people advocating deregulation simply switch to other topics.
Its not like every patient on this planet is treated for cancer, in fact most people who may need medical help may either have had an accident, and in that case you can't choose where to go, or they may have something that requires such simple treatment that driving 60 miles to treat it may be more expensive than just going to the nearest hospital/clinic.
And coming back to state owned/regulated businesses, they're actually doing pretty well. If we for example take the police, or public transport companies, yes they may all be a little bit slow and have some of the typical problems that are associated with state-run organisations, but in fact most of them work pretty reasonably.
It's not like our trains here are all three ours late and crashing into each other just because the "Deutsche-Bahn" is a public corporation. I completely agree with this post. As a rhetorical question, why don't doctors themselves take more accountability on the subject of skyrocketing medical costs for their patients? It's not like they have no idea that the people they are treating will suffer tragic consequences from debt. All doctors swear oaths to do no harm. Can an argument be made that doctors do in fact harm their patients when they prescribe those patients treatments they know will cause permanent social/economic harm? Or how about the potential harm those patients may suffer when they decline to seek future treatment because they're still paying for the last drug? Much like the doctors in the Time article who stood up to the cancer drug company for overcharging and caused it to cut prices by 50% (down to the level of other comparable drugs with comparable effectiveness), maybe there is potential for doctors to make a big difference here? I honestly don't know how I come down on this, but the one thing that I do know is that it seems odd that we ignore the possibility that doctors could maybe make a difference if they took accountability for the cost of the treatments they prescribe. Edit: I'm not proposing that doctors just decline to treat patients overall if they know those patients are poor. I'm just offering the idea that maybe a visit to the doctor's office should involve a frank discussion that considers the patient's overall economic situation and tries to take that into account when forming a treatment plan (perhaps cutting out some surplus diagnostics or something). I agree that more could be done by doctors in this respect. But you can only expect so much from people in a system that so incentivizes them to do the opposite. The system needs to be fixed. Yeah I think you're right on this point. Implementing even just a few of the systemic changes that the article's author suggested would almost certainly make a much greater difference than just telling doctors, "watch out for your patients' finances."
doctors don't like practicing defensive medicine either but it's necessary unless you want to be on the losing end of a lot of lawsuits.
|
On February 25 2013 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 13:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 13:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 13:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it. Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest. There is no competition to be had in the world of healthcare. The vast, vast majority of patients are involuntary consumers and are not in a position to choose one hospital over another depending on price. I don't think that's accurate. You don't get cancer surgery on a whim you schedule the procedure in advance. If you can demonstrate otherwise I'll gladly change my opinion. The medical industry is actually very averse to competition. As an involuntary consumer, you don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate and decide what service you want when you need to call an ambulance or run to the emergency room. This is why there is one number to call for emergencies. Think of a situation where there were two competing hospitals with competing emergency services in the area. For this to work, there would need to be A) a system for individuals calling for an ambulance to pick a hospital to go to while under the duress of the situation, or B) different phone numbers for them to call so they can choose their hospital by virtue of who they call. Both of these are incredibly impractical, and this is why it is set up so that 9-1-1 just gets you an ambulance that goes to a particular hospital. If it weren't set up this way, then competition would be snuffed out by the ambulance service that is lucky enough to be on the receiving end of 9-1-1 calls. Furthermore, not all hospitals are equal. Hospitals are set up in a fashion so that their specialties are utilized. If competition were to ensue, then the level 1 trauma centers in a metro area would run all of the other hospitals out of the out-patient business necessary to keep them afloat. This is a similar problem to a privatized school voucher system; you'd force many hospitals out of business, leaving many people in less urban areas with long travel times to get to a hospital. There is literally nothing about the medical industry that is in favor of privatized, competitive healthcare. You'd end up with some hospitals monopolizing emergency healthcare and others monopolizing everyday out-patient healthcare. Both of these would, no doubt, be necessary for a hospital to survive on a competitive business model. Competitive healthcare is completely illogical and the socialized health systems in every other developed nation that put ours to shame shows us exactly this. No one is arguing for competition during 911 calls. Quit being stupid. You didn't read my post. If there is no competition on 9-1-1 calls, then one or two hospitals would get a monopoly on emergency ambulance care, which would, then and there, run many hospitals out of business. Functioning healthcare systems that are good for the consumer are, by their very nature, anti-competitive. Says you. Frankly I don't see how that makes any sense at all.
"Here, I am going to just give you a complete monopoly on a very large chunk of the healthcare market (emergency care)".
I don't see how this is hard to understand. It's like giving, say, FOX, a complete monopoly on news, comedy, and drama TV series. Just by virtue of having that monopoly, it would already squash most competition. If you're trying to be a competitive hospital in an area where a different hospital has a monopoly on emergency care, how do you survive without such a large chunk of revenue?
Oh, and you still haven't addressed anything else in my first post explaining this.
Even if you somehow jump all of the hurdles that I've mentioned, you still have to explain a single reason to prefer a competitive, privatized healthcare system (the only attempt in a developed world being a complete failure; see our healthcare system) compared to socialized, public healthcare (which, by pretty much all accounts, is incredibly successful and cheap). Why choose the incredibly difficult option when socialized healthcare is just better?
|
|
|
On February 25 2013 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 13:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 13:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 13:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play.
In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it. Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest. There is no competition to be had in the world of healthcare. The vast, vast majority of patients are involuntary consumers and are not in a position to choose one hospital over another depending on price. I don't think that's accurate. You don't get cancer surgery on a whim you schedule the procedure in advance. If you can demonstrate otherwise I'll gladly change my opinion. The medical industry is actually very averse to competition. As an involuntary consumer, you don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate and decide what service you want when you need to call an ambulance or run to the emergency room. This is why there is one number to call for emergencies. Think of a situation where there were two competing hospitals with competing emergency services in the area. For this to work, there would need to be A) a system for individuals calling for an ambulance to pick a hospital to go to while under the duress of the situation, or B) different phone numbers for them to call so they can choose their hospital by virtue of who they call. Both of these are incredibly impractical, and this is why it is set up so that 9-1-1 just gets you an ambulance that goes to a particular hospital. If it weren't set up this way, then competition would be snuffed out by the ambulance service that is lucky enough to be on the receiving end of 9-1-1 calls. Furthermore, not all hospitals are equal. Hospitals are set up in a fashion so that their specialties are utilized. If competition were to ensue, then the level 1 trauma centers in a metro area would run all of the other hospitals out of the out-patient business necessary to keep them afloat. This is a similar problem to a privatized school voucher system; you'd force many hospitals out of business, leaving many people in less urban areas with long travel times to get to a hospital. There is literally nothing about the medical industry that is in favor of privatized, competitive healthcare. You'd end up with some hospitals monopolizing emergency healthcare and others monopolizing everyday out-patient healthcare. Both of these would, no doubt, be necessary for a hospital to survive on a competitive business model. Competitive healthcare is completely illogical and the socialized health systems in every other developed nation that put ours to shame shows us exactly this. No one is arguing for competition during 911 calls. Quit being stupid. You didn't read my post. If there is no competition on 9-1-1 calls, then one or two hospitals would get a monopoly on emergency ambulance care, which would, then and there, run many hospitals out of business. Functioning healthcare systems that are good for the consumer are, by their very nature, anti-competitive. Says you. Frankly I don't see how that makes any sense at all. "Here, I am going to just give you a complete monopoly on a very large chunk of the healthcare market (emergency care)". I don't see how this is hard to understand. It's like giving, say, FOX, a complete monopoly on news, comedy, and drama TV series. Just by virtue of having that monopoly, it would already squash most competition. If you're trying to be a competitive hospital in an area where a different hospital has a monopoly on emergency care, how do you survive without such a large chunk of revenue? Oh, and you still haven't addressed anything else in my first post explaining this. Even if you somehow jump all of the hurdles that I've mentioned, you still have to explain a single reason to prefer a competitive, privatized healthcare system (the only attempt in a developed world being a complete failure; see our healthcare system) compared to socialized, public healthcare (which, by pretty much all accounts, is incredibly successful and cheap). Why choose the incredibly difficult option when socialized healthcare is just better?
The problem is that you are making suppositions without any data to back it up.
If 911 monopoly was enough to quash new entrants than there would be no need to block new entrants (or existing players from expanding). So your completely lacking in data guesswork is wrong. Completely utterly wrong. Ex. Why do retail health clinics want to exist when they don't have access to the 911 monopoly?
As for the socialized healthcare alternative I've already said that I'd be fine with it. I'm simply pointing out that a competitive system would work too. And no we don't have one, so stop that BS.
|
As a rhetorical question, why don't doctors themselves take more accountability on the subject of skyrocketing medical costs for their patients? It's not like they have no idea that the people they are treating will suffer tragic consequences from debt. All doctors swear oaths to do no harm. Can an argument be made that doctors do in fact harm their patients when they prescribe those patients treatments they know will cause permanent social/economic harm? Or how about the potential harm those patients may suffer when they decline to seek future treatment because they're still paying for the last drug?
Often times the doctors are totally disconnected from the billing process. I know those of us talking here rarely see the actual price of our prescriptions and hospital visits; how is it any more difficult to suppose that doctors (in general) know here and there what is expensive and what is not, but in no direct way. They are paid by the hospital for their services, and perform what they studied to do on patients. No boogeyman here.
I join with others (or one other) in this thread proposing a deregulated industry--in modern parlance, a lightly regulated one. Insurers can be shopped for to provide benefits specific to the consumer free of the heavy hand of government describing in detail what insurance can and cannot cover and how they can do it. We got into the nitty gritty of it in this recent election season with the mandate that employer health insurance must cover the costs of contraceptives. Hospitals and doctors same thing; prices posted up front, payment plans available etc. We're not equating this with competing on a 911 call during the drive. Emergency rooms already have certain laws governing them too. Same thing with costs of insurance with prior conditions: requiring insurance companies to cover it without respecting the risk pool in terms of cost, leading to increases in costs across the board (in United States and elsewhere, known as community ratings. PPACA delves into it). This also creates the moral hazard of engaging in extremely risky behavior and knowing that you can find insurance immediately prior to any resulting operations/hospitalizations, where insurers cannot refuse you or greatly elevate the prices based on it.
Ignored also in this is one area that has shown the fruits of when competition is allowed in the market. Laser eye surgery centers have steadily declined in cost and increased in quality through the years. Obama's second cousin, once removed, Dr. Milton R Wolf said it right, back when Obamacare was grabbing headlings all over.
“Primum nil nocere.”First, do no harm. This guiding principle is a bedrock of medical care. Sadly, those politicians who would rewrite our health care laws do not live in the same universe as do the doctors and health care professionals who must practice it.
Imagine if, like physicians, politicians were personally held to the incredibly high level of scrutiny that includes civil and financial liability for any unintended consequence of their decisions. Imagine if they were forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars each year on malpractice insurance and still faced the threat of multimillion-dollar lawsuits with every single decision they made. If so, a government takeover of health care would be the furthest thing from their minds.
Obamacare proponents would have us believe that we will add 30 million patients to the system without adding providers, we will see no decline in the quality of care for the millions of Americans currently happy with the system, and -if you act now!- we will save money in the process. But why stop there? Why not promise it will no longer rain on weekends and every day will be a great hair day?
America has the finest health care delivery system in the world. Let’s not forget that and put it at risk in the name of reform. Desperate souls across the globe flock to our shores and cross our borders every day to seek our care. Why? Our system provides cures while the government-run systems from which they flee do not. Compare Europe’s common cancer mortality rates to America’s: breast cancer - 52 percent higher in Germany and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom; prostate cancer - a staggering 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway; colon cancer - 40 percent higher in the United Kingdom.
[...]
This free-market approach has worked for everything from high-definition TVs to breakfast cereals, but will it work for medicine? It already is. Take Lasik eye surgery, for example. Because patients are allowed to be informed consumers and can shop anywhere, doctors work hard for their business. Services, availability and expertise have all increased, and costs have decreased. Should consumers demand it, insurance companies - now answerable to you rather than your employer - would cover it.
This is discussion happening 3 years ago. How do we govern responsibly to assure America stays the best in the business with health care quality and delivery? By stopping the march towards those federal policies proven to result in a lack of availability and a decrease in quality of the care.
|
On February 25 2013 13:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 13:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 13:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 13:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:
[quote]
Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it.
Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest. There is no competition to be had in the world of healthcare. The vast, vast majority of patients are involuntary consumers and are not in a position to choose one hospital over another depending on price. I don't think that's accurate. You don't get cancer surgery on a whim you schedule the procedure in advance. If you can demonstrate otherwise I'll gladly change my opinion. The medical industry is actually very averse to competition. As an involuntary consumer, you don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate and decide what service you want when you need to call an ambulance or run to the emergency room. This is why there is one number to call for emergencies. Think of a situation where there were two competing hospitals with competing emergency services in the area. For this to work, there would need to be A) a system for individuals calling for an ambulance to pick a hospital to go to while under the duress of the situation, or B) different phone numbers for them to call so they can choose their hospital by virtue of who they call. Both of these are incredibly impractical, and this is why it is set up so that 9-1-1 just gets you an ambulance that goes to a particular hospital. If it weren't set up this way, then competition would be snuffed out by the ambulance service that is lucky enough to be on the receiving end of 9-1-1 calls. Furthermore, not all hospitals are equal. Hospitals are set up in a fashion so that their specialties are utilized. If competition were to ensue, then the level 1 trauma centers in a metro area would run all of the other hospitals out of the out-patient business necessary to keep them afloat. This is a similar problem to a privatized school voucher system; you'd force many hospitals out of business, leaving many people in less urban areas with long travel times to get to a hospital. There is literally nothing about the medical industry that is in favor of privatized, competitive healthcare. You'd end up with some hospitals monopolizing emergency healthcare and others monopolizing everyday out-patient healthcare. Both of these would, no doubt, be necessary for a hospital to survive on a competitive business model. Competitive healthcare is completely illogical and the socialized health systems in every other developed nation that put ours to shame shows us exactly this. No one is arguing for competition during 911 calls. Quit being stupid. You didn't read my post. If there is no competition on 9-1-1 calls, then one or two hospitals would get a monopoly on emergency ambulance care, which would, then and there, run many hospitals out of business. Functioning healthcare systems that are good for the consumer are, by their very nature, anti-competitive. Says you. Frankly I don't see how that makes any sense at all. "Here, I am going to just give you a complete monopoly on a very large chunk of the healthcare market (emergency care)". I don't see how this is hard to understand. It's like giving, say, FOX, a complete monopoly on news, comedy, and drama TV series. Just by virtue of having that monopoly, it would already squash most competition. If you're trying to be a competitive hospital in an area where a different hospital has a monopoly on emergency care, how do you survive without such a large chunk of revenue? Oh, and you still haven't addressed anything else in my first post explaining this. Even if you somehow jump all of the hurdles that I've mentioned, you still have to explain a single reason to prefer a competitive, privatized healthcare system (the only attempt in a developed world being a complete failure; see our healthcare system) compared to socialized, public healthcare (which, by pretty much all accounts, is incredibly successful and cheap). Why choose the incredibly difficult option when socialized healthcare is just better? The problem is that you are making suppositions without any data to back it up. If 911 monopoly was enough to quash new entrants than there would be no need to block new entrants (or existing players from expanding). So your completely lacking in data guesswork is wrong. Completely utterly wrong. Ex. Why do retail health clinics want to exist when they don't have access to the 911 monopoly? As for the socialized healthcare alternative I've already said that I'd be fine with it. I'm simply pointing out that a competitive system would work too. And no we don't have one, so stop that BS.
This assumption is entirely wrong. There are a number of reasons to block new entrants, even if 9-1-1 monopoly would be enough to severely discourage competition. Regulation and system efficiency is one big reason.
Skipping all of that, address a really big point; we're talking about the problem of excessive costs of healthcare. Emergency healthcare is INCREDIBLY expensive (over $900 for an ambulance ride when I was getting trained as an EMT two years ago). How are these prices going to go down if the emergency medicine monopoly is maintained, as you have even admitted it would be?
I don't think that many people are going to argue that the free market would completely fail the healthcare industry in every aspect. The problem is that some key parts of the industry (emergency care being an example) can't operate efficiently under a free market system, and for the parts that would work under a free market system to actually work, they would have to be incredibly convoluted.
We know that socialized healthcare works and that it works very well. the ideologues in this thread and throughout the States that hate socialized healthcare because of the word "socialized" have consistently failed to give us a reason as to why we shouldn't use a system of healthcare that, throughout the developed world, is working better than ours in pretty much every single way. Freedom? You already have little to no freedom in healthcare. Economics? We already spend significantly more than any other country on healthcare. Waiting times? Only happen when it isn't actually an emergency; random anecdotal evidence is merely faulty inductive logic. Constitutionality? The Constitution can be changed; the purpose is to serve the people, and if socialized healthcare serves the people best, there's no reason to limit ourselves just because a piece of paper doesn't permit it (hell, it should be changed; it's incredibly outdated and woefully ill-equipped for contemporary needs). The only people that don't benefit from socialized healthcare as much as our system are the super-rich that want to get the the absolute best doctors/experimental treatments basically at-will. I think before we even continue this discussion, we need to address that; if there is a system out there that is blatantly better than ours, why are we avoiding it like the plague?
Oh, and it may not be entirely free market now, but our healthcare system is the evolution of an attempt at free market healthcare when healthcare was first becoming a real industry. So yes, this is the result of an attempt at the market handling it. Regulations are the result of us attempting to fix the faults in the market.
TL;DR
We need a reason to prefer free-market healthcare over socialized medicine. We don't have one yet.
|
On February 25 2013 14:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 13:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 13:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 13:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 13:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest. There is no competition to be had in the world of healthcare. The vast, vast majority of patients are involuntary consumers and are not in a position to choose one hospital over another depending on price. I don't think that's accurate. You don't get cancer surgery on a whim you schedule the procedure in advance. If you can demonstrate otherwise I'll gladly change my opinion. The medical industry is actually very averse to competition. As an involuntary consumer, you don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate and decide what service you want when you need to call an ambulance or run to the emergency room. This is why there is one number to call for emergencies. Think of a situation where there were two competing hospitals with competing emergency services in the area. For this to work, there would need to be A) a system for individuals calling for an ambulance to pick a hospital to go to while under the duress of the situation, or B) different phone numbers for them to call so they can choose their hospital by virtue of who they call. Both of these are incredibly impractical, and this is why it is set up so that 9-1-1 just gets you an ambulance that goes to a particular hospital. If it weren't set up this way, then competition would be snuffed out by the ambulance service that is lucky enough to be on the receiving end of 9-1-1 calls. Furthermore, not all hospitals are equal. Hospitals are set up in a fashion so that their specialties are utilized. If competition were to ensue, then the level 1 trauma centers in a metro area would run all of the other hospitals out of the out-patient business necessary to keep them afloat. This is a similar problem to a privatized school voucher system; you'd force many hospitals out of business, leaving many people in less urban areas with long travel times to get to a hospital. There is literally nothing about the medical industry that is in favor of privatized, competitive healthcare. You'd end up with some hospitals monopolizing emergency healthcare and others monopolizing everyday out-patient healthcare. Both of these would, no doubt, be necessary for a hospital to survive on a competitive business model. Competitive healthcare is completely illogical and the socialized health systems in every other developed nation that put ours to shame shows us exactly this. No one is arguing for competition during 911 calls. Quit being stupid. You didn't read my post. If there is no competition on 9-1-1 calls, then one or two hospitals would get a monopoly on emergency ambulance care, which would, then and there, run many hospitals out of business. Functioning healthcare systems that are good for the consumer are, by their very nature, anti-competitive. Says you. Frankly I don't see how that makes any sense at all. "Here, I am going to just give you a complete monopoly on a very large chunk of the healthcare market (emergency care)". I don't see how this is hard to understand. It's like giving, say, FOX, a complete monopoly on news, comedy, and drama TV series. Just by virtue of having that monopoly, it would already squash most competition. If you're trying to be a competitive hospital in an area where a different hospital has a monopoly on emergency care, how do you survive without such a large chunk of revenue? Oh, and you still haven't addressed anything else in my first post explaining this. Even if you somehow jump all of the hurdles that I've mentioned, you still have to explain a single reason to prefer a competitive, privatized healthcare system (the only attempt in a developed world being a complete failure; see our healthcare system) compared to socialized, public healthcare (which, by pretty much all accounts, is incredibly successful and cheap). Why choose the incredibly difficult option when socialized healthcare is just better? The problem is that you are making suppositions without any data to back it up. If 911 monopoly was enough to quash new entrants than there would be no need to block new entrants (or existing players from expanding). So your completely lacking in data guesswork is wrong. Completely utterly wrong. Ex. Why do retail health clinics want to exist when they don't have access to the 911 monopoly? As for the socialized healthcare alternative I've already said that I'd be fine with it. I'm simply pointing out that a competitive system would work too. And no we don't have one, so stop that BS. This assumption is entirely wrong. There are a number of reasons to block new entrants, even if 9-1-1 monopoly would be enough to severely discourage competition. Regulation and system efficiency is one big reason. Skipping all of that, address a really big point; we're talking about the problem of excessive costs of healthcare. Emergency healthcare is INCREDIBLY expensive (over $900 for an ambulance ride when I was getting trained as an EMT two years ago). How are these prices going to go down if the emergency medicine monopoly is maintained, as you have even admitted it would be? I don't think that many people are going to argue that the free market would completely fail the healthcare industry in every aspect. The problem is that some key parts of the industry (emergency care being an example) can't operate efficiently under a free market system, and for the parts that would work under a free market system to actually work, they would have to be incredibly convoluted. We know that socialized healthcare works and that it works very well. What justifiable reason is there to not use this system then?
If the real cost of an ambulance ride is $900 changing to a socialized healthcare system won't change that fact.
The only way to save money is to change how things are done.
Ex. A single payer system can save on admin costs - only one payer.
Let me readdress this monopoly point. My cable company has a monopoly. Yet if enough of us don't like the service we can demand a new cable company take over. Different cable companies exist and their services and prices are transparent. That makes informed decisions possible (a good thing). In other words monopolies need not be static things. They can exist if necessary but can change and evolve when necessary.
All aspects of a free market in healthcare would fail? Really? Even the parts that are completely successful now (laser eye surgery, non Rx drugs, etc.)?
Edit:Oh, and it may not be entirely free market now, but our healthcare system is the evolution of an attempt at free market healthcare when healthcare was first becoming a real industry. So yes, this is the result of an attempt at the market handling it. Regulations are the result of us attempting to fix the faults in the market.
No, no, no. Look at the history of the system. It wasn't always a costly mess. Things have slowly been getting costlier and costlier slowly over time. It's an industry that's been allowed to get bloated. And what do you think allowed that bloat? Market forces? Hell even the basis of healthcare finance, employer paid insurance, is an accident of history - employers used it as a work around to wage controls during WW2.
|
The entire topic has a lot of moving parts, but it's really not hard to explain in the USA. It comes down to 3 things:
1) We like our new, shiny stuff. (I believe, all else being equal, it drives something like 10% of our cost inflation compared to everyone else)
2) Lawyers and the response to Lawyers. (Overly cautious doctors, especially the surgeons. Defensive medical testing and a push to treatments with directly verifiable outcomes)
3) State & Federal Legislation.
But it's really the regulations. People are trying to downplay it, but that's really the name of the game. People respond to incentives, and sub-groups respond to further increase the incentives for themselves.
There are different insurance requirements for every State. You don't need Chiropractic coverage? Well, doesn't matter, you have to have it. Your subfield wants to make more money? Force everyone to carry coverage. Nurses not being paid "enough"? Increase requirements to 4 year degrees that serve no purpose. GP's business threatened by Walk-in Clinics and Nurse Practioners? Eliminate Walk-in Clinics and require a NP to work under a GP.
There was money in the water and it really wasn't the Patients, it's the Insurance company's. Finding a way to bill them more is the name of the game for companies that deliver medical services.
The end result is very, very real costs, but the system has gotten badly inefficient because you can't buy "Insurance". What you're buying is managed, pre-paid "I might need X, Y or Z" medical services. So, of course its expensive. And they'll change the regulations next year for billing (or, every year, really), so there's an entire sub-industry around explaining the new rules to everyone.
And the initial "cause" of all of this was the tax preference for employer-bought health insurance. Given the nature of the Middle Class, especially under Income Tax system in several time frames, taking extra money in Health Care benefits was a wise move, from a value point of view. Back when health insurance had a legitimate value curve. So, *everyone* was responding to incentives. Once Insurance became the major source of medical dollars, the interest groups worked hard on all of the States Legislatures to cover X, Y or Z treatments as requirements in all insurances.
So the truth is the only way to "unwind" the issue is to blow up much of the protectionist regulation. And not just a small amount, but a lot of them. And, good luck on that. You can't fix the system when the system itself wants to be the way it is. You'll all complain and still pay because every interest is aligned against it.
|
Oh, and from personal experience, the "coincerge" or "off-the-gird" doctors are great. The office has exactly 1 person that deals with all paper work and scheduling, yet the place is hopping. Costs are completely transparent and upfront. (And you can still bill your insurance on the backside, you just have to pay up front)
It's also nice to be treated as the person paying. They really do treat you very well, as they want your service again.
|
If the real cost of an ambulance ride is $900 changing to a socialized healthcare system won't change that fact.
We all know it isn't, but what you're proposing wouldn't change that price.
The only way to save money is to change how things are done.
And that's what we're proposing. Our system really isn't socialized much at all. Socialized systems have been proven to work better at much cheaper prices.
Ex. A single payer system can save on admin costs - only one payer.
Let me readdress this monopoly point. My cable company has a monopoly. Yet if enough of us don't like the service we can demand a new cable company take over. Different cable companies exist and their services and prices are transparent. That makes informed decisions possible (a good thing). In other words monopolies need not be static things. They can exist if necessary but can change and evolve when necessary.
And the situation with cable is completely different from healthcare. Healthcare customers are involuntary customers that have little to now power in their market (even less than cable customers).
All aspects of a free market in healthcare would fail? Really? Even the parts that are completely successful now (laser eye surgery, non Rx drugs, etc.)?
Good thing I didn't say that. You need to stop being such an ass and READ MY POSTS.
The history argument is irrelevant to the point discussed.
|
On February 25 2013 14:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
If the real cost of an ambulance ride is $900 changing to a socialized healthcare system won't change that fact.
We all know it isn't, but what you're proposing wouldn't change that price.
Sure it would. More suppliers in the market, particularly new entrants would lead to new ways of providing services. It doesn't mean that every ambulance ride in every market would fall in price. But some would, and that would put pressure, over time, throughout the system.
And that's what we're proposing. Our system really isn't socialized much at all. Socialized systems have been proven to work better at much cheaper prices.
Sure, they work much better than a system where an industry can essentially dictate it's own cost structure. That's not saying a whole lot but I'm not arguing it either.
Show nested quote +
Ex. A single payer system can save on admin costs - only one payer.
Let me readdress this monopoly point. My cable company has a monopoly. Yet if enough of us don't like the service we can demand a new cable company take over. Different cable companies exist and their services and prices are transparent. That makes informed decisions possible (a good thing). In other words monopolies need not be static things. They can exist if necessary but can change and evolve when necessary.
And the situation with cable is completely different from healthcare. Healthcare customers are involuntary customers that have little to now power in their market (even less than cable customers).
Some are, but some is not all. You keep going round and round this point. Just because 911 service exists and is a good thing does not justify all the other regulatory baggage that exists. Healthcare is not a this or that thing, parts can be this parts can be that. You can have government regulated universal coverage for emergency care only and leave the rest to a less regulated system if you chose.
Show nested quote +
All aspects of a free market in healthcare would fail? Really? Even the parts that are completely successful now (laser eye surgery, non Rx drugs, etc.)?
Good thing I didn't say that. You need to stop being such an ass and READ MY POSTS.
OK, misread you there. My bad.
The history argument is irrelevant to the point discussed.
No it isn't. You are saying that the US system is a "free market system" as evidence that market reforms won't work. The regulatory nightmare that exists today is neither a free market system itself nor is it a response to free market failures.
|
Historical US healthcare costs in brief:
US system used to be comparable in terms of cost. That changed slowly over time:
+ Show Spoiler +
Link
As costs have risen they've been pushed away from consumers to the government and tax-free employer sponsored insurance (see: orange bar "out of pocket"):
+ Show Spoiler +
Link
Ever wonder why your employer doesn't want to give a nice guy like you a raise? He already thinks he did (typical B-schoolers are jerks like that) due to rising healthcare costs (if you don't have insurance than continue to think he's a jerk, or do so regardless - it's all in fun):
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 25 2013 15:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 14:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If the real cost of an ambulance ride is $900 changing to a socialized healthcare system won't change that fact.
We all know it isn't, but what you're proposing wouldn't change that price. Sure it would. More suppliers in the market, particularly new entrants would lead to new ways of providing services. It doesn't mean that every ambulance ride in every market would fall in price. But some would, and that would put pressure, over time, throughout the system.
We've already been over this. You admitted that it would be ridiculous to try to put competition into emergency medicine, and so that wouldn't be there to drive costs down.
Sure, they work much better than a system where an industry can essentially dictate it's own cost structure. That's not saying a whole lot but I'm not arguing it either.
The problem is that you're trying to argue that a market that is unique when compared to the vast majority of other markets can somehow work in the same fashion as these markets and turn out a better product at cheaper prices for the consumer. That's kind of a stretch. Furthermore, You have yet to provide a reason as to why a competitive market would be preferable to socialized healthcare.
Some are, but some is not all. You keep going round and round this point. Just because 911 service exists and is a good thing does not justify all the other regulatory baggage that exists. Healthcare is not a this or that thing, parts can be this parts can be that. You can have government regulated universal coverage for emergency care only and leave the rest to a less regulated system if you chose.
Again, unnecessary and convoluted. Why split the system into privatized and socialized? Where is the proof that it will be any good at all? We have plenty of proof that a socialized system can work very well. Burden of proof is on you to show that a market system will actually be a benefit compared to a socialized one. IF I granted that all your theories were correct, of course it would be better than what we have now; almost anything would be. However, we're not looking for "better than now", we're looking for "the best that's reasonably possible". Socialized medicine provides top quality healthcare at cheap prices with little to no drawbacks (should your government actually manage their budget correctly). Furthermore, I think you're underestimating how many patients are "involuntary consumers".
No it isn't. You are saying that the US system is a "free market system" as evidence that market reforms won't work. The regulatory nightmare that exists today is neither a free market system itself nor is it a response to free market failures.
It is irrelevant because no point will be brought out of this discussion that we can't already get from anything else (if a point is brought out at all). It's unnecessary banter.
|
On February 25 2013 05:25 Sated wrote:
Number one reason I won't relocate to America, right here. For all its flaws, I wouldn't trade the NHS for the world.
Don't worry, if you're an illegal immigrant you can go to the emergency room for free. If you are a citizen, you will have to pay taxes for not having insurance, just for existing - taxes. Unless you are poor. Then the other citizens pay your taxes. I had a girlfriend's roommate who was here from Mexico go to the ER. Ran up a $16,000 bill (really easy to do) and walked out without paying a dime. Uncle Sam picked that one up. My grandmother works in a hospital in California and told me she sees half the population walk out with medicaid paying for their new anchor baby (you might not know what that is but basically even if you are undocumented, you can have a baby for free here, automatically a US citizen and you automatically have a claim to citizenship) and the other half goes home owing tens of thousands of dollars that they'll pay for years with interest because they have a job. And then California wonders why they're broke.
|
On February 24 2013 20:49 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 20:00 Bill Murray wrote:
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn. Absolutely correct. It basically is "Socialism for Managers". As soon as this scheme where banks hold the tax payer hostage is not tackled ("Too big to fail, sorry you can't take money from us or you will get hurt too in the process", that's where the main financial problems come from in mere numerical terms. Bailouts, people losing jobs, losing their home, losing their insurance, can't pay their bills and provide a good environment for their children, need assistance from somewhere - most of the time it's the government with a safety net. That's doing huge economic damage. While the Dow hits over 14k again. Something is terribly wrong here.
This begs a question.
How come the apostles of capitalism, bankers, businessmen, et cetera, are the first ones to betray their own ideology?
|
On February 25 2013 17:01 theinfamousone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:25 Sated wrote:
Number one reason I won't relocate to America, right here. For all its flaws, I wouldn't trade the NHS for the world. Don't worry, if you're an illegal immigrant you can go to the emergency room for free. If you are a citizen, you will have to pay taxes for not having insurance, just for existing - taxes. Unless you are poor. Then the other citizens pay your taxes. I had a girlfriend's roommate who was here from Mexico go to the ER. Ran up a $16,000 bill (really easy to do) and walked out without paying a dime. Uncle Sam picked that one up. My grandmother works in a hospital in California and told me she sees half the population walk out with medicaid paying for their new anchor baby (you might not know what that is but basically even if you are undocumented, you can have a baby for free here, automatically a US citizen and you automatically have a claim to citizenship) and the other half goes home owing tens of thousands of dollars that they'll pay for years with interest because they have a job. And then California wonders why they're broke.
Fixed for emphasis.
|
On February 25 2013 22:28 bohus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 20:49 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 20:00 Bill Murray wrote:
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn. Absolutely correct. It basically is "Socialism for Managers". As soon as this scheme where banks hold the tax payer hostage is not tackled ("Too big to fail, sorry you can't take money from us or you will get hurt too in the process", that's where the main financial problems come from in mere numerical terms. Bailouts, people losing jobs, losing their home, losing their insurance, can't pay their bills and provide a good environment for their children, need assistance from somewhere - most of the time it's the government with a safety net. That's doing huge economic damage. While the Dow hits over 14k again. Something is terribly wrong here. This begs a question. How come the apostles of capitalism, bankers, businessmen, et cetera, are the first ones to betray their own ideology?
Why I ask u, did the soviets, or ruling class in a "classfree society", as communism said it should be, live with luxuries that were not allowed for the mere people - not allowed based on ideology I remind you?
When it suits them people don't think all that much of a codex or ideology.
|
*hugs the NHS*
I would be dead without it
|
On February 25 2013 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it. Sure, but other markets have plenty of asymmetric information too and they work fine. Systems (competition for one) can be put in place to keep those with more information honest.
But competition works only if the consumer has the information. If it is more profitable to be dishonest (mostly is) and consumer does not have enough information competition solves nothing as the competition is moved to whatever PR finds best to work instead of actual medical properties of products.
And that is ignoring that the main issue with healthcare is ethical one. When ethical decisions play a big role, market is quite often incapable of good optimization. Do you want to save most lives/prevent most sufferring or do you want to be most efficient economically ? Those two things do not seem to match too well. US has neither though, due to having crappy hybrid.
|
On February 25 2013 07:53 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 07:31 mcc wrote:On February 25 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 05:58 Kyrao wrote:
Capitalism is not some sacred infallible law like many of my fellow Americans like to believe. There are certain areas of society in which capitalist theory does not work. Healthcare is one of them. Like many people have said before me, asymmetric information, lack of competition, and price inelasticity of demand prevent a capitalist approach from being at all effective in healthcare.
Those roadblocks could just be removed. The only one which we're stuck with is inelastic demand when it comes to real insurance events (broken limb, cancer, etc.) as you say later on that's where insurance should come in to play. In parts of the US system those roadblocks don't exist and things work fine (ex. laser eye correction or non-regulated drugs) so I'm not sure why that couldn't be extended to many other parts of healthcare. Asymmetric information will also remain. And market mechanisms can work in some parts of medicine, like elective plastic surgery (with exceptions), but not in most of it. Would you really say elective plastic surgery is medicine, though?
Well it is, but I understand your point. And that is actually also my point Only things like that can have market mechanisms work well.
|
On February 25 2013 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post? I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread.
Government does though, with regulating all the relevant processes to avoid health issues with bread. And we are again at the same point, one of the things governments regulate most are things related to health, in all industries. And in healthcare everything is related to health.
|
United States4021 Posts
Regardless of specifics, as Americans, rationalizing the healthcare market will be the one great domestic challenge of our lifetimes, much as ending racism was for the baby boomer generation.
|
On February 25 2013 12:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 11:48 Tarot wrote:On February 25 2013 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post? I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread. Curious how you think the market should be deregulated. Because if I was a medical company, and I know that the Feds are completely out of my hair, I'm just going to straight up dump addictive substances into my drugs. I hear from the tobacco industry that addiction is good for customer loyalty. Deregulated means allowing new entrants to compete on service and price. Deregulated doesn't mean getting rid of health and safety regulations. Ex. Airlines were deregulated. Safety is still regulated by the FAA.
Ah ok, so you would not be against having single-payer mandatory insurance, while healthcare providers compete with one another, but are bound by regulations introduced by the state ? That might be workable solution. My main point was single-payer or at leats mandatory insurance. That solves a lot of the ethical issues that market cannot. After that if you have good regulations, the competition can work reasonably well. You would still need state to fund some critical care in places where it is unprofitable (like low population density areas), but that can be funded by selecting the insurance amounts well enough.
|
Get rid of insurance
Get rid of medical patents
These are my suggestions.
|
On February 26 2013 01:38 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Get rid of insurance
Get rid of medical patents
These are my suggestions.
Getting rid of medical patents is not feasible. Or at least it would require a lot more philanthropists than we currently have.
|
On February 23 2013 13:47 Dagan159 wrote:
As a Capitalist,
But only until you are in a bad position i bet. No offence to you sir but attitudes like that kill society. 
|
On February 25 2013 16:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 15:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 14:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If the real cost of an ambulance ride is $900 changing to a socialized healthcare system won't change that fact.
We all know it isn't, but what you're proposing wouldn't change that price. Sure it would. More suppliers in the market, particularly new entrants would lead to new ways of providing services. It doesn't mean that every ambulance ride in every market would fall in price. But some would, and that would put pressure, over time, throughout the system. We've already been over this. You admitted that it would be ridiculous to try to put competition into emergency medicine, and so that wouldn't be there to drive costs down.
Calling 911 and being asked to chose from a list of providers would be stupid, yes. You could still have some competition in the background though. It doesn't really matter, the same principles can apply to things other than ambulance rides.
Show nested quote +
Sure, they work much better than a system where an industry can essentially dictate it's own cost structure. That's not saying a whole lot but I'm not arguing it either.
The problem is that you're trying to argue that a market that is unique when compared to the vast majority of other markets can somehow work in the same fashion as these markets and turn out a better product at cheaper prices for the consumer. That's kind of a stretch. Furthermore, You have yet to provide a reason as to why a competitive market would be preferable to socialized healthcare.
Healthcare isn't that unique. Lots of industries have unique characteristics or are vital for survival (food, electricity) yet they don't need to be socialized.
There are cases where competitive markets exist in healthcare and quality and cost have been improved or are at least doing just fine (laser eye surgery, retail clinics).
Show nested quote +
Some are, but some is not all. You keep going round and round this point. Just because 911 service exists and is a good thing does not justify all the other regulatory baggage that exists. Healthcare is not a this or that thing, parts can be this parts can be that. You can have government regulated universal coverage for emergency care only and leave the rest to a less regulated system if you chose.
Again, unnecessary and convoluted. Why split the system into privatized and socialized? Where is the proof that it will be any good at all? We have plenty of proof that a socialized system can work very well. Burden of proof is on you to show that a market system will actually be a benefit compared to a socialized one. IF I granted that all your theories were correct, of course it would be better than what we have now; almost anything would be. However, we're not looking for "better than now", we're looking for "the best that's reasonably possible". Socialized medicine provides top quality healthcare at cheap prices with little to no drawbacks (should your government actually manage their budget correctly). Furthermore, I think you're underestimating how many patients are "involuntary consumers".
Well many "socialized systems" have private elements, so I'm not sure why you're worried about the system being convoluted.
And I think you are singing the praises of "socialized medicine" a bit too loudly here. Yes other countries have better outcomes for a lower price. They also have longer waiting lists. They also have rising costs (just rising slower than the US). The last point is a big stickler - what happens if the US gets "socialized medicine"? Will costs fall or will the current, bloated system become codified into law? Remember, all we can really do is import the payment systems and regulatory regimes - that does nothing for the actual costs.
Any real cost savings will need to happen after when the government starts restricting access and lowering incomes. That will be unpopular. So will it really happen or will we just get more political attack ads of politicians pushing granny off a cliff?
Here in MA we have just about universal coverage (4% uninsured) yet we also have the highest costs in the country. The state is trying to keep costs in check but so far no go. A new reform was passed last year to tackle costs directly but we have to wait a wile to see if it actually works.
|
On February 26 2013 01:19 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 12:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 11:48 Tarot wrote:On February 25 2013 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 10:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, how can you possibly say that something is so complex that it can't be understood by a consumer, and then suggest that a market be deregulated, all in the same post? I don't see those aspects as being mutually exclusive. Putting a loaf of bread on the store shelf is extremely complex too (economies of scale to some processes, huge time lags between supply and demand, etc.) but it doesn't mean that I need the government to carefully regulate every step of the process in order to get a fair deal on bread. Curious how you think the market should be deregulated. Because if I was a medical company, and I know that the Feds are completely out of my hair, I'm just going to straight up dump addictive substances into my drugs. I hear from the tobacco industry that addiction is good for customer loyalty. Deregulated means allowing new entrants to compete on service and price. Deregulated doesn't mean getting rid of health and safety regulations. Ex. Airlines were deregulated. Safety is still regulated by the FAA. Ah ok, so you would not be against having single-payer mandatory insurance, while healthcare providers compete with one another, but are bound by regulations introduced by the state ? That might be workable solution. My main point was single-payer or at leats mandatory insurance. That solves a lot of the ethical issues that market cannot. After that if you have good regulations, the competition can work reasonably well. You would still need state to fund some critical care in places where it is unprofitable (like low population density areas), but that can be funded by selecting the insurance amounts well enough.
Yeah, I really don't care how the problems are solved so long as they are solved. Non-universal care (that is, universal beyond the ER) being one of the problems that needs fixing too.
On February 25 2013 22:28 bohus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 20:49 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 20:00 Bill Murray wrote:
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn. Absolutely correct. It basically is "Socialism for Managers". As soon as this scheme where banks hold the tax payer hostage is not tackled ("Too big to fail, sorry you can't take money from us or you will get hurt too in the process", that's where the main financial problems come from in mere numerical terms. Bailouts, people losing jobs, losing their home, losing their insurance, can't pay their bills and provide a good environment for their children, need assistance from somewhere - most of the time it's the government with a safety net. That's doing huge economic damage. While the Dow hits over 14k again. Something is terribly wrong here. This begs a question. How come the apostles of capitalism, bankers, businessmen, et cetera, are the first ones to betray their own ideology?
Ideology isn't the issue there, bankers simply can't stop a bank run.
|
United States42685 Posts
On February 26 2013 01:14 Shady Sands wrote:
Regardless of specifics, as Americans, rationalizing the healthcare market will be the one great domestic challenge of our lifetimes, much as ending racism was for the baby boomer generation.
I'm glad racism was solved 40 years ago.
|
On February 25 2013 23:29 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 22:28 bohus wrote:On February 24 2013 20:49 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 20:00 Bill Murray wrote:
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn. Absolutely correct. It basically is "Socialism for Managers". As soon as this scheme where banks hold the tax payer hostage is not tackled ("Too big to fail, sorry you can't take money from us or you will get hurt too in the process", that's where the main financial problems come from in mere numerical terms. Bailouts, people losing jobs, losing their home, losing their insurance, can't pay their bills and provide a good environment for their children, need assistance from somewhere - most of the time it's the government with a safety net. That's doing huge economic damage. While the Dow hits over 14k again. Something is terribly wrong here. This begs a question. How come the apostles of capitalism, bankers, businessmen, et cetera, are the first ones to betray their own ideology? Why I ask u, did the soviets, or ruling class in a "classfree society", as communism said it should be, live with luxuries that were not allowed for the mere people - not allowed based on ideology I remind you? When it suits them people don't think all that much of a codex or ideology.
What makes You think i am a communist?
On February 26 2013 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 22:28 bohus wrote:On February 24 2013 20:49 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 20:00 Bill Murray wrote:
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn. Absolutely correct. It basically is "Socialism for Managers". As soon as this scheme where banks hold the tax payer hostage is not tackled ("Too big to fail, sorry you can't take money from us or you will get hurt too in the process", that's where the main financial problems come from in mere numerical terms. Bailouts, people losing jobs, losing their home, losing their insurance, can't pay their bills and provide a good environment for their children, need assistance from somewhere - most of the time it's the government with a safety net. That's doing huge economic damage. While the Dow hits over 14k again. Something is terribly wrong here. This begs a question. How come the apostles of capitalism, bankers, businessmen, et cetera, are the first ones to betray their own ideology? Ideology isn't the issue there, bankers simply can't stop a bank run.
How is a "bank run" related to "Socialism for Managers" they are talking about?
|
On February 25 2013 22:28 bohus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 20:49 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 20:00 Bill Murray wrote:
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn. Absolutely correct. It basically is "Socialism for Managers". As soon as this scheme where banks hold the tax payer hostage is not tackled ("Too big to fail, sorry you can't take money from us or you will get hurt too in the process", that's where the main financial problems come from in mere numerical terms. Bailouts, people losing jobs, losing their home, losing their insurance, can't pay their bills and provide a good environment for their children, need assistance from somewhere - most of the time it's the government with a safety net. That's doing huge economic damage. While the Dow hits over 14k again. Something is terribly wrong here. This begs a question. How come the apostles of capitalism, bankers, businessmen, et cetera, are the first ones to betray their own ideology?
Because it's profitable.
|
On February 26 2013 03:07 bohus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 23:29 Doublemint wrote:On February 25 2013 22:28 bohus wrote:On February 24 2013 20:49 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 20:00 Bill Murray wrote:
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn. Absolutely correct. It basically is "Socialism for Managers". As soon as this scheme where banks hold the tax payer hostage is not tackled ("Too big to fail, sorry you can't take money from us or you will get hurt too in the process", that's where the main financial problems come from in mere numerical terms. Bailouts, people losing jobs, losing their home, losing their insurance, can't pay their bills and provide a good environment for their children, need assistance from somewhere - most of the time it's the government with a safety net. That's doing huge economic damage. While the Dow hits over 14k again. Something is terribly wrong here. This begs a question. How come the apostles of capitalism, bankers, businessmen, et cetera, are the first ones to betray their own ideology? Why I ask u, did the soviets, or ruling class in a "classfree society", as communism said it should be, live with luxuries that were not allowed for the mere people - not allowed based on ideology I remind you? When it suits them people don't think all that much of a codex or ideology. What makes You think i am a communist? Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 22:28 bohus wrote:On February 24 2013 20:49 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 20:00 Bill Murray wrote:
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn. Absolutely correct. It basically is "Socialism for Managers". As soon as this scheme where banks hold the tax payer hostage is not tackled ("Too big to fail, sorry you can't take money from us or you will get hurt too in the process", that's where the main financial problems come from in mere numerical terms. Bailouts, people losing jobs, losing their home, losing their insurance, can't pay their bills and provide a good environment for their children, need assistance from somewhere - most of the time it's the government with a safety net. That's doing huge economic damage. While the Dow hits over 14k again. Something is terribly wrong here. This begs a question. How come the apostles of capitalism, bankers, businessmen, et cetera, are the first ones to betray their own ideology? Ideology isn't the issue there, bankers simply can't stop a bank run. How is a "bank run" related to "Socialism for Managers" they are talking about?
It's related to why the bailouts happened.
|
On February 26 2013 03:07 bohus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 23:29 Doublemint wrote:On February 25 2013 22:28 bohus wrote:On February 24 2013 20:49 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 20:00 Bill Murray wrote:
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn. Absolutely correct. It basically is "Socialism for Managers". As soon as this scheme where banks hold the tax payer hostage is not tackled ("Too big to fail, sorry you can't take money from us or you will get hurt too in the process", that's where the main financial problems come from in mere numerical terms. Bailouts, people losing jobs, losing their home, losing their insurance, can't pay their bills and provide a good environment for their children, need assistance from somewhere - most of the time it's the government with a safety net. That's doing huge economic damage. While the Dow hits over 14k again. Something is terribly wrong here. This begs a question. How come the apostles of capitalism, bankers, businessmen, et cetera, are the first ones to betray their own ideology? Why I ask u, did the soviets, or ruling class in a "classfree society", as communism said it should be, live with luxuries that were not allowed for the mere people - not allowed based on ideology I remind you? When it suits them people don't think all that much of a codex or ideology. What makes You think i am a communist?Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 22:28 bohus wrote:On February 24 2013 20:49 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 20:00 Bill Murray wrote:
a lot of people, including a mod i see, are kind of strawmanning here; i feel you're missing his point
i see you address that in terms of funds, but that's the purpose of it all - we don't want the money to run out
my real problem with all of this dips into our Capitalist society as a whole. It's ok for the blue collared man to get fucked, and have to mortgage his home, only to have it taken by a bank, but when the bubble bursts on wallstreet... bailout!!!
That isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's where this country is headed
2nd amendment be damned right now, I'm worried about my 1st. My voice is barely even heard over the convoluted social media with yolosluts trying to put up duckfaces when i do give a damn. I do give a damn. Absolutely correct. It basically is "Socialism for Managers". As soon as this scheme where banks hold the tax payer hostage is not tackled ("Too big to fail, sorry you can't take money from us or you will get hurt too in the process", that's where the main financial problems come from in mere numerical terms. Bailouts, people losing jobs, losing their home, losing their insurance, can't pay their bills and provide a good environment for their children, need assistance from somewhere - most of the time it's the government with a safety net. That's doing huge economic damage. While the Dow hits over 14k again. Something is terribly wrong here. This begs a question. How come the apostles of capitalism, bankers, businessmen, et cetera, are the first ones to betray their own ideology? Ideology isn't the issue there, bankers simply can't stop a bank run. How is a "bank run" related to "Socialism for Managers" they are talking about?
What makes you think I think you are a communist?
|
Basic healthcare is not a market good. Here are some people who think so too.
Why markets can’t cure healthcare-Krugman
.........a significant number of Americans believe that the answer to our health care problems — indeed, the only answer — is to rely on the free market. Quite a few seem to believe that this view reflects the lessons of economic theory.
Not so. One of the most influential economic papers of the postwar era was Kenneth Arrow’s Uncertainty and the welfare economics of health care, which demonstrated — decisively, I and many others believe — that health care can’t be marketed like bread or TVs. Let me offer my own version of Arrow’s argument.
There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.
This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.
This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.” This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need — not everyone agrees, but most do — this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.
The second thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.
You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don’t trust them — they’re profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.
Between those two factors, health care just doesn’t work as a standard market story.
All of this doesn’t necessarily mean that socialized medicine, or even single-payer, is the only way to go. There are a number of successful health-care systems, at least as measured by pretty good care much cheaper than here, and they are quite different from each other. There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn’t work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence.
Health Care Market Deviations from the Ideal Market
A common argument heard in health care planning and health policy reform debates is that the government should stay out of health care and let the market allocate resources efficiently. It is further argued that government rules and regulations applied in health care markets interfere with proper resource allocation resulting in inefficiency.1 The argument further states that without government interference, the “invisible hand” of the market would allocate resources optimally leading to economic efficiency in health care.
Although interesting, this argument is based on the assumption that health care meets all necessary conditions for an ideal perfect/free market. Unfortunately, this assumption is never articulated explicitly therefore the argument is not fully explored, understood or challenged. It is important to explore fully the argument, the assumptions made about the free market, and the conditions necessary for the “invisible hand” to allocate resources efficiently.2
A market that meets all necessary conditions for efficient resource allocation is an ideal in economic theory, but a rarity in the real world. Markets do fail because necessary conditions for perfect/free markets are rarely met in any industry and least of all in health care.3 When the necessary conditions of the ideal free market are not met, there can be market failures some of which are not easily corrected by the market and therefore require interventions from outside the market.
Another important issue that is also rarely articulated is whether free markets are a desirable feature of a health care system. This issue cannot be easily addressed through economic theory. It is an issue that requires a closer examination of the philosophy behind the foundation of the health care system in any country. It requires an examination of the culture and beliefs of the country about health and health care. Is health care a commodity to be bought and sold for profit, or is it a basic human right that should be accessible to all citizens?
Health Care as a “Market Good”? Appendicitis as a Case Study
Consumer-driven health care has emerged as a new paradigm in allowing patients to have a stronger say in how their health care dollars are spent.1 Patients are encouraged to consider medical care a commodity that can be bought and sold. Yet health care is a unique industry in which many traditional market principles fail. Consumers of health care do not always have good information about their condition and rely on the advice of professionals. Moreover, studies have shown that total costs and charges at different health care facilities vary substantially for what should be similar services.
Basic Health Care Is Not a “Market Good”
We read the article by Hsia et al1 about charges for appendectomy in California hospitals with interest.1 The wide variation in charges was remarkable but not surprising given prior publications.2- 3 Two topics regarding this article are worthy of amplification. First, we assert that the data presented warrant more incisive conclusions. Second, we inquire about further analyses.
|
On February 26 2013 02:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 16:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 15:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 14:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If the real cost of an ambulance ride is $900 changing to a socialized healthcare system won't change that fact.
We all know it isn't, but what you're proposing wouldn't change that price. Sure it would. More suppliers in the market, particularly new entrants would lead to new ways of providing services. It doesn't mean that every ambulance ride in every market would fall in price. But some would, and that would put pressure, over time, throughout the system. We've already been over this. You admitted that it would be ridiculous to try to put competition into emergency medicine, and so that wouldn't be there to drive costs down. Calling 911 and being asked to chose from a list of providers would be stupid, yes. You could still have some competition in the background though. It doesn't really matter, the same principles can apply to things other than ambulance rides. Show nested quote +
Sure, they work much better than a system where an industry can essentially dictate it's own cost structure. That's not saying a whole lot but I'm not arguing it either.
The problem is that you're trying to argue that a market that is unique when compared to the vast majority of other markets can somehow work in the same fashion as these markets and turn out a better product at cheaper prices for the consumer. That's kind of a stretch. Furthermore, You have yet to provide a reason as to why a competitive market would be preferable to socialized healthcare. Healthcare isn't that unique. Lots of industries have unique characteristics or are vital for survival (food, electricity) yet they don't need to be socialized. There are cases where competitive markets exist in healthcare and quality and cost have been improved or are at least doing just fine (laser eye surgery, retail clinics). Show nested quote +
Some are, but some is not all. You keep going round and round this point. Just because 911 service exists and is a good thing does not justify all the other regulatory baggage that exists. Healthcare is not a this or that thing, parts can be this parts can be that. You can have government regulated universal coverage for emergency care only and leave the rest to a less regulated system if you chose.
Again, unnecessary and convoluted. Why split the system into privatized and socialized? Where is the proof that it will be any good at all? We have plenty of proof that a socialized system can work very well. Burden of proof is on you to show that a market system will actually be a benefit compared to a socialized one. IF I granted that all your theories were correct, of course it would be better than what we have now; almost anything would be. However, we're not looking for "better than now", we're looking for "the best that's reasonably possible". Socialized medicine provides top quality healthcare at cheap prices with little to no drawbacks (should your government actually manage their budget correctly). Furthermore, I think you're underestimating how many patients are "involuntary consumers". Well many "socialized systems" have private elements, so I'm not sure why you're worried about the system being convoluted. And I think you are singing the praises of "socialized medicine" a bit too loudly here. Yes other countries have better outcomes for a lower price. They also have longer waiting lists. They also have rising costs (just rising slower than the US). The last point is a big stickler - what happens if the US gets "socialized medicine"? Will costs fall or will the current, bloated system become codified into law? Remember, all we can really do is import the payment systems and regulatory regimes - that does nothing for the actual costs. Any real cost savings will need to happen after when the government starts restricting access and lowering incomes. That will be unpopular. So will it really happen or will we just get more political attack ads of politicians pushing granny off a cliff? Here in MA we have just about universal coverage (4% uninsured) yet we also have the highest costs in the country. The state is trying to keep costs in check but so far no go. A new reform was passed last year to tackle costs directly but we have to wait a wile to see if it actually works.
Couple of notes.
Isn't food heavily, heavily regulated to protect public safety? At least in Canada, it is. I know America likes their milk and beef pumped with steroids and drugs.
You have to compare the idea of socialized medicine to public education. Yes, you can argue that public education isn't perfect, how it's substandard, how it would benefit from competition. There's a VAST amount of room for improvement.
But still -- the decision to make education available to everyone from K to 12 was a revolutionary concept that brought millions and millions of people out of poverty, formed the basis of the middle-class after the industrial revolution and made western nations the greatest economic drivers in the world.
I really think you're underestimating the long term economic and public benefit of socialized medicine, despite its flaws. I would gladly wait for a non-critical procedure or treatment if the cost is zero.
Imagine a world where an entire middle class family doesn't go bankrupt or extreme debt just because one person has bad genes, got injured on the job, got hit by a drunk driver, or just has shitty luck. That's not trivial, that's HUGE.
|
On February 26 2013 07:19 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 02:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 16:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2013 15:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 25 2013 14:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If the real cost of an ambulance ride is $900 changing to a socialized healthcare system won't change that fact.
We all know it isn't, but what you're proposing wouldn't change that price. Sure it would. More suppliers in the market, particularly new entrants would lead to new ways of providing services. It doesn't mean that every ambulance ride in every market would fall in price. But some would, and that would put pressure, over time, throughout the system. We've already been over this. You admitted that it would be ridiculous to try to put competition into emergency medicine, and so that wouldn't be there to drive costs down. Calling 911 and being asked to chose from a list of providers would be stupid, yes. You could still have some competition in the background though. It doesn't really matter, the same principles can apply to things other than ambulance rides.
Sure, they work much better than a system where an industry can essentially dictate it's own cost structure. That's not saying a whole lot but I'm not arguing it either.
The problem is that you're trying to argue that a market that is unique when compared to the vast majority of other markets can somehow work in the same fashion as these markets and turn out a better product at cheaper prices for the consumer. That's kind of a stretch. Furthermore, You have yet to provide a reason as to why a competitive market would be preferable to socialized healthcare. Healthcare isn't that unique. Lots of industries have unique characteristics or are vital for survival (food, electricity) yet they don't need to be socialized. There are cases where competitive markets exist in healthcare and quality and cost have been improved or are at least doing just fine (laser eye surgery, retail clinics).
Some are, but some is not all. You keep going round and round this point. Just because 911 service exists and is a good thing does not justify all the other regulatory baggage that exists. Healthcare is not a this or that thing, parts can be this parts can be that. You can have government regulated universal coverage for emergency care only and leave the rest to a less regulated system if you chose.
Again, unnecessary and convoluted. Why split the system into privatized and socialized? Where is the proof that it will be any good at all? We have plenty of proof that a socialized system can work very well. Burden of proof is on you to show that a market system will actually be a benefit compared to a socialized one. IF I granted that all your theories were correct, of course it would be better than what we have now; almost anything would be. However, we're not looking for "better than now", we're looking for "the best that's reasonably possible". Socialized medicine provides top quality healthcare at cheap prices with little to no drawbacks (should your government actually manage their budget correctly). Furthermore, I think you're underestimating how many patients are "involuntary consumers". Well many "socialized systems" have private elements, so I'm not sure why you're worried about the system being convoluted. And I think you are singing the praises of "socialized medicine" a bit too loudly here. Yes other countries have better outcomes for a lower price. They also have longer waiting lists. They also have rising costs (just rising slower than the US). The last point is a big stickler - what happens if the US gets "socialized medicine"? Will costs fall or will the current, bloated system become codified into law? Remember, all we can really do is import the payment systems and regulatory regimes - that does nothing for the actual costs. Any real cost savings will need to happen after when the government starts restricting access and lowering incomes. That will be unpopular. So will it really happen or will we just get more political attack ads of politicians pushing granny off a cliff? Here in MA we have just about universal coverage (4% uninsured) yet we also have the highest costs in the country. The state is trying to keep costs in check but so far no go. A new reform was passed last year to tackle costs directly but we have to wait a wile to see if it actually works. Couple of notes. Isn't food heavily, heavily regulated to protect public safety? At least in Canada, it is. I know America likes their milk and beef pumped with steroids and drugs. You have to compare the idea of socialized medicine to public education. Yes, you can argue that public education isn't perfect, how it's substandard, how it would benefit from competition. There's a VAST amount of room for improvement. But still -- the decision to make education available to everyone from K to 12 was a revolutionary concept that brought millions and millions of people out of poverty, formed the basis of the middle-class after the industrial revolution and made western nations the greatest economic drivers in the world. I really think you're underestimating the long term economic and public benefit of socialized medicine, despite its flaws. I would gladly wait for a non-critical procedure or treatment if the cost is zero. Imagine a world where an entire middle class family doesn't go bankrupt or extreme debt just because one person has bad genes, got injured on the job, got hit by a drunk driver, or just has shitty luck. That's not trivial, that's HUGE.
I wasn't criticizing health and safety regulations. Airlines have been deregulated but the FAA still regulates airline safety. The criticism is over anti-competitive regulations.
As for the rest, I'm not associating universal healthcare (or education) with "socialized" healthcare (or education). I have no problem with universal healthcare, but I do have concerns over socialized healthcare (and education) though I'm not totally against it either.
|
The problem with health care and free market are so numerous I could be here all night. For one, people just won't stomach the idea of citizens getting turned away bleeding or not helping someone who's not breathing, or whatever it may be when there's people like Kim Kardashian that make millions of dollars for ditzing through life and blow it on gold lamborginis or whatever. It's just not going to happen. So if you accept that fact, you have to realize right away that we'll never have 100% of the population able to afford their health care no matter how reasonable it is. Therefore a true free market will never work.
Currently about 50% (and falling as a trend for the last 20 years) of Americans have medical coverage through their work. The other 50% either don't have any insurance or the government pays for it either through medicare or medicaid or whatever. So when I say we'll never reach 100%, I mean closer to 50%.
Here's a few problems with US healthcare. The government is forcing doctors and hospitals and pharmacies to work at a loss when providing care for people on medicare/medicaid. The problem with that is that then people who are NOT on medicare/medicaid must make up the difference. A friend I know told me the hospital he's an accountant for loses as much as a million dollars a month, and overall are operating on a .5% profit. But when 70% of their work is either government or uninsured people and they're losing money serving these people, the insured have to make up for it. As more baby boomers retire, there's more on the government health plans and less with traditional insurance so profit is getting whittled at both ends. On top of that, the baby boomer generation is getting old which means they need many times the healthcare that young people do.
This is why we're seeing health care expense rise at several multiples of the inflation rate. My accountant friend told me just in in the last 5 years it's gone from 70% commercial work (insured) and 30% government funded to 30% commercial and 70% government funded.
So even though 50% of the population has insurance, it's the healthy 50% which means they don't use it all that much. For example, more than 50% of babies are born under medicaid (healthcare for the poor) because the child bearing age group is likely to need it even though much less than 50% of the population is on medicaid.
One MAIN problem with healthcare the way it is in the US is that people just don't buy insurance until they need it. You can't just expect insurances to start paying for sick people who's not paying in their share without raising everyone else's rates. Obamacare will kind of solve this, although it's a really dumb way to do it.
Insurance companies are a clinic (pardon the pun) in bureaucracy that end up adding at least 20% (on a good day) dead weight to the whole thing.
Now, when you figure how much money goes into a hospital's billing department to keep track of thousands of patients, thousands of insurance policies and programs and all of the time it takes to negotiate (it took me 6 months to get a bill from a clinic I got a shot at because they were negotiating with my insurance for that long and they told me it can take up to a year). The billing department can add as much as 30% to the medical bill compared to a hospital in Canada with a single payer system.
Then you've got tort issues like people that sue a hospital for $30 million (guess who's pocket that comes out of?). I could go on.
|
On February 26 2013 18:38 theinfamousone wrote:
The problem with health care and free market are so numerous I could be here all night. For one, people just won't stomach the idea of citizens getting turned away bleeding or not helping someone who's not breathing, or whatever it may be when there's people like Kim Kardashian that make millions of dollars for ditzing through life and blow it on gold lamborginis or whatever. It's just not going to happen. So if you accept that fact, you have to realize right away that we'll never have 100% of the population able to afford their health care no matter how reasonable it is. Therefore a true free market will never work.
Currently about 50% (and falling as a trend for the last 20 years) of Americans have medical coverage through their work. The other 50% either don't have any insurance or the government pays for it either through medicare or medicaid or whatever. So when I say we'll never reach 100%, I mean closer to 50%.
Here's a few problems with US healthcare. The government is forcing doctors and hospitals and pharmacies to work at a loss when providing care for people on medicare/medicaid. The problem with that is that then people who are NOT on medicare/medicaid must make up the difference. A friend I know told me the hospital he's an accountant for loses as much as a million dollars a month, and overall are operating on a .5% profit. But when 70% of their work is either government or uninsured people and they're losing money serving these people, the insured have to make up for it. As more baby boomers retire, there's more on the government health plans and less with traditional insurance so profit is getting whittled at both ends. On top of that, the baby boomer generation is getting old which means they need many times the healthcare that young people do.
This is why we're seeing health care expense rise at several multiples of the inflation rate. My accountant friend told me just in in the last 5 years it's gone from 70% commercial work (insured) and 30% government funded to 30% commercial and 70% government funded.
So even though 50% of the population has insurance, it's the healthy 50% which means they don't use it all that much. For example, more than 50% of babies are born under medicaid (healthcare for the poor) because the child bearing age group is likely to need it even though much less than 50% of the population is on medicaid.
One MAIN problem with healthcare the way it is in the US is that people just don't buy insurance until they need it. You can't just expect insurances to start paying for sick people who's not paying in their share without raising everyone else's rates. Obamacare will kind of solve this, although it's a really dumb way to do it.
Insurance companies are a clinic (pardon the pun) in bureaucracy that end up adding at least 20% (on a good day) dead weight to the whole thing.
Now, when you figure how much money goes into a hospital's billing department to keep track of thousands of patients, thousands of insurance policies and programs and all of the time it takes to negotiate (it took me 6 months to get a bill from a clinic I got a shot at because they were negotiating with my insurance for that long and they told me it can take up to a year). The billing department can add as much as 30% to the medical bill compared to a hospital in Canada with a single payer system.
Then you've got tort issues like people that sue a hospital for $30 million (guess who's pocket that comes out of?). I could go on.
You didnt even read the god damn time article or even watch the interview. FFS please stop posting this bullshit. I swear there are so many trolls/incompetent people in this thread its disgusting.
|
I agree Sadist. If someone told theinfamousone to write a post that is totally the opposite of the article published it would be that post. Many people just spit out their small little personal theores without even bothering to read the article. The article itself is really well written and interesting.
|
Well, most of the time people come to thread in order to post their view on the topic rather than having a disscusion. Hence reading a OP or links provded is highly unwanted (they might present other point of view).
BTW. Am i crazy or there was a time where You got the warning for posts indicating You didnt read the op? Posting external links and number of heavy political discussions have put and end to this fine tradition, i fear.
|
I'm surprised by the number of people who jump to their own conclusions without reading the god damned article. It clearly tells you that:
1. Drug companies set insane prices for drugs
2. Hospitals (whether for profit or not) then set these prices even higher.
3. Your insurance, has to pay this when you are sick. this is especially a problem with government provided insurance where they have to pay our tax dollars for insanely inflated prices that should be nowhere as high as it should be.
4. You and the government suffer because of this since your tax money is spent on giving hospitals and drug companies money that they shouldn't need.
5. Lobbyists have been trying to keep this method of making huge profits at the expense of you legal, fighting government control of the drug/hospitals.
Now please take into account these points before you start saying random shit that doesn't even take the article into consideration.
|
I read this article sometime last week and only found this thread on TL recently. I only got through the first 3 pages before it was obvious that most people commented before even reading the article.
I guess with how expensive medical bills are, ADHD kids can't afford their meds anymore so they can only read the headline before hitting the post button.
|
It's pretty normal for like, 90% of people to skip the OP. I generally read the first few pages (1-5 if it's interesting enough, then last 3 so that I can actually get into a discussion). I don't want to repeat what other's have said. And if I see an idiot is trying to make a shit-argument in the last couple of pages, I'll make a long post telling them why what they are saying is totally retarded and that it is actually like X.
But anyway, it'd be nice to see a detailed sum-up of other well-developed countries (Scandinavia, Japan, etc.) have their medical care distributed (not really distributed, but you know what I mean!). Japan has one (if not the longest) life expectancy and I imagine their medicine is great. But do they have a socialized medical system where hospitals are run through government or is it all privatized? Someone could have posted this but I missed it/forgot.
|
My dad recently got diagnosed with cancer, so you can imagine the amount of bills that are coming in. Once you or a loved one gets a serious illness you really will see how screwed up our system in America really is.
|
On February 27 2013 06:47 ImAbstracT wrote:
My dad recently got diagnosed with cancer, so you can imagine the amount of bills that are coming in. Once you or a loved one gets a serious illness you really will see how screwed up our system in America really is.
This is true. I am only diabetic and I see how screwed up the system is. Before I was diagnosed I wasnt even really part of the system outside of paying for insurance and wondering why I even had insurance.
|
those pricelists remind me of "hot dogs in space: 3000$". who knew hospitals were such an expensive place.
|
On February 26 2013 19:51 Sadist wrote:You didnt even read the god damn time article or even watch the interview. FFS please stop posting this bullshit. I swear there are so many trolls/incompetent people in this thread its disgusting.
I have been screaming everything that the guy says in the article for years. I'm in health care, I am dual degree MBA/PharmD (Pharmacist) and I basically made it my life to learn about the health care industry since I saw "Sicko" by Michael Moore in 2007 (watch that movie if you think this article is eye opening).
But everything I said is true. You didn't read my post if you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are CHARGING MORE and RIDICULOUS mark ups. And yes hospital administrators are a big dead weight. I'm just saying that not for profit hospitals don't make nearly as much as you think due to medicare/medicaid patients sucking up huge amounts of their resources and getting paid at a loss, meaning the rest of the people have to make up for it in paying $200 for a surgical apron. I was mainly adding my view on why capitalism is not a good method for allocating health care.
The reason not for profit hospitals (which is pretty much all) are advertising in Florida (as the author of the article said in the interview) is because they have to have a certain amount of medicare patients to stay not for profit, otherwise the government charges them taxes or shuts them down when they can't pay them.
|
My kid went in a couple weeks ago for a 4 month checkup. And to get immunizations.
Kid was weighed, measured by a nurse...doc came in and gave him a look over.
Nurse then gave him 4 shots and one immunization with a dropper.
In and out in 30 minutes. I pay my $25 copay and I'm out.
Get the EOB (explanation of Benefits from Anthem) The doc bills Anthem $750. Anthen pays them $575, and I owe nothing else.
Now.. I hate to draw parallels between my dog and my kid.. but my dog is getting a checkup tomorrow along with a round of shots rabies/heartworm ect. And I know out the door cash-money I'm going to spend $100-$120 or so.
For the exact same level of service. Nurse looks at my kid. Vet assistant looks at my dog. Doc gives my kid a once-over. Vet gives my dog a once-over. Nurse give my kid some shots. Vet assistant gives my kid some shots. Both office time all total ~30 minutes.
Insurance cost $750 - doctor
Cash-money cost $120 - vet
|
On February 28 2013 03:31 RCMDVA wrote:
For the exact same level of service. Nurse looks at my kid. Vet assistant looks at my dog. Doc gives my kid a once-over. Vet gives my dog a once-over. Nurse give my kid some shots. Vet assistant gives my kid some shots. Both office time all total ~30 minutes.
To inject some levity in this thread: I feel bad for your kid. You bring your dog to the vet, and somehow your kid still gets a shot.
|
On February 28 2013 03:40 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 03:31 RCMDVA wrote:
For the exact same level of service. Nurse looks at my kid. Vet assistant looks at my dog. Doc gives my kid a once-over. Vet gives my dog a once-over. Nurse give my kid some shots. Vet assistant gives my kid some shots. Both office time all total ~30 minutes.
To inject some levity in this thread: I feel bad for your kid. You bring your dog to the vet, and somehow your kid still gets a shot.
I was hoping he meant that he had brought his goat along with him. Kids of all kinds need shots!
On a more serious note, I don't think comparing veterinary healthcare with human healthcare makes a lot of sense........
That being said, the insurance/provider markup schema is pretty ridic.
|
On February 28 2013 03:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 03:40 JinDesu wrote:On February 28 2013 03:31 RCMDVA wrote:
For the exact same level of service. Nurse looks at my kid. Vet assistant looks at my dog. Doc gives my kid a once-over. Vet gives my dog a once-over. Nurse give my kid some shots. Vet assistant gives my kid some shots. Both office time all total ~30 minutes.
To inject some levity in this thread: I feel bad for your kid. You bring your dog to the vet, and somehow your kid still gets a shot. I was hoping he meant that he had brought his goat along with him. Kids of all kinds need shots! On a more serious note, I don't think comparing veterinary healthcare with human healthcare makes a lot of sense........ That being said, the insurance/provider markup schema is pretty ridic.
It probably depends on the shot. No doubt, the shots from the doctor are more than likely marked up 3x-5x, but using a vet experience is a flawed starting point. In reading the article, the arbitrary markups are just a terrible thing. There's no regulation of those "chargemaster" lists, and no transparency for the patients to make informed decisions.
|
|
|
On February 27 2013 06:42 Blargh wrote:
It's pretty normal for like, 90% of people to skip the OP. I generally read the first few pages (1-5 if it's interesting enough, then last 3 so that I can actually get into a discussion). I don't want to repeat what other's have said. And if I see an idiot is trying to make a shit-argument in the last couple of pages, I'll make a long post telling them why what they are saying is totally retarded and that it is actually like X.
But anyway, it'd be nice to see a detailed sum-up of other well-developed countries (Scandinavia, Japan, etc.) have their medical care distributed (not really distributed, but you know what I mean!). Japan has one (if not the longest) life expectancy and I imagine their medicine is great. But do they have a socialized medical system where hospitals are run through government or is it all privatized? Someone could have posted this but I missed it/forgot.
Every developed nation in the world, except the U.S., has a socialized medical system.
|
Interesting article, i would never imagine it would be that bad.
Thanks for the OP.
|
On February 24 2013 00:16 Vivax wrote:
May I ask what the average doctor earns in the U.S ? Reading the sums for treatments and little diagnostic measures I'd imagine it to be a lot.
I know micronesia and LosingID8 already made a response but I'd like to chime in as well. Lots of Canadian practitioners decide to head down south with the belief that they can make more money in the States; consequently, Canada has a short supply of family doctors. I think it was a year or two ago where I saw a report about how hard it is to start your practice in Ontario alone. Let's just say there are a lot of deterrents in sticking around. From what I've heard, the pay isn't that much different if you're a family doctor in the States compared to here. Pharmaceutical on the other hand...
|
CA10828 Posts
|
Too low for a bloated cost structure, sure :p
|
CA10828 Posts
note/warning: sorry, this post is kind of all over the place but i just have a lot of different things on my mind
doctors are an easy target for the government if they are looking for ways to balance the budget. no one is going to cry for physicians when they get hit with 2% (beginning march 1), 5%, or even 10% (see: california) reductions in reimbursements because the american public believes that doctors already make too much. if they REALLY wanted to fix the healthcare system rather than putting a bandaid on it, they'd look at the real reasons why healthcare costs so much. physicians only get 20 cents per each healthcare dollar.
you might think that the 2% cut won't have much of an effect. i mean it's only 2%, right? think again, and check out this study. the study shows that if medicare reimbursement is reduced by 2%, 63 rural hospitals will no longer be profitable and 482 rural health care jobs will be lost nationally, primarily centered in the midwest and south where there is the greatest need for rural health care. there was a serious proposal to cut medicare funding by 26.5% that was barely avoided in the fiscal cliff bill. if a mere 2% reduction would have that kind of impact, imagine what a disaster 26.5% would be.
one of the next things on the chopping block is GME funding aka funding for residency programs (see the Simpson-Bowles commission, which recommended a 50% cut to residency funding, or $5.8 billion). there are cries about lack of access to healthcare but they want to cut funding so residency programs are forced to close due to lack of money? i don't know about you, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
----------
here are some suggestions to improve the ACA, written by Dr. Lee Rogers, DPM
1. Give regulators the power to reject insurance rate hikes
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides federal oversight in 2014 to identify companies who have a pattern of excessive or unjustified rate increases, but they have no power to prevent the increase. The individual mandate incentivizes people to buy insurance or face a penalty, but there is no guarantee that the insurance will be affordable. Regulators should be allowed to reject excessive hikes for consumers much like our insurance commissioner does in California for other types of insurance.
2. Create National Insurance Exchange
Exchanges give individuals and small companies similar clout to large companies when purchasing health insurance. The ACA leaves the insurance exchanges to be created by each State. This does not allow the true competition of a larger national market. Residents in more than half of the states are subjected to a near monopoly by insurers. Opening up the market nationally will allow greater competition and keep prices lower.
3. Allow individuals and businesses to buy into Medicare
Patients deserve the choice of purchasing private insurance or public insurance. Individuals and businesses should be able to purchase into Medicare at cost. Medicare should be added as an option to the national insurance exchange.
4. Negotiate Drug Prices
The United States carries the pharmaceutical research and development burden for the entire world. We are essentially subsidizing the lower drug prices in wealthy countries like England, Germany, France, Canada, and Japan. Americans should not pay more for the same medication than they do in other developed nations. Medicare and Medicaid should be able to negotiate drug prices like the VA, DOD and other nations. I also understand it is costly to develop new medications. Patents should be extended a minimum number of years from the time the drug goes on the market and not start the clock while it is in development an unable to be sold.
5. Doctors Determine Medical Necessity
Insurance companies can determine what treatments are medically necessary for you. This is an obvious conflict of interest. Doctors should determine medical necessity for patients, not insurance companies.
6. Preempt the Provider Shortages
There is a shortage of physicians even without the addition of 33 million new Americans with health coverage. We need to make medical school more affordable and shorten pre-medical education. We need to make sure every doctor graduating medical school has a residency slot available. Telemedicine programs should be developed to bring specialists to areas of need virtually. We need to expand programs to train nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants. Nursing shortages pose a real patient safety problem and we should immediately offer visas to well-trained foreign nurses to fill shortages while we increase our domestic supply of nurses.
|
"5. Doctors Determine Medical Necessity"
There's a conflict of interest if I ever saw one!
|
CA10828 Posts
so who should? you can't just make a statement like that without offering a more viable alternative.
are you saying that insurance companies are more capable than a doctor of determining what treatment a patient needs for their medical conditions?
|
On February 28 2013 10:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
"5. Doctors Determine Medical Necessity"
There's a conflict of interest if I ever saw one!
insurance companies are just as guilty. -__- I had my vitiligo treatment deemed cosmetic so they wouldnt cover it when I first started getting it around 15 years old. Anyone with half a brain would see that as complete bullshit but not the awesome insurance company
|
On February 28 2013 10:21 LosingID8 wrote:
so who should? you can't just make a statement like that without offering a more viable alternative.
are you saying that insurance companies are more capable than a doctor of determining what treatment a patient needs for their medical conditions?
No, I'm saying that more than one conflict exists. They both need to be taken into account and balanced against each other.
|
Since this a thread about medical costs, the following is the fee schedule that doctors charge to the government of ontario for medical services.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohip/sob/physserv/physserv_mn.html
In relation to drug pricing, do note that pharmaceutics have a limited span on patents related to drugs, usually around seven years and up. If you feel are you being "screwed" by hospitals, doctors, or even drug stores, you can easily look up the patent information regarding the drug and find average market pricing.
I won't say its the "fault" of patients, but rather the abuse of trust by these institutions, leading patients to believe fully in drug pricing.
|
CA10828 Posts
On February 28 2013 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 10:21 LosingID8 wrote:
so who should? you can't just make a statement like that without offering a more viable alternative.
are you saying that insurance companies are more capable than a doctor of determining what treatment a patient needs for their medical conditions? No, I'm saying that more than one conflict exists. They both need to be taken into account and balanced against each other.
and how would you propose that we do that? in the current system, the insurance company has the final say in determining medical necessity. that doesn't sound like we're taking both sides into account and balancing them against each other, like you suggest.
i don't know about you, but if i had to make a choice between having an insurance company or a doctor dictate what medical treatment i needed for my condition, i'm going with the doctor every time.
|
On February 28 2013 10:38 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 28 2013 10:21 LosingID8 wrote:
so who should? you can't just make a statement like that without offering a more viable alternative.
are you saying that insurance companies are more capable than a doctor of determining what treatment a patient needs for their medical conditions? No, I'm saying that more than one conflict exists. They both need to be taken into account and balanced against each other. and how would you propose that we do that? in the current system, the insurance company has the final say in determining medical necessity. that doesn't sound like we're taking both sides into account and balancing them against each other, like you suggest. i don't know about you, but if i had to make a choice between having an insurance company or a doctor dictate what medical treatment i needed for my condition, i'm going with the doctor every time.
Insurers have some say in what they cover, but overall doctors have way more power in decision making.
|
CA10828 Posts
doctors make decisions within the framework of what is allowed (aka what they are able to get reimbursed) by insurance companies.
|
On February 28 2013 04:30 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 06:42 Blargh wrote:
It's pretty normal for like, 90% of people to skip the OP. I generally read the first few pages (1-5 if it's interesting enough, then last 3 so that I can actually get into a discussion). I don't want to repeat what other's have said. And if I see an idiot is trying to make a shit-argument in the last couple of pages, I'll make a long post telling them why what they are saying is totally retarded and that it is actually like X.
But anyway, it'd be nice to see a detailed sum-up of other well-developed countries (Scandinavia, Japan, etc.) have their medical care distributed (not really distributed, but you know what I mean!). Japan has one (if not the longest) life expectancy and I imagine their medicine is great. But do they have a socialized medical system where hospitals are run through government or is it all privatized? Someone could have posted this but I missed it/forgot. Every developed nation in the world, except the U.S., has a socialized medical system.
The logic that your bring up in your second part isn't entirely accurate. Those countries also has some of the healthiest (on some metric) populations in the world. America on the other hand...not so good...
The other thing why American healthcare costs so much is defensive medicine due to lawsuit potential. Doctors almost always will recommend further treatment in situations where further treatment isn't necessary due to the simple notion that if something does happen, lawsuits will wreck you. Note that this has nothing to do with the actual lawsuits themselves, but rather the threat of lawsuits will push everyone further down the treatment path regardless of whether they actually need it or not. That's going to cost everyone more money.
Like your dentist wants you to take a X-ray every year, when you really don't unless you know something drastic has changed or they see something to suggest it. That's $110 around here, while not a lot someone is paying for it insurance or not.
|
On February 23 2013 14:02 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Your solution is to get rid of insurance? Really?
I don't agree with getting rid of insurance companies completely. But a much better solution would be for our government to become more active in moderating and keeping a check on insurance companies. There are multiple bills that have taken a step in this direction such as the Stark Bill. But there is a fine balance between what can and can not be done through our government. Clinton's bill was to provide basic health coverage for all citizens which is unrealistic and would just destroy funds. The upside to it though was it would force insurance companies to compete and lower prices. Still, the cons to the bill exceeded it's pro's.
How our government could take more of a part in regulating insurers is a little beyond me. I feel they already have a ton of power, which as was already stated, is the problem.
|
On February 28 2013 11:00 LosingID8 wrote:
doctors make decisions within the framework of what is allowed (aka what they are able to get reimbursed) by insurance companies.
This really hinders the quality of care though. Sometimes doctors are unable to make the most logical call simply due to reimbursement. Malpractice insurance factors in here big time. Which is a major problem that correlates with corrupt insurance companies.
|
On February 28 2013 10:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
"5. Doctors Determine Medical Necessity"
There's a conflict of interest if I ever saw one!
wow?
So you guys (americans) get ripped because you dont have a national healthcare system and the crook is the doctor??
lolll
it never crossed your mind that the insurance company denying you treatments might not have your well being as their first priority as opposed to the doctor who is treating you?
If the doctor doesnt have the right/ the legitimacy to tell you what you need as far as the treatment goes who does?
|
Doctors would more likely "up code" in gray situations though, so wouldn't it increase quality of care? I am not sure what your definition of QoC is.
|
On February 28 2013 11:00 LosingID8 wrote:
doctors make decisions within the framework of what is allowed (aka what they are able to get reimbursed) by insurance companies.
Here's my understanding of the matter (emphasis mine):
The corporate practice of medicine doctrine provides that firms—whether hospitals or HMOs—cannot direct how physicians practice medicine because the firms do not have medical licenses, only the physicians do. Although some states allow hospitals to hire physicians as employees, that change in formal status does not help much if the employer cannot tell the employee what to do. Even if the law did not prohibit such interference, tort law generally penalizes firm decisions to interfere with the medical judgments of individual physicians, making it unprofitable to try, as Professor Blumstein observes. Further, hospital bylaws usually require leaving the medical staff in charge of medical decisions, and those bylaws are in turn required by hospital accreditation standards and often by licensing laws. By dictating autonomy for the various providers involved in jointly producing health outcomes, these rules largely dictate separate payments to each autonomous provider.
Private insurer efforts to directly manage care have likewise been curbed by the ban on corporate practices of medicine and the threat of tort liability. In addition, states have adopted laws requiring insurers to pay for any care (within covered categories) that a physician deemed medically necessary, banning insurers from selectively contracting with particular providers, and restricting the financial incentives that insurers can offer providers.
Link
The idea that individual doctors hold decision making power, to an extreme of sub-optimal results, also dovetails with a lot of Atul Gawande's writings (Ex. Big Med).
|
CA10828 Posts
btw i just wanted to clarify Dr Roger's 4th statement for those who don't know how the drug patents work
4. Negotiate Drug Prices
The United States carries the pharmaceutical research and development burden for the entire world. We are essentially subsidizing the lower drug prices in wealthy countries like England, Germany, France, Canada, and Japan. Americans should not pay more for the same medication than they do in other developed nations. Medicare and Medicaid should be able to negotiate drug prices like the VA, DOD and other nations. I also understand it is costly to develop new medications. Patents should be extended a minimum number of years from the time the drug goes on the market and not start the clock while it is in development an unable to be sold.
the part in bold is the key part. there are a lot of different cases and scenarios, but i'll talk about the most common way. the way it works now is that drugs have exclusivity for 7 years. this means that the company has sole rights to market this drug, without the threat of generics developed by other companies. 7 years sounds quite reasonable, when factoring in the considering R&D costs associated with developing a drug.
however, the drug approval process by the FDA is very lengthy. the 7 years of exclusivity begins while the drug is still in clinical trials (aka the company can't profit off of it because doctors can't prescribe it, since it isn't FDA-approved). these clincial trials and the resulting FDA approval process can take years, and meanwhile the 7 year profit window is ticking.
let's say it took 3 years for the FDA to approve a drug. now that company only has 4 years to profit off of that drug until a bunch of generics spring up. i think it's pretty clear why they would charge a greater amount than what the "real" cost of the drug is.
what dr. rogers suggests is starting that 7 year countdown after FDA approval. now the developing company has 7 full years to profit off of the drug, which would hopefully lower costs for the american citizen.
|
On February 28 2013 11:05 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 10:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
"5. Doctors Determine Medical Necessity"
There's a conflict of interest if I ever saw one! wow? So you guys (americans) get ripped because you dont have a national healthcare system and the crook is the doctor?? lolll it never crossed your mind that the insurance company denying you treatments might not have your well being as their first priority as opposed to the doctor who is treating you? If the doctor doesnt have the right/ the legitimacy to tell you what you need as far as the treatment goes who does?
Just a little comment:
I have experience working in both the US and Danish healthcare system. I follow the debate in both countries closely. In Denmark doctors are also seen as greedy, lazy bastards gaming the system - and that is in a social healthcare system. Politicians are really good at blaming the doctors instead of looking at the root of the problem. And when it starts hurting the patients, doctors cave in before the politicians EVERY SINGLE TIME.
|
CA10828 Posts
On February 28 2013 11:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 11:00 LosingID8 wrote:
doctors make decisions within the framework of what is allowed (aka what they are able to get reimbursed) by insurance companies. Here's my understanding of the matter (emphasis mine): Show nested quote +The corporate practice of medicine doctrine provides that firms—whether hospitals or HMOs—cannot direct how physicians practice medicine because the firms do not have medical licenses, only the physicians do. Although some states allow hospitals to hire physicians as employees, that change in formal status does not help much if the employer cannot tell the employee what to do. Even if the law did not prohibit such interference, tort law generally penalizes firm decisions to interfere with the medical judgments of individual physicians, making it unprofitable to try, as Professor Blumstein observes. Further, hospital bylaws usually require leaving the medical staff in charge of medical decisions, and those bylaws are in turn required by hospital accreditation standards and often by licensing laws. By dictating autonomy for the various providers involved in jointly producing health outcomes, these rules largely dictate separate payments to each autonomous provider.
Private insurer efforts to directly manage care have likewise been curbed by the ban on corporate practices of medicine and the threat of tort liability. In addition, states have adopted laws requiring insurers to pay for any care (within covered categories) that a physician deemed medically necessary, banning insurers from selectively contracting with particular providers, and restricting the financial incentives that insurers can offer providers. LinkThe idea that individual doctors hold decision making power, to an extreme of sub-optimal results, also dovetails with a lot of Atul Gawande's writings (Ex. Big Med). you're absolutely right. and if it's an emergency situation the doctor will obviously do what is medically necessary for the patient to have the best outcome.
the problem comes in less acute situations, where the doctor might feel like a certain treatment regimen is more optimal or a diagnostic test is necessary but they won't do it because it requires a lot of arguing with the insurance company. for example, i was shadowing a doctor who was seeing a patient. the patient had last been seen 10 months ago and they took an xray at that time. the doctor felt like he needed a new xray to see if the patient's condition had changed, but the pt's insurance only covered 1 of that type of xray per 12 months. in this case, the dr felt that it was imperative to take that xray, but it required 30 minutes of yelling by both the medical assistant and the dr over the phone for the insurance company to give in and agree to reimburse for the xray. that type of scenario is way too common and is a huge hassle for the dr's office that you can't expect them to do that every time. so yes, the dr had the final say but this system of haggling is not optimal for patient care.
|
I read through the whole article and I barely understood half the issues. It would take a lot of time to actually critically evaluate what's being said.
That being said I can't help but add my uninformed opinion to the debate. It seems to me that there are some common sense fixes that most people agree on. One would be tort reform, the other giving Medicare the option to negotiate drug prices.
The reason why these (and presumably other, less obvious) improvements fail, because the beneficiaries successfully lobby against them. It would take a lot of time, effort and focused attention from the public to force through meaningful tort reform, for example.
In a sense this whole issue showcases the best and the worst of American democracy. There's a suprising number of well informed and conscientious experts who have thought deeply about these issues and came up with some interesting recommendations. I'm not really that well informed about the politics of other EU countries but public debates of this high quality are basically unheard of here in Hungary.
At the same time special interests have a legally protected right to influence the political process in a way that would be described as corruption in the rest of the world. That's not to say it doesn't happen elsewhere just that it's usually illegal.
Sorry to turn this into a post about the political process. But it does feel strange to debate the details of policy when there's wide agreement on some of the main ideas, at least among those who are informed and not conected to special interests. The most important question seems to be why that agreement doesn't translate to political action and how can that be changed.
|
JohnnyB actually makes a good point, often doctors receive kickbacks for performing treatments or recommending specific meds.
That said, I do believe single payer is the best way to go- or at least allow people the choice to buy into medicare. Overall, there really is no easy solution I don't think. The greed and corruption is too great, and as long as patients are considered "consumers", nothing will change.
|
On February 28 2013 11:23 LosingID8 wrote:btw i just wanted to clarify Dr Roger's 4th statement for those who don't know how the drug patents work Show nested quote +4. Negotiate Drug Prices
The United States carries the pharmaceutical research and development burden for the entire world. We are essentially subsidizing the lower drug prices in wealthy countries like England, Germany, France, Canada, and Japan. Americans should not pay more for the same medication than they do in other developed nations. Medicare and Medicaid should be able to negotiate drug prices like the VA, DOD and other nations. I also understand it is costly to develop new medications. Patents should be extended a minimum number of years from the time the drug goes on the market and not start the clock while it is in development an unable to be sold. the part in bold is the key part. there are a lot of different cases and scenarios, but i'll talk about the most common way. the way it works now is that drugs have exclusivity for 7 years. this means that the company has sole rights to market this drug, without the threat of generics developed by other companies. 7 years sounds quite reasonable, when factoring in the considering R&D costs associated with developing a drug. however, the drug approval process by the FDA is very lengthy. the 7 years of exclusivity begins while the drug is still in clinical trials (aka the company can't profit off of it because doctors can't prescribe it, since it isn't FDA-approved). these clincial trials and the resulting FDA approval process can take years, and meanwhile the 7 year profit window is ticking. let's say it took 3 years for the FDA to approve a drug. now that company only has 4 years to profit off of that drug until a bunch of generics spring up. i think it's pretty clear why they would charge a greater amount than what the "real" cost of the drug is. what dr. rogers suggests is starting that 7 year countdown after FDA approval. now the developing company has 7 full years to profit off of the drug, which would hopefully lower costs for the american citizen.
Utility patents are granted for 20 years from the date of the patent application filing. After the FDA approval process, there may only be 7 years left if the drug took an exceptional amount of time in trials, but that wasn't the starting point.
I don't think changing this would have any long-term effect on drug prices anyway. The patent-protected brand name drugs might be a bit cheaper if the patent life were longer because the drug company could stretch their profits out, but the delay in access to generics caused by the longer patent term would make up for that, and then some. Even if we did want to make this change, it would require a new worldwide patent treaty to be enforced, otherwise Americans would just get fleeced even more than we already are.
|
CA10828 Posts
On February 28 2013 12:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 11:23 LosingID8 wrote:btw i just wanted to clarify Dr Roger's 4th statement for those who don't know how the drug patents work 4. Negotiate Drug Prices
The United States carries the pharmaceutical research and development burden for the entire world. We are essentially subsidizing the lower drug prices in wealthy countries like England, Germany, France, Canada, and Japan. Americans should not pay more for the same medication than they do in other developed nations. Medicare and Medicaid should be able to negotiate drug prices like the VA, DOD and other nations. I also understand it is costly to develop new medications. Patents should be extended a minimum number of years from the time the drug goes on the market and not start the clock while it is in development an unable to be sold. the part in bold is the key part. there are a lot of different cases and scenarios, but i'll talk about the most common way. the way it works now is that drugs have exclusivity for 7 years. this means that the company has sole rights to market this drug, without the threat of generics developed by other companies. 7 years sounds quite reasonable, when factoring in the considering R&D costs associated with developing a drug. however, the drug approval process by the FDA is very lengthy. the 7 years of exclusivity begins while the drug is still in clinical trials (aka the company can't profit off of it because doctors can't prescribe it, since it isn't FDA-approved). these clincial trials and the resulting FDA approval process can take years, and meanwhile the 7 year profit window is ticking. let's say it took 3 years for the FDA to approve a drug. now that company only has 4 years to profit off of that drug until a bunch of generics spring up. i think it's pretty clear why they would charge a greater amount than what the "real" cost of the drug is. what dr. rogers suggests is starting that 7 year countdown after FDA approval. now the developing company has 7 full years to profit off of the drug, which would hopefully lower costs for the american citizen. Utility patents are granted for 20 years from the date of the patent application filing. After the FDA approval process, there may only be 7 years left if the drug took an exceptional amount of time in trials, but that wasn't the starting point. I don't think changing this would have any long-term effect on drug prices anyway. The patent-protected brand name drugs might be a bit cheaper if the patent life were longer because the drug company could stretch their profits out, but the delay in access to generics caused by the longer patent term would make up for that, and then some. Even if we did want to make this change, it would require a new worldwide patent treaty to be enforced, otherwise Americans would just get fleeced even more than we already are.
my bad, you're right. the 7 years number is for marketing exclusivity. the patent itself is 20 years, but i believe the average length of time the company has after FDA approval but before generics come out is 8-10 years.
|
Having seen a glimpse into what it's like to actually synthesize a compound library for pharmacological screening, I can see why drug companies are trying to squeeze every last dollar out of their protected 7 years of market exclusivity, especially when their margins are capped in other nations. Since many other countries control the costs of medicine, companies will jack up prices where they are free to do so.
That all being said, something (I'm not sure what....I'm a scientist, not a policymaker) needs to be done about what medical costs do to people in this country.
When I was 13, my mother was diagnosed with an aggressive variant of breast cancer, and it had progressed to Stage III before diagnosis. I eavesdropped on a conversation between my parents and overheard my mother begging my father to let her go without treatment so that my siblings and I could afford to go to college.
|
As long as Fox News and conservative talk radio has such power over public opinion in America I can't see any significant changes ever happening in the US on healthcare- they're just too good at shutting down any sort of meaningful discourse with ridiculous red-baiting hysteria. It's really sad to think that a lot of uneducated blue-collar people who would scream 'socialism' and resist any sort of changes are actually getting screwed over the most by the current system.
In the end what is so terrible about a public option? Imagine the effect on prices a national, not-for-profit, public insurance collective could have. And the key word is option, nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying you couldn't get private insurance instead if you're so desperately opposed to anything government is involved in or you find a better deal elsewhere. It blows my mind that this isn't even considered a serious option in the US. It seems that Obama's compulsory insurance legislation did nothing to help consumers at all.
|
On February 28 2013 12:31 Chemist391 wrote:
Having seen a glimpse into what it's like to actually synthesize a compound library for pharmacological screening, I can see why drug companies are trying to squeeze every last dollar out of their protected 7 years of market exclusivity, especially when their margins are capped in other nations. Since many other countries control the costs of medicine, companies will jack up prices where they are free to do so.
Put another way, the American drug market is subsidizing the cost of prescription medication abroad. They aren't allowed to make a profit there, so they lobby to protect the second price here. The costs for development and the timing for recouping those costs (One in Ten drugs developed actually goes to market, but the costs for the other 9 developed don't evaporate) have already been discussed.
I'm no friend of the lobbyists that pushed through legislation barring the purchase of drugs overseas: that's a big market distortion. I also dislike the big FDA time barriers to successful drugs, who are facing public censure for bad drugs let through, but not for thousands of deaths from good drugs that can't be used yet. This in addition to the FDA going beyond certifying the safety of the drugs but also tasked with insuring their efficacy. If government price controls prevent the profit making enterprise of drug research, then less drugs will be explored and that kind of research will be slowed. Both the regulatory process and the development process is expensive and the prices will reflect that. Imposing price limits will affect future drug's availability and serious regulatory and federal laws are preventing those price pressures from evening out.
|
I was under the impression that the pharmaceutical industry is massively subsidized by taxpayers for R&D. Is this not the case?
|
On February 28 2013 14:16 screamingpalm wrote:
I was under the impression that the pharmaceutical industry is massively subsidized by taxpayers for R&D. Is this not the case?
There is public investment towards the discovery of treatments for so-called "orphaned diseases": conditions that effect a small enough population that developing a drug for them could never be economically viable. Left to the whim of the markets, many people would suffer and die from potentially treatable conditions because no company is willing to throw away its profits on developing that treatment.
There is also public investment towards treatments for diseases that are very challenging to treat, such as many cancers. No private company would be willing or able to toss money away into the gaping maw that is cancer/alzheimer's/diabetes/etc research.
|
On February 28 2013 15:58 Chemist391 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 14:16 screamingpalm wrote:
I was under the impression that the pharmaceutical industry is massively subsidized by taxpayers for R&D. Is this not the case? There is public investment towards the discovery of treatments for so-called "orphaned diseases": conditions that effect a small enough population that developing a drug for them could never be economically viable. Left to the whim of the markets, many people would suffer and die from potentially treatable conditions because no company is willing to throw away its profits on developing that treatment. There is also public investment towards treatments for diseases that are very challenging to treat, such as many cancers. No private company would be willing or able to toss money away into the gaping maw that is cancer/alzheimer's/diabetes/etc research.
I think he was referring to basic pharmaceutical research which is usually done with public funding, based off of which the pharmaceutical industry develops, tests, and markets specific drugs.
|
I am glad for our medicare when i read threads like this one. US Medicare is just one huge rip-off. For instance when i needed a basic examination for highschool to play soccer, i paid 70 bucks in the US (year 2004). If i need it here in Czech i pay 10 bucks nowadays, it used to be about 3 dolars in 2004. Also last year i have undergone a vocal cords surgery and alltogether it cost me about 80 bucks. I don't want to imagine how much would that cost in the US.
|
As someone who is very heavily involved in investing, one of my "bets" actually goes against the subject at hand. One of my stock holdings is Teva Pharmaceutical, which is the world's largest manufacturer of generic drugs. They specifically benefit when major branded drugs lose their patent protection and Teva can release a cheap alternative to the market. As the pressure mounts to reduce healthcare costs, they are also going to benefit as more people opt to buy cheaper generics instead of the original and more expensive branded drugs.
|
On February 28 2013 13:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 12:31 Chemist391 wrote:
Having seen a glimpse into what it's like to actually synthesize a compound library for pharmacological screening, I can see why drug companies are trying to squeeze every last dollar out of their protected 7 years of market exclusivity, especially when their margins are capped in other nations. Since many other countries control the costs of medicine, companies will jack up prices where they are free to do so. Put another way, the American drug market is subsidizing the cost of prescription medication abroad. They aren't allowed to make a profit there, so they lobby to protect the second price here..
I don't think it works like that, they still make profits everywhere, but just not as rediculously much as in the US.
|
What about Obamacare?
I read this in Time a week ago. Doctors are sick!
|
On February 28 2013 23:10 yOngKIN wrote:
What about Obamacare?
I read this in Time a week ago. Doctors are sick!
If that was your conclusion you did not read it. It specifically argues otherwise in fact.
|
I dunno maybe I'm strange... but I don't like the idea of someone profiting off of my suffering. Especially someone who is responsible for my health. When it is in someones best interest to have me keep getting sick, or when someone can smile at rhe idea of me getting cancer... I dunno that seems pretty messed up to me.
That seems so... obvious to me. Logical. That's why i like canadas system. The US having a huge industry that is set up to profit off of misery and pain and suffering seems... amoral. Especially considering how much money goes into it.
|
On February 26 2013 18:38 theinfamousone wrote:
The problem with health care and free market are so numerous I could be here all night. For one, people just won't stomach the idea of citizens getting turned away bleeding or not helping someone who's not breathing, or whatever it may be when there's people like Kim Kardashian that make millions of dollars for ditzing through life and blow it on gold lamborginis or whatever. It's just not going to happen. So if you accept that fact, you have to realize right away that we'll never have 100% of the population able to afford their health care no matter how reasonable it is. Therefore a true free market will never work.
Currently about 50% (and falling as a trend for the last 20 years) of Americans have medical coverage through their work. The other 50% either don't have any insurance or the government pays for it either through medicare or medicaid or whatever. So when I say we'll never reach 100%, I mean closer to 50%.
Here's a few problems with US healthcare. The government is forcing doctors and hospitals and pharmacies to work at a loss when providing care for people on medicare/medicaid. The problem with that is that then people who are NOT on medicare/medicaid must make up the difference. A friend I know told me the hospital he's an accountant for loses as much as a million dollars a month, and overall are operating on a .5% profit. But when 70% of their work is either government or uninsured people and they're losing money serving these people, the insured have to make up for it. As more baby boomers retire, there's more on the government health plans and less with traditional insurance so profit is getting whittled at both ends. On top of that, the baby boomer generation is getting old which means they need many times the healthcare that young people do.
This is why we're seeing health care expense rise at several multiples of the inflation rate. My accountant friend told me just in in the last 5 years it's gone from 70% commercial work (insured) and 30% government funded to 30% commercial and 70% government funded.
So even though 50% of the population has insurance, it's the healthy 50% which means they don't use it all that much. For example, more than 50% of babies are born under medicaid (healthcare for the poor) because the child bearing age group is likely to need it even though much less than 50% of the population is on medicaid.
One MAIN problem with healthcare the way it is in the US is that people just don't buy insurance until they need it. You can't just expect insurances to start paying for sick people who's not paying in their share without raising everyone else's rates. Obamacare will kind of solve this, although it's a really dumb way to do it.
Insurance companies are a clinic (pardon the pun) in bureaucracy that end up adding at least 20% (on a good day) dead weight to the whole thing.
Now, when you figure how much money goes into a hospital's billing department to keep track of thousands of patients, thousands of insurance policies and programs and all of the time it takes to negotiate (it took me 6 months to get a bill from a clinic I got a shot at because they were negotiating with my insurance for that long and they told me it can take up to a year). The billing department can add as much as 30% to the medical bill compared to a hospital in Canada with a single payer system.
Then you've got tort issues like people that sue a hospital for $30 million (guess who's pocket that comes out of?). I could go on.
This guy knows what he's talking about. I knew he worked in healthcare as I was reading this (which he later confirmed in a subsequent post). In an idealized scenario we wouldn't have excessive administration staff and insurance "middle-men" acting as dead weight in the system whilst demanding salaries and benefits.
How do insurance companies make profit? They make sure to set their premiums and expenses at a rate that allows them to siphon the maximal amount. And they hire people to crunch these numbers day by day. If we are in a budget crisis, these middle men who contribute nothing to the care of patients are the first that need to go.
Instead, it's been doctors and nurses thrown under the bus time and time again. The government is basically forcing them to offer services at an enforced reimbursement rate using the weight of the 58 million people on medicaid, some sort of a "collective bargaining".
In essence, politicians think that the healthcare cost problem can be solved by forcing doctors to take smaller pay per patient. However at the same time they expect nationwide coverage and healthcare for all. So you are cutting the incentives for a profession and at the same time expecting them to produce more work. I think we can all see the problem with that. Sure, technically we'd be able to get everyone insured and we'd have a great superficial statistic to show. But what good is your piece of paper when there's no one willing to treat you?
To everyone; I know the trend has been to "hate on the rich", and being a doctor has an image of a lucrative profession. Next time you are at the doctor's, strike up a conversation with them. You'll realize many are driving Toyotas and retiring at 70+. At the end of the day, if you are sick, doctors are going to treat you because a life is a life. But wouldn't you want the one who is participating the most in your care to receive the most incentives from your insurance? I have no trouble with that philosophy, and would rather the government direct the cuts towards the lesser-needed requirements of the healthcare business.
|
it feels like better billing practice is needed in healthcare.
charged amount > patients with no insurance > insured beneficiaries > Medicare(government) beneficairies.
now level iii ER bill cost around 1000~1800 where I live and you would be surprised how much Medicare pays(like $80 bucks after adjustments) which seems like the true cost entailed for the medical providers.
I am no expert in this matter but it feels like this is due to insurance billing process which forces the medical providers to charge a lot expecting the bill to be adjusted down.
edit: ER bill mentioned here is for the facility charge only, meaning physicians/imaging/medication/everything else are extra charge.
|
On March 13 2013 12:58 W2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 18:38 theinfamousone wrote:
The problem with health care and free market are so numerous I could be here all night. For one, people just won't stomach the idea of citizens getting turned away bleeding or not helping someone who's not breathing, or whatever it may be when there's people like Kim Kardashian that make millions of dollars for ditzing through life and blow it on gold lamborginis or whatever. It's just not going to happen. So if you accept that fact, you have to realize right away that we'll never have 100% of the population able to afford their health care no matter how reasonable it is. Therefore a true free market will never work.
Currently about 50% (and falling as a trend for the last 20 years) of Americans have medical coverage through their work. The other 50% either don't have any insurance or the government pays for it either through medicare or medicaid or whatever. So when I say we'll never reach 100%, I mean closer to 50%.
Here's a few problems with US healthcare. The government is forcing doctors and hospitals and pharmacies to work at a loss when providing care for people on medicare/medicaid. The problem with that is that then people who are NOT on medicare/medicaid must make up the difference. A friend I know told me the hospital he's an accountant for loses as much as a million dollars a month, and overall are operating on a .5% profit. But when 70% of their work is either government or uninsured people and they're losing money serving these people, the insured have to make up for it. As more baby boomers retire, there's more on the government health plans and less with traditional insurance so profit is getting whittled at both ends. On top of that, the baby boomer generation is getting old which means they need many times the healthcare that young people do.
This is why we're seeing health care expense rise at several multiples of the inflation rate. My accountant friend told me just in in the last 5 years it's gone from 70% commercial work (insured) and 30% government funded to 30% commercial and 70% government funded.
So even though 50% of the population has insurance, it's the healthy 50% which means they don't use it all that much. For example, more than 50% of babies are born under medicaid (healthcare for the poor) because the child bearing age group is likely to need it even though much less than 50% of the population is on medicaid.
One MAIN problem with healthcare the way it is in the US is that people just don't buy insurance until they need it. You can't just expect insurances to start paying for sick people who's not paying in their share without raising everyone else's rates. Obamacare will kind of solve this, although it's a really dumb way to do it.
Insurance companies are a clinic (pardon the pun) in bureaucracy that end up adding at least 20% (on a good day) dead weight to the whole thing.
Now, when you figure how much money goes into a hospital's billing department to keep track of thousands of patients, thousands of insurance policies and programs and all of the time it takes to negotiate (it took me 6 months to get a bill from a clinic I got a shot at because they were negotiating with my insurance for that long and they told me it can take up to a year). The billing department can add as much as 30% to the medical bill compared to a hospital in Canada with a single payer system.
Then you've got tort issues like people that sue a hospital for $30 million (guess who's pocket that comes out of?). I could go on.
This guy knows what he's talking about. I knew he worked in healthcare as I was reading this (which he later confirmed in a subsequent post). In an idealized scenario we wouldn't have excessive administration staff and insurance "middle-men" acting as dead weight in the system whilst demanding salaries and benefits. How do insurance companies make profit? They make sure to set their premiums and expenses at a rate that allows them to siphon the maximal amount. And they hire people to crunch these numbers day by day. If we are in a budget crisis, these middle men who contribute nothing to the care of patients are the first that need to go. Instead, it's been doctors and nurses thrown under the bus time and time again. The government is basically forcing them to offer services at an enforced reimbursement rate using the weight of the 58 million people on medicaid, some sort of a "collective bargaining". In essence, politicians think that the healthcare cost problem can be solved by forcing doctors to take smaller pay per patient. However at the same time they expect nationwide coverage and healthcare for all. So you are cutting the incentives for a profession and at the same time expecting them to produce more work. I think we can all see the problem with that. Sure, technically we'd be able to get everyone insured and we'd have a great superficial statistic to show. But what good is your piece of paper when there's no one willing to treat you? To everyone; I know the trend has been to "hate on the rich", and being a doctor has an image of a lucrative profession. Next time you are at the doctor's, strike up a conversation with them. You'll realize many are driving Toyotas and retiring at 70+. At the end of the day, if you are sick, doctors are going to treat you because a life is a life. But wouldn't you want the one who is participating the most in your care to receive the most incentives from your insurance? I have no trouble with that philosophy, and would rather the government direct the cuts towards the lesser-needed requirements of the healthcare business.
I don't think you understand how things work when it comes to Medicaid and Medicare. Company makes a drug that costs 1$ a pill, Hospital buys the drug for 1000$ a pill and bills a patient who is on Medicaid or Medicare for using it 1100$, because of the shipping and labor costs involved it looks like hospital is making virtually no profit. Then you look at the board of directors for that hospital and realize that people that are there are in some way related to CEO's of the pharmaceutical companies. Then you look at donations that hospitals receive, they are from those said companies. So basically medicare and medicaid are extremely profitable for hospitals.
|
Just to drop something in..
In Switzerland private health insurers have administrative costs of about 4-7% which is really low when compared to about any other kind of company. So this is not a general problem with these companies, it's a problem with the exact laws they work under, if the laws are clear and strict, there is not much buerocarcy and therefore less administrative costs --> less insurance cost.
All else "theinfamousone" seems to know his shit .
Btw: In Switzerland there is a general "cost" for each "action" a doctor takes and a flat cost for stationary treatments at a hospital (per day). If you want more than that it won't be insurance covered or you have to get an additional private insurance on top of the mandatory one.
But our healthcare system is also really expensive, but for entirely diffrent reasons than yours (for instance WAY to high prices for medicine due to the pharmalobby being ridiculously strong and politicians being the usual asshats  --> Novartis/Roche/Others sit here...).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/NHS.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/SBC.PNG)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/EMP.PNG)
