|
United States42673 Posts
On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism.
Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally...
Seriously, your trolling is peerless lol. I know you make these posts to bait responses but I can't help it.
|
On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally...
r u for rela?
|
On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism.
That's an interesting post considering the history of the developments of microwaves, computers, and the internet.
|
United States42673 Posts
On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela?
Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on.
Also that hardcore nationalism and patriotic jingoism. That was done too. In fact, pretty much all the isms were done. Then Europe stopped caring so much about retarded crap.
|
On September 19 2009 06:31 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:13 Caller wrote:
Everybody blames the market for being inefficient in this case.
That is correct. Insurance is an example of market failure.
However, their rationale for what to do is all wrong.
The problem here is this:
a) insurers are taking on a risk whenever they take on a new person in their insurance plan.
b) as such, they raise rates to compensate for high risks, because they are never 100% sure person X is going to get cancer or not, even if he gets a checkup and everything.
c) as a result, healthy people like person Y are not going to have a strong incentive to get insurance because what's the point if you're healthy? They would purchase insurance either later on, when they are more at risk, or when the price is lower.
d) As a result, with a less healthy risk pool, insurance companies raise rates again, driving more people out of the market because it exceeds their risk and needs.
e) in the end, you have a lot of "low quality" consumers, i.e. sick people. If the insurance company is to stay liquid, let alone afloat, it must control costs somehow.
f) it does so by increasing costs of insurance, as well as by cutting the amount that they pay to doctors. Doctors are forced to subscribe to insurance plans to attract patients, and thus they charge uninsured people way more than insured people (and i'm not talking about the copay, i'm talking about the cost of a procedure, total. The cost for an insured person is 300$, and the insurance company pays another 300$ for a certain procedure that one of my family recently undertook. The cost for an uninsured person is $10,000.)
g) As a result, uninsured people cannot get healthcare, because it is way too expensive for them to do so. And low income families tend to have worse health outcomes than upper class families, due to the fact that they eat more unhealthy foods, and do not see doctors as much as they would like, due to the high costs. Therefore, the more subtle diseases that cost much more to treat end up emerging among them in higher numbers. When they then try to get insurance, they are obviously refused, because it is equivalent to the insurance company taking on debt.
And here is the problem. It's not "greed" or any of that bullcrap that people say when they come from the left. The left is right, for the wrong reasons, and the right is wrong, for the right reasons. The answer isn't a government takeover of healthcare, because Medicare is a huge reason why healthcare costs are so high, and Medicare is a large part of government healthcare. Since Medicare tends to care for all seniors, and often these seniors require expensive procedures (due to their age), the average expenditure for Medicare persons is quite high. As a result, since Medicare has no incentive to cut costs, and doctors have an incentive to raise costs (because of private insurers), doctors charge Medicare high amounts of money, which is causing the system to become expensive and unstable. Leaving them to the market of insurance, however, is equally bad, as again it would be the market failure that I have described above.
The solution is to make no insurance a viable alternative to insurance. The initial purpose of insurance was to supplement high healthcare costs, such as chemotherapy and the like-it wasn't to subsidize a trip to the doctor for a checkup or to get shots or whatever. The market price for a checkup among doctors who refuse to take insurance is quite low-around $30, which is a far cry from the hundreds that are charged to an insurance company. In fact, if you were to increase the supply of doctors (by for instance making it easier, more affordable, and more acceptance into medical school), you would drive this cost down further. And a checkup can help to prevent much more expensive problems from being present in the future. Detecting a cancer right when it starts is much, much cheaper than fighting it when its metastasizing all across the body and when you have symptoms. Right now, only insured people tend to go for a checkup. Make it so uninsured people can go for a checkup, and you'll wipe out those who go to the Emergency room and costs thousands for a minor problem. You'll allow the private market to drive down costs by providing the right incentives. You restore power back into the hands of the doctors, and you also cause the insurance companies to drive down costs to compete with the policies of those without insurance. For expensive procedures, that's what insurance should be used for. You don't get car insurance (aside from the legal ramifications) because you want to get a tune up. You use it in case some jackass totals your car. You don't get house insurance because you want to change the roof. You get it in case some jackass burns down your house. Why should health insurance be any different? An excellent post. I agree with most of what you said and I would definitely hail a more effective private healthcare system in the US as a success. While I don't believe you addressed the intrinsic advantages of public over private you succinctly explained why the current system is such a mess.
I will now do so 
Public vs. Private.
The Private insurance, as I had mentioned before, in this current environment, tends to end up at market failure. A public plan eliminates the market failure because costs are controlled by allowing the public to accumulate debt. This debt is then paid for by taxes, or by selling it to China through treasury bills. As a method to eliminate market failure, a public option is excellent-indeed, Medicare was used to eliminate the market failure of the insurance companies that specifically affected seniors. However, because of the inherent nature of incentives, there is no incentive to control costs in a public plan-as they will be distributed to tax payers-and there is also no incentive for people to be healthy and see the doctor often-because they have a secure safety net in the form of a public plan of insurance.
Of course, since not all goals are strictly economic, and there is no way to quantify the amount of lives that have been saved as a result, one could argue that this is a justifiable sacrifice to make. However, I believe that not only can we keep this level of care, but that we can make it far more economical, by the solutions that I have explained in my previous post. Unfortunately, because people are very fixed in their opinions, we are unlikely to see this kind of progress any time soon.
If I had to choose between a public option and the status quo in America, I would choose the public option. However, if I have more than those two lone choices, I would reject the public option, because it is uneconomical.
|
On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on.
You seem to be confused on American governmental structure.
The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in.
|
On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in.
Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government?
Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government?
|
Health care in the USA is more a non-system than a system.
Biggest problems in health care in the USA = overutilization due to profit motive and defensive medicine (Docs funcitoning as co-investors for private hospitals, taking payments in return for admitting patients... etc). Lack of readily available primary and preventative care (An estimated 52% of hospital visits occur because individuals cannot get a timely appointment wtih a primary care doc, and our feeble 33% of primary care docs is too weak compared to the 52 percent seen in other countries). Overspecialization. The cost of drugs is greater than anywhere else (Don't give me the B.S. pharma needs the money for research. Anyone whose actually looked at how the average pharma co. manages their funds knows this is horseshit) Excessive spending on end of life care (Other countries are much better at utilizing hospice facilities for end of life care). Lack of responsible laws governing the sale of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment (I get free lunch from a pharm rep every time I go to a preceptor). Lack of legisilation controling health care profits (Many countries limit the profit margins of drug and private insurance companies to 0.5-1% while they remain unbounded in the USA). Also we need to remove the influence of pharma and hospitals on Washington. These groups should not be able to make politcal contributions and legislators should not be allowed to invest in these institutions.
Honestly health care is soo screwed up in the United States expanding it will only feed into a broken system that needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up. This is why I don't support the current legislation and neither does the AMA. Specifically we need completely restructured access, remove profit motive (like they do in the Mayo Clinic paying all docs a salary and remaining non-profit) - creation of more primary care training programs - better utilization of end of life care - government negociated and controled drug prices and pharma profits - and death of the republican party who oppose everything related to sensible reform.
|
On September 19 2009 06:50 aRod wrote:
Health care in the USA is more a non-system than a system.
Biggest problems in health care in the USA = overutilization due to profit motive and defensive medicine (Docs funcitoning as co-investors for private hospitals, taking payments in return for admitting patients... etc). Lack of readily available primary and preventative care (An estimated 52% of hospital visits occur because individuals cannot get a timely appointment wtih a primary care doc, and our feeble 33% of primary care docs is too weak compared to the 52 percent seen in other countries). Overspecialization. The cost of drugs is greater than anywhere else (Don't give me the B.S. pharma needs the money for research. Anyone whose actually looked at how the average pharma co. manages their funds knows this is horseshit) Excessive spending on end of life care (Other countries are much better at utilizing hospice facilities for end of life care). Lack of responsible laws governing the sale of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment (I get free lunch from a pharm rep every time I go to a preceptor). Lack of legisilation controling health care profits (Many countries limit the profit margins of drug and private insurance companies to 0.5-1% while they remain unbounded in the USA).
Honestly health care is soo screwed up in the United States expanding it will only feed into a broken system that needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up. This is why I don't support the current legislation and neither does the AMA. Specifically, completely restructure access, remove profit motive (like they do in the Mayo Clinic paying all docs a salary and remaining non-profit) - creating more primary care training programs - better utilization of end of life care - government negociate and controled drug prices and pharma profits - and death of the republican party who oppose everything.
take a look at my argument and see if it makes sense before you keep blaming profit motive
|
On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government?
If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in.
This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay.
|
United States42673 Posts
I wouldn't say I was any more reckless because I know I have public healthcare. Nobody likes to go to hospital etc. Furthermore because they want to reduce overall healthcare costs there is more preventative care, not less, from subsidised nicotene patches to reminders sent to high risk groups to get checkups. Also hospitals don't get a blank cheque, the Government sets aside however much they want to spend on healthcare, that gets rationed by experts in a number of fields (medicine, social studies, economists) who attempt to judge how best to spend it to get the maximum healthcare benefit. A hospital will know how much a hip replacement will cost on average and how many they should get a year on average. Costs don't spiral out of control because the less effective treatments don't happen.
It is my belief that a public system is more efficient because of the diminishing returns in medicine. Healthcare costs as much as a person is willing to spend, they will always be able to get an improvement by putting more money in, it'll just be less as the amount of money increases. This makes a private system in which individuals spend money unevenly inherently inefficient whereas a public system with rationing can treat all the efficient (high healthcare gain, low monetary cost) people first and move up the scale to wherever their budget cutoff is.
I also subscribe to the moral argument for society looking after people but I suspect you're aware of that and see no value in discussing it.
|
On September 19 2009 04:18 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 02:44 theonemephisto wrote:
No one denies that some things the government does/have done are good and necessary and have been beneficial. Though, even with that list, I believe that the government shouldn't really be involved with a lot of the things. Namely, utilities shouldn't be a public monopoly, drugs should be less regulated, EPA should be less powerful, basically many regulations shouldn't be as stringent, the USPS shouldn't even exist, schools shouldn't be a public monopoly, etc.
Sometimes there's a compelling government interest in providing a service; the actual difficult part is discerning which services have that government interest and which don't. For instance, Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom gives his arguments (that I'd say a good sect of conservatives agree with) for which services the government should be involved in and which ones they shouldn't. LOL are you serious? Drug companies would sell you poison, then the antidote if they could get away with it. Drug company CEOs complain that the FDA is too strict, because they want evidence that their drugs ACTUALLY WORK. Boo fucking hoo. The reason they still want SOME evidence for late-term cancer drugs is because companies could get away with selling anything to desperate dying people and get rich exploiting them (see all the miracle cure peddlers).
First, don't put words in my mouth, I'm not advocating getting rid of ALL regulation. But the current process adds millions to billions of dollars (both implicit and explicit) of costs to each new drug and keep tons of potentially life-saving drugs off of the market.
I trust in people and their doctors to be able to analyze the evidence and decide on courses of treatment on their own, at least to a degree. Sure, some rich early-users will get screwed by some drug companies peddling quack cures, but if some desperate rich guy wants to pay that much for any chance at saving his life, I'll welcome the information he provides me on the efficacy of the drug in question and move on.
|
United States42673 Posts
On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in.
I don't see how that in any way relates to anything I said. You seem to be confused about argument structure. The RESPONSE should in some WAY relate to the arguMENT at hAnD.
|
On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay.
good lord another paultard
Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself.
|
It's probably a mistake for me to make a post in this kind of thread since it's a heated topic - that is, it's the kind of topic where people are fervently arguing wrong answers to misdirected questions.
I'll venture a few quantitative responses anyway. First, some guy previously mentioned that we have a quick and effective organ transplant system in the US of A and that this owes itself to our free market system. This is completely wrong. In fact, the converse is true.
Our system of organ transplants (kidneys, livers, hearts) is complete shit, and the reason for this is that we have a government run system riddled with flaws.
The relevant acts are: The National Organ Transplant Act and The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.
In brief, the major problems in our organ transplant system stem from these government regulations because they outlaw the use of market-clearing prices. The current situation is that these acts require all transplanted organs in the United States come from either cadaveric donors or non-market solutions, i.e. altruistic donations.
The culpable legislation here was created for ethical reasons: in particular, the notion that it is unethical to have people pay for organs.
This is (perhaps not so obviously) a case of good old incompetence and human fuckery; Particularly because it is not only inefficient, but also morally misguided. Why should it be illegal for someone to sell their organ which then goes to someone in need?
Let's recognize the good that the transplanted organ will do the other person. In the case of many transplants, the recipient's life hangs in the balance, a pretty big deal. Moreover, in the case of the simplest and most successful transplant, the kidney, the recipient will be freed of extremely expensive and extremely painful dialysis treatments.
Normally you can't purchase extra lives, but in this special case you can buy an extra life and a better life for the organ's recipient.
What's wrong with the current system? Although I don't currently have the figures with me, at the time of the book's publication there were thousands of people waiting for an organ transplant and the shortage of transplantable organs was growing. That is, even accounting for the deaths of people on the list who could have been rescued, the shortage of transplantable organs was and is increasing. Simply put, without particular functioning organs you die. So that's the problem.
It's clear and indisputable that having a market-clearing price would cause a huge increase in the supply of available transplantable organs (the quantity supplied at a market clearing price would be much higher than the quantity demanded at a price of zero). So what's immoral about a market-clearing price for organs? In the best advocated system, Organ Donation Reform not only is there nothing wrong with using a market-clearing price, but it's better in every regard.
Important facts:
1 The government would actually pay the market clearing price, meaning that the service would be equally available to everyone. (Thus there would not be any meaningful rich/poor distinction)
2 Using a market clearing price would dissolve black markets that currently exist for organs. Note: black markets are created when market clearing prices aren't used, and there are black markets for organs currently. Chinese political prisoners are one of the more brutal cases but I'm sure almost everyone reading this is aware of the other cases.
3 The projected costs of kidney transplants, including the forecasted price of the organ, is roughly the cost of 3 years of dialysis (which has a lot of drawbacks compared with a transplanted organ). Note: kidney transplants would benefit the most under the improved system because they are the most successful of major organ transplants and the least costly to perform.
4 Currently uncompensated donors would receive compensation for the good they provide.
And as it were, the list goes on but suffice to say that the case is made that we could vastly improve our current system without the slightest trade-off - that is, the improved system is better in every regard.
In any case this is a good example of how the government could be put to great use in the health industry but instead makes the situation worse than if the free market were unregulated. Even in an unregulated market, there would be no black market and there would not be the impressive shortage of organs that exists today. Even if the organs were going to those able to pay the highest prices, at least some lives would still be saved that are currently not saved (though it is worth mentioning that many wealthy Americans go abroad to seek organ transplants which is part of how black markets are funded in other nations).
This is just one of a number of markets where real government incompetence creates a worse situation than the free market alternative, even though an ideal government could provide a socially optimal solution better than the free market alternative.
When you say some things are too important to be left to the government, it's important to make sure that the government isn't fucking things up in the first place. As your example shows, the government is involved to some extent in pretty much everything, so when something's fucked up, the answer is rarely "the government should handle this." More often when it comes to economic issues the answer is "the free market should handle this," but often enough the answer is "some combination of the two." Most often of all the answer is "it depends."
|
On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself.
I stopped at "paultard".
When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass."
I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me.
By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position.
|
United States42673 Posts
So you're advocating the Government paying a set fee to organ donors (or their families if deceased) simply to increase the supply and therefore the overall healthcare of the nation? As long as the cost isn't passed onto the recipient of the organ I don't have a moral problem with it (organs shouldn't be bought, they should be earned). I can see a one off cost for an organ being cheaper than years of treatment for the lack of an organ which would lower overall healthcare costs.
That said, I don't believe there's any great organ crisis in our public system. When you register with a doctor one of the questions on the card is what you want done with your organs if you die, everyone I've asked has said they don't mind donating them.
|
On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position.
Yay for American mythology.
|
On September 19 2009 06:55 Kwark wrote:
I wouldn't say I was any more reckless because I know I have public healthcare. Nobody likes to go to hospital etc. Furthermore because they want to reduce overall healthcare costs there is more preventative care, not less, from subsidised nicotene patches to reminders sent to high risk groups to get checkups. Also hospitals don't get a blank cheque, the Government sets aside however much they want to spend on healthcare, that gets rationed by experts in a number of fields (medicine, social studies, economists) who attempt to judge how best to spend it to get the maximum healthcare benefit. A hospital will know how much a hip replacement will cost on average and how many they should get a year on average. Costs don't spiral out of control because the less effective treatments don't happen.
It is my belief that a public system is more efficient because of the diminishing returns in medicine. Healthcare costs as much as a person is willing to spend, they will always be able to get an improvement by putting more money in, it'll just be less as the amount of money increases. This makes a private system in which individuals spend money unevenly inherently inefficient whereas a public system with rationing can treat all the efficient (high healthcare gain, low monetary cost) people first and move up the scale to wherever their budget cutoff is.
I also subscribe to the moral argument for society looking after people but I suspect you're aware of that and see no value in discussing it.
While nobody enjoys going to the doctor or going to the hospital, the fact is that there is no economic curb on demand for people that have insurance. Normally, price would control how often people go to the doctor. However, without price (as it is covered in insurance) demand goes up while supply remains the same. While I seriously doubt that the long lines are as big of a problem as some people make them out to be, there will be lines as a result. In addition, to make up for the high demand, doctors will try to raise the price of procedures as much as they can. Although I agree that a public option does encourage more preventative care in the sense that you advocate, I don't believe that it work as well in a more heterogeneous country like the United States. In the case of states, however, like Massachusetts, I think a public option would work better, as it is more localized and homogeneous than say Massachusetts and Texas.
One really good solution to this problem is to increase supply, but to be frank the AMA is a very powerful lobbying group that artificially restricts the amount of new medical students, and thus supply isn't likely to go up any time soon.
In my personal opinion, the belief that medical research is providing diminishing returns is flawed. It's not that we're getting less research done, it's that there is no profit incentive to cure. As it stands, big pharmaceutical companies have patents on what I would call "chronic" treatments. The reason I call them chronic treatments is because they don't actually cure anything. Take Coumadin, for instance. Coumadin is a widely prescribed blood-thinner, used to treat high blood pressure. It generates tons of revenue every year. However, there are methods in question that may treat high blood pressure completely-for instance, by the stimulating glands to produce more or less of certain hormones that control blood pressure. A cure would end the use of Coumadin, as why would one need to take something constantly when they can just undergo a procedure that would end their problem?
That's just it: there is no economic incentive, due to the patent system, for Big Pharma to produce cures vs. chronic treatments. Why the hell do we need Viagra, for instance, when instead we could have cured MRSA? The answer is because its more profitable at this time, due to patents. If we reworked the patent system, and gave smaller pharmaceutical companies more relaxed regulations, we would bring in an effective competitor against larger pharmaceutical corporations. And since the larger companies are currently heavily invested into promoting their chronic products, smaller companies would be interested in breaking the market. I actually have a private equity business plan set up for this eventuality
In any case, with new cures, we can not only satisfy but lower demand as healthy people no longer have as large of a demand for healthcare. By lowering demand, we also lower cost.
|
United States42673 Posts
On September 19 2009 07:05 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 06:58 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:52 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:46 Caller wrote:On September 19 2009 06:45 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:40 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:36 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 19 2009 06:33 Kwark wrote:On September 19 2009 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
Isn't it equally ironic how much American technology developed in a capitalistic society we use throughout the day before logging on and preaching how America should be more like Europe? Let's all grab our microwaved food and hop on our personal computers and rant against capitalism. Yeah, I'm glad America was here to teach Europe about capitalism. It's not like you guys are on a 100 year lag behind Europe culturally... r u for rela? Conservatives preaching free market Government with minimal regulation, no role besides policing and defence, non intervention where possible overseas (except to protect Americans and American business interests), promoting free trade and economic imperialism. Yeah, someone already did that. Then they moved on. You seem to be confused on American governmental structure. The FEDERAL government should never involve itself in something it has no right to be involved in. Aside from a philosophical perspective, do you have any other arguments against government? Likewise, aside from a philosophical perspective, are there any arguments for government? If you read the constitution, it explains what the federal government has the right to involve itself in. This country was not founded on equal outcomes for everyone. It was founded on equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone. People with a sense of personal responsibility and ambition will succeed and the lazy and and irresponsible will not. It never should have become a philosophical debate. That's not how this country was founded. If you don't like it, there's no one forcing you to stay. good lord another paultard Ron Paul has good ideas, and I admire his philosophy and agree with a lot of what he says. But his followers tend to be more cultist than free thinkers, and use the same arguments over and over again, and make the rest of us classical liberals look bad. Have you even read The Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory, Capitalism and Freedom, or one of the other hundreds of books and treatises that he follows? Have you even read Locke's Second Treatise or Hobbes' Leviathan? Before you spasm with your Constitution nonsense, you should at least understand the principles that the Constitution was written and inspired by, as well as read the actual Constitution itself. I stopped at "paultard". When you start calling people names all I hear is "I have nothing left I'm going to label him as a dumbass." I'm done discussing this with you if all you're going to do is insult me. By the way, I don't support Ron Paul and all I get from you calling me that is your ignorance on the thoughts of the American people. The constitution isn't just an old paper we don't read anymore. It's still the central document to our republic. You can't just discount it because it doesn't support your position.
It's an old bit of paper which has no real relevance to the realities of modern America and if your country wasn't so divided that any consensus is impossible you'd rewrite it to reflect your new priorities, responsibilities and beliefs. The idea that you run your country based upon the writings of people who couldn't have begun to imagine it is absurd. Yes, they were pretty clever guys and they did a decent job for a constitution in the 18th century but America has changed beyond all recognition and they're not around to update it for you. Rather than insist its as relevant now as it was then, despite the fact that the 21st century society is alien by the standards of just one hundred years ago, you should just move on. I'm reasonably sure if you went back in time and asked them if the constitution should be adhered to long after it became irrelevant they'd laugh and say that the spirit of the constitution should be upheld but the application should be twisted to the context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
