|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On April 01 2012 12:35 Sublimation wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 12:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:On April 01 2012 12:01 Sublimation wrote:On April 01 2012 11:33 liberal wrote:On April 01 2012 11:01 Defacer wrote:On April 01 2012 10:42 liberal wrote:On April 01 2012 10:16 Defacer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 01 2012 07:03 liberal wrote:
The United State's rations care by cost, socialized medicine seems to ration care by waiting lists. Personally, I think it is better for an individual to have their life saved and yet be financially damaged than to have the care rationed to begin with. The time spent waiting is often worth more to a person than the price they would pay otherwise. Getting effective and timely treatment for a deadly condition is certainly worth the cost of declaring bankruptcy.
I understand and respect your position. However, specialized and timely treatment for real illness or injury is not the problem. It can be argued that people being prescribed non-essential drugs, or going for unnecessary diagnostic treatments and elective surgery that is contributing to the increasing the cost of health insurance. From the Wall Street Journal Blog: Mindful of concerns about health-care’s spiraling costs, the Health Blog was struck by some new research on what the investigators identified as wasteful practices by family doctors and general practitioners.
Not being doctors, we can’t vouch for the clinical appropriateness of the findings, but there’s no harm in triggering a discussion, right?
What did the researchers say was the No. 1 most over-used activity by primary care physicians? Prescribing a brand-name cholesterol-lowering drug without trying a less expensive generic first, according to the research posted online by the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Doctors’ prescribing a brand-name statin, without first checking to see if a lower-priced generic drug would cut a patient’s cholesterol sufficiently, results in $5.8 billion in excess health-care spending, according to the research letter published Oct. 1.
The authors found $6.76 billion in what they said was non-recommended health-care spending after analyzing surveys of patient visits to certain primary care doctors’ offices and hospital outpatient departments in 2009.
Other practices deemed inappropriate by the authors: bone density scans for women ages 40 to 64 years, costing $527.4 million; ordering CT Scans or MRI’s for lower back pain, amounting to $175.4 million; and prescribing antibiotics to children with sore throats caused by a virus, worth $116.3 million.
Although these sums aren’t chump change, the authors write that achieving affordable but high-quality health-care will really depend on finding ”‘high value’ targets” in specialty areas.
There is also the argument that American health care providers are simply overcharging for everything. For example, an appendectomy -- a common emergency medical procedure -- costs $13000 in the US, more than double the cost of next most expensive countries, Switzerland and Canada ($5000 to 5800). Here's a link to an interactive graphic comparing the cost of specific medical procedures across countries, via the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/high-cost-of-medical-procedures-in-the-us/
There is another simple reason health care in the United States costs more than it does anywhere else: The prices are higher.
That may sound obvious. But it is, in fact, key to understanding one of the most pressing problems facing our economy. In 2009, Americans spent $7,960 per person on health care. Our neighbors in Canada spent $4,808. The Germans spent $4,218. The French, $3,978. If we had the per-person costs of any of those countries, America’s deficits would vanish. Workers would have much more money in their pockets. Our economy would grow more quickly, as our exports would be more competitive.
There are many possible explanations for why Americans pay so much more. It could be that we’re sicker. Or that we go to the doctor more frequently. But health researchers have largely discarded these theories. As Gerard Anderson, Uwe Reinhardt, Peter Hussey and Varduhi Petrosyan put it in the title of their influential 2003 study on international health-care costs, “it’s the prices, stupid.”
Prices don’t explain all of the difference between America and other countries. But they do explain a big chunk of it. The question, of course, is why Americans pay such high prices — and why we haven’t done anything about it.
“Other countries negotiate very aggressively with the providers and set rates that are much lower than we do,” Anderson says. They do this in one of two ways. In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, they’re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.
In America, Medicare and Medicaid negotiate prices on behalf of their tens of millions of members and, not coincidentally, purchase care at a substantial markdown from the commercial average. But outside that, it’s a free-for-all. Providers largely charge what they can get away with, often offering different prices to different insurers, and an even higher price to the uninsured. Full Washington Post article about high US Healthcare CostsSo while you've convinced me that the individual mandate is not solution, I'm not sure what could be done to possibly reel in these costs, other than a socialized system. Yes, this is one of the factors I've been mentioning regarding higher costs. The normal system of supply and demand is breaking down because we have third and fourth parties acting as intermediaries in every transaction. The person consuming the service is not faced with the direct cost, except perhaps a small deductible, and so they have no incentive at all to seek cheaper doctors, to forego unnecessary visits or care, and most importantly, to hold the suppliers accountable for fraudulent charges or prices... It is far more expensive for a company to try and police all of these millions of transactions instead of having the individual consumer police their own behavior based upon prices. This is the brilliance of the concept of the "invisible hand" that probably serves as the butt of a joke for most people here. Millions of people being influenced by personal incentives as dictated by price will always be more effective than paying a third party to try and manage it for them. Could you imagine how expensive it would be for you to pay an adviser to tell you what to buy at the supermarket instead of just buying it yourself? The situation is exacerbated by the fact that most people are now getting their third party insurance through a fourth party, their employer, due of course to government regulation in the matter. The more middle men you insert in the equation and the more you separate the actual consumers and suppliers from the price mechanism, the more waste, inefficiency, and direct fraud and abuse will arise. I'm just so skeptical that general public would somehow, given the opportunity to select their own health care providers and insurers in a free market, be able to "force" them lowering the cost of health care in any meaningful way. Just look at what happened to amount of bad mortgages people bought that lead to the crisis in your country. This is absolutely cynical, but the average person is simply not objective enough or well-informed to challenge insurers or providers. Compound that with the fact that health care providers and insurers have your health to use as leverage. The individual mandate was a band aid solution that would give more people access to overpriced healthcare. It's a compromise, that's for sure. But I have no idea how you would approach the problem the other way, and force healthcare providers to charge less. I know you attribute that partially to wasteful bureaucracy, but the cynicism in me finds it hard to imagine that the health care industry wouldn't exploit less regulation for more profit. Edit: I might be misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Here's another way of looking at it, it might clarify what I mean. Personally, when I hear that a visit to the doctor costs upwards of $150, that an ambulance ride costs upwards of $1,200, that some minimally invasive surgery costs some ridiculous amount like $75,000.... it sounds absurd to me. After all, the costs should not be anywhere near any of those numbers. I know for a fact that I could get the education necessary to do any of these things and charge people significantly less for any of these services. So what's stopping me, or anyone else? Suppose I wanted to get in the health care market myself. Suppose I wanted to start an ambulance company and give people rides to the hospital with all the care of a normal ambulance. I know for a fact I could provide such a ride for much less than $1,200 a trip. So what's stopping me? What's stopping anyone from getting in these markets and undercutting costs? When a doctor in India can do the same surgery for $8,000 that we charge for $75,000, what's stopping him from moving to America and opening up shop? The answer can only be one thing: The myriad system of regulations we have in place. I'm not saying that aren't sometimes good or desired, but are the people willing to pay the costs that we are bearing now? No, we aren't. You can tell that just by the rising medical tourism, where people are willing to forego the safety of our system to simply save themselves from bankruptcy. On April 01 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On April 01 2012 11:03 liberal wrote:On April 01 2012 10:56 screamingpalm wrote: @ liberal-
I'm not following your logic. Regulation is obviously not to blame here, as has already been stated. If this was the case, insurers would not be getting away with denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, for example. As has been stated, it is a case of crony capitalism. The greatest way to seperate consumers and suppliers from the "price mechanism" or free market, is to get rid of all of the middle men and reform the industry into a single payer system. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but I am getting some contradictions from what you are suggesting. Your claim that regulation isn't to blame because insurers "get away" with denying coverage to those with pre existing conditions doesn't make sense... Insurance is designed to insure people who are healthy. You cannot insure someone who is already sick, anymore than you can insure a home that is already on fire. Forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions is effectively outlawing the insurance business. I agree with you that part of the problem is "crony capitalism," but it doesn't make sense that you then support greater regulation. Crony capitalism means businesses colluding with government through harmful regulation. So if you agree there is crony capitalism, then you agree with me that there must be much harmful regulation. So the first paragraph is a great example as to why health insurance does not make sense in the for-profit market. You are denying healthcare to the people that actually need it. No, we aren't denying health care to anyone. What's being denied is health INSURANCE. Those are very different things. If you want to claim that people simply aren't capable of paying for health care without insurance, then once again we are back at square one: the problem of high costs. Healthcare is incredibly expensive every where though. Its not like other places charge considerably less its just some or most of the cost gets covered by insurance in one way or another. Really that's the whole purpose of insurance, paying to be protected by things that might end up costing you colossal amounts of money. For example collision on your car, while a repair may cost upwards of fifteen grand because you have invested in the insurance you save yourself from having to pay for all of it. Really insurance is just a gamble of whether or not something might not happen. So really the problem is high costs, but there are high costs because of the lack of coverage. Please if I'm wrong about something explain. I don't claim to be an expert this is just my view from up North To an extent I'd agree, but I did find a statistic a while back that Canada spends 10% GDP on healthcare while the US spends 16%, which I found interesting... Using those numbers Canada does have cheaper healthcare; albeit there is no arguing that the US does have the best healthcare if you can afford it. Whaaatttt are you serious?! Can you please link that if you don't mind or can, or atleast point me towards it? If that's really the case then there is something that's seriously wrong. Its not like doctors here don't make lots of money and I seriously doubt pharm. companies would sell us stuff cheaper (if anything it would be the other way around just like everything else!). And yeah that really is kinda messed up about how the US has the best doctors and stuff but no one can use them. Really you'd be better off with the worst doctors in the world if it meant being able to use them, and really what's the point in having the best doctors anyway? I mean yeah obviously a good thing but it kind of just seems like those kinds of doctors and care cater to the extremely specific and rare cases no? I mean isn't having above average doctors or even average doctors enough for most people? Ideally one day maybe we could have global healthcare system and anyone anywhere can get the best doctors if they need them...
The article that the kind gentleman linked showed in 2009 Canada spent 10.0% which USA spent 15.3%, and it's reported by the WHO which of course is a reputable source.
The truth is, here doctors really don't make good money. I mean it's good, for example a good surgeon here might make 300k-500k a year, while in the US they will make 2mil-3mil a year, the way the healthcare industry is set-up in the US makes many doctors move from other countries to work in the US.
It is a misconception that most people can't afford healthcare, I think online it's exaggerated because gamers in general aren't very rich, but a smart person with say a masters degree in mechanical engineering is going to benefit more from the US system. I am writing this from a Canada perspective, and personally I prefer public healthcare, for everyday things I think it does the job very well. But as an example, my girlfriend is getting an IUD placed in her uterus, it is free and it is a quick 15 minute procedure. Even though that is the case the line for the wait is 2 months, and that's true for lots of different procedures in Canada. Whether it's a wait to remove kidney stones etc, as long as it's not a instantly life-threatening condition, you will often wait for your surgery, sometimes up to 6-12 months.
The US does have more advanced machinery, and there are certain operations that can't be done in Canada while they can in the US just because Canada's healthcare system isn't based on demand. (think poor quality communism goods, just a lot better)
The main problem however, I think, is the rich people in the US don't want public healthcare, because they don't want to pay high taxes, and therefore they try and convince people the public healthcare is bad, you get biased things such as higher taxes is bad because Obama is communist blah blah, and the US people are pretty stuck into the idea of capitalism and liberalism, and they don't want to be paying for other peoples healthcare, but what they need to realize others will pay for them as well, and overall this will bring healthcare costs down because healthcare wont be for-profit anymore.
I know people like to look at this example: A smoker gets lung cancer, why should I have to use my tax dollars to pay for his operation or whatever. Which is a solid argument, but the truth is later in life you are likely going to have problems with your health too, so while you're 20 and healthy, it doesn't make sense to be paying for others healthcare because you wont be getting sick very often, it'll come back to help you later in life.
As a rough estimate I'd say 80% of the population would benefit from public healthcare, and I do think it is necessary for to happen, the two flaws that I always associate with the US is the hole they have in the healthcare system and the education system, and I believe they are the roots of many problems that are occurring in the US while not in other first-world countries in Europe or Canada, or at least not to such a degree, mainly due to the fact that they are more socialized.
|
On April 01 2012 13:49 Dbla08 wrote: the only thing that ever happens when the government becomes involved in business is businesses make more money, and the citizens get less for it. when the u.s gov't finally gets its hands out of the pockets of their poorest people, maybe then things will change for the good, but while all these blind fucking sheep just nod their heads to whatever the tv tells them nothing will improve
Sounds more like a lack of regulation and the chaos of the unfettered captialist free market to me.
|
On April 01 2012 13:49 Dbla08 wrote: the only thing that ever happens when the government becomes involved in business is businesses make more money, and the citizens get less for it. when the u.s gov't finally gets its hands out of the pockets of their poorest people, maybe then things will change for the good, but while all these blind fucking sheep just nod their heads to whatever the tv tells them nothing will improve
edit: also, "morals" and "ethics" play absolutely zero role in the writing and signing of our laws, you need only look at what brings the most people to prison to see that, or maybe notice how corporations like Monsanto etc only get bigger and more powerful and the citizens get weaker and poorer. the idea that "just because im rich doesn't mean you can't be" only works in a 1 on 1 situation. when it comes to "just because we're billion/trillionaires doesn't mean you can't be" its a straight up fucking lie. there's a finite amount of money and value on this earth, and so only so much to go around. when 1% of the people own 99% of the wealth, the other 99% only have that 1% to work with, and its a straight up fact. money is only infinite in your dreams and those of democrats.
I'm not sure what I would call the healthcare system in the US, but it has monopoly like qualities, and using public healthcare, they can destroy the powers the medicine industry has and lower prices as a result.
|
I know people like to look at this example: A smoker gets lung cancer, why should I have to use my tax dollars to pay for his operation or whatever. Which is a solid argument, but the truth is later in life you are likely going to have problems with your health too, so while you're 20 and healthy, it doesn't make sense to be paying for others healthcare because you wont be getting sick very often, it'll come back to help you later in life.
In other words, apologists for fascism/crony capitalism, devoid of moral substance whatsoever. ESPECIALLY in a society that markets/encourages such lifestyle through subliminal and other malicious advertising. A monster created by capitalism that gets the cold shoulder for remidies. TYPICAL.
|
|
[QUOTE]On April 01 2012 13:49 Dbla08 wrote: the only thing that ever happens when the government becomes involved in business is businesses make more money, and the citizens get less for it. when the u.s gov't finally gets its hands out of the pockets of their poorest people, maybe then things will change for the good, but while all these blind fucking sheep just nod their heads to whatever the tv tells them nothing will improve
[QUOTE]
Health care is not a normal business. Like safety or education. How would you feel about cops being in the private sector, only protecting the good clients(the richer). If your girl gets raped you can have an investigation only if you pay for it, if you're poor you're screwed. That's how I see it when I read stories about people being hundred of thousands dollars in debt because of a vital surgery.
|
On April 01 2012 13:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 12:14 Defacer wrote: The difference between health insurance and all other forms of insurance, for example car insurance, is simple.
Car insurance protects you against the risk of being in an accident. You can easily not own a car if you don't want to pay insurance.
Health insurance safeguards you against the certainty that you will get ill or injured at some point in your life.
You can certainly argue that insurers exist in a free market, and should have the right to deny insuring people with pre-existing conditions. But you should also be prepared to argue against forcing health care providers to give emergency medical care to the uninsured.
It's simply too low a moral standard for America, and a critical impairment to "the pursuit of happiness" for too many people.
Uhh... life insurance? I don't think you can get more certain than that... I liked your argument before. This one isn't as strong. "Pre-existing conditions" contains a lot of really serious diseases that cost a ton of money. The whole point is we need to cover people who actually need health insurance. Covering the costs of serious healthcare is what health insurance is for. It raises the question of the point of health insurance in the first place. In fact, the moral guideline gets screwed up, because a self-imposed action like smoking would simply raise my rates, but it would still allow my lung cancer treatment to be covered. However a person with a genetic disorder through no fault of his own would not be covered. Pre-existing conditions are bullshit and should be thrown out.
Well, when you here supreme court justices comparing a mandate for health insurance to forcing people to buy broccoli or covering burials ... there really is no comparison.
And life insurance is designed to protect and secure your 'legacy'. It's not something you "need."
It's safe to say 100% of people will eventually use the healthcare system. Even if you just keeled over and died, somebody has to pick up the body.
|
On April 01 2012 12:01 Sublimation wrote:
Healthcare is incredibly expensive every where though. Its not like other places charge considerably less its just some or most of the cost gets covered by insurance in one way or another. Really that's the whole purpose of insurance, paying to be protected by things that might end up costing you colossal amounts of money. For example collision on your car, while a repair may cost upwards of fifteen grand because you have invested in the insurance you save yourself from having to pay for all of it. Really insurance is just a gamble of whether or not something might not happen. So really the problem is high costs, but there are high costs because of the lack of coverage. Please if I'm wrong about something explain. I don't claim to be an expert this is just my view from up North
FYI.
Top 5 Unnecessary Healthcare Costs, via Wall Street Journal http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/10/04/top-5-unnecessary-health-care-costs/
Costs of Healthcare per capita for various countries, based on most current data available from OCED http://247wallst.com/2012/03/29/countries-that-spend-the-most-on-health-care/
Link to an interactive graphic comparing the cost of specific medical procedures across countries, via the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/high-cost-of-medical-procedures-in-the-us/
Full Washington Post article about high US Healthcare Costs http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html
Excerpt:
Prices don’t explain all of the difference between America and other countries. But they do explain a big chunk of it. The question, of course, is why Americans pay such high prices — and why we haven’t done anything about it.
“Other countries negotiate very aggressively with the providers and set rates that are much lower than we do,” Anderson says. They do this in one of two ways. In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, they’re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.
In America, Medicare and Medicaid negotiate prices on behalf of their tens of millions of members and, not coincidentally, purchase care at a substantial markdown from the commercial average. But outside that, it’s a free-for-all. Providers largely charge what they can get away with, often offering different prices to different insurers, and an even higher price to the uninsured.
TLDR; The American healthcare system is expensive because Healthcare providers are ripping off Americans and their insurers.
|
Show nested quote +
In America, Medicare and Medicaid negotiate prices on behalf of their tens of millions of members and, not coincidentally, purchase care at a substantial markdown from the commercial average. But outside that, it’s a free-for-all. Providers largely charge what they can get away with, often offering different prices to different insurers, and an even higher price to the uninsured.
TLDR; The American healthcare system is expensive because Healthcare providers are ripping off Americans and their insurers.
LOL your choice of bold print differs from mine:
In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government.
This is what I think is important to consider here. :D
|
On April 01 2012 14:47 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +
In America, Medicare and Medicaid negotiate prices on behalf of their tens of millions of members and, not coincidentally, purchase care at a substantial markdown from the commercial average. But outside that, it’s a free-for-all. Providers largely charge what they can get away with, often offering different prices to different insurers, and an even higher price to the uninsured.
TLDR; The American healthcare system is expensive because Healthcare providers are ripping off Americans and their insurers. LOL your choice of bold print differs from mine: This is what I think is important to consider here. :D
Fixed.
|
I think prices of U.S. healthcare would drop if insurance didn't pay 100%, but something like 80%, where the patient actually had some incentive to be cost-conscious and question things, instead of not giving a shit because insurance was paying for it and not them.
|
On April 01 2012 15:11 Kaitlin wrote: I think prices of U.S. healthcare would drop if insurance didn't pay 100%, but something like 80%, where the patient actually had some incentive to be cost-conscious and question things, instead of not giving a shit because insurance was paying for it and not them.
If there were strict laws on advertising, monopolies/anti trust, and well funded and staffed watchdog agencies, sure... perhaps. If the government would stop subsidizing criminal agri-businesses, perhaps. Because of the effects of capitalism and comercialization, consumers really have very few alterntives that want to live a healthier lifestyle. Of course, those of us that decry the "free market" system in favour of a "fair market" system are declared to be unpatriotic and such. Health and well-being becoming an afterthought. Obama's recent bullshit creation of a consumer protection agency failed when he dumped Elizabeth Warren in favour of a Wall Street lackey- Richard Cordray (wolf guarding the sheep as usual). Same shit in every sector of business as usual.
TL;DR- telling people it's their fault for lifestyle choices is bullshit in a hyper-commercialized and monopolized society.
|
Screamingpalm, it's clear you just have some kind of emotional hatred of capitalism. You are railing against the system instead of actually objectively looking at the facts regarding health care in particular. First of all, what they have in the US is not even close to a free market. You exaggerate the effects of advertising in modern society. I'm sure you imagine the ignorant masses are getting brainwashed and somehow you can transcend it. But in either case, I fail to see how these arguments or your comments on agricultural businesses has anything to do with capitalism and the free market, or with health care in particular. Agricultural industry colludes with government regulation, as does the entire health care industry.
I've cited numerous sources again and again stating explicit government failures which are leading to skyrocketing health care costs, and I've cited numerous sources explaining the source of skyrocketing costs is not insurance industry profits, uncompensated care, or the general health of the American people, but they repeatedly get ignored in favor of these sweeping indictments of a system which does not even exist in the first place.
|
On April 02 2012 02:15 liberal wrote: Screamingpalm, it's clear you just have some kind of emotional hatred of capitalism. You are railing against the system instead of actually objectively looking at the facts regarding health care in particular. First of all, what they have in the US is not even close to a free market. You exaggerate the effects of advertising in modern society. I'm sure you imagine the ignorant masses are getting brainwashed and somehow you can transcend it. But in either case, I fail to see how these arguments or your comments on agricultural businesses has anything to do with capitalism and the free market, or with health care in particular. Agricultural industry colludes with government regulation, as does the entire health care industry.
I've cited numerous sources again and again stating explicit government failures which are leading to skyrocketing health care costs, and I've cited numerous sources explaining the source of skyrocketing costs is not insurance industry profits, uncompensated care, or the general health of the American people, but they repeatedly get ignored in favor of these sweeping indictments of a system which does not even exist in the first place.
Jumping into this thread here - as an outsider, American healthcare and it's associated costs are ridiculous right now. Why is this the 'better alternative' to bad execution by a government when other western countries have shown that socialized healthcare (disregarding the idealistic debate against 'socialism' in America) CAN work well?
I mean personally I think that yes, the American government has fucked up a lot of things (though any evidence you can bring forth for this is anecdotal, not absolute) but the current system for say, public transportation or health care is ridiculously bad as well.
|
As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document.
|
On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote: As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection.
|
On April 02 2012 02:15 liberal wrote: Screamingpalm, it's clear you just have some kind of emotional hatred of capitalism. You are railing against the system instead of actually objectively looking at the facts regarding health care in particular. First of all, what they have in the US is not even close to a free market. You exaggerate the effects of advertising in modern society. I'm sure you imagine the ignorant masses are getting brainwashed and somehow you can transcend it. But in either case, I fail to see how these arguments or your comments on agricultural businesses has anything to do with capitalism and the free market, or with health care in particular. Agricultural industry colludes with government regulation, as does the entire health care industry.
I've cited numerous sources again and again stating explicit government failures which are leading to skyrocketing health care costs, and I've cited numerous sources explaining the source of skyrocketing costs is not insurance industry profits, uncompensated care, or the general health of the American people, but they repeatedly get ignored in favor of these sweeping indictments of a system which does not even exist in the first place.
For the sake of argument, could you c/p some of your most important points and how they relate to the facts. This post is little more than patronizing ad hominem into politically informed opinions. I think Defacers sources show some significant trends and they would make a better platform for discussion.
I am not sure how you will interpret them if at all.
|
On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote: As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection.
Personally I'm not a medical professional but my mother and 2 of my brothers are, and they're constantly on about how the increasing privatization of healthcare in the netherlands is a bad thing because any improvements are kept within the hospital to increase shareholders' gain at the cost of shared knowledge (which would benefit all hospitals as a whole).
What makes you so sure that increased market influence improves healthcare as a whole?
|
On April 02 2012 02:54 Serelitz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote: As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection. Personally I'm not a medical professional but my mother and 2 of my brothers are, and they're constantly on about how the increasing privatization of healthcare in the netherlands is a bad thing because any improvements are kept within the hospital to increase shareholders' gain at the cost of shared knowledge (which would benefit all hospitals as a whole). What makes you so sure that increased market influence improves healthcare as a whole?
What was the incentive for developing those improvements ? I assume it was by employees who are paid by the hospital, so the hospital has incurred the cost for that development. If they aren't able to reap the rewards, why would they incur the expenses ? To share any advancements with everyone would eliminate the funding for the advancement in the first place.
|
On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote: As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection. You missed my point entirely.
You live in a country that runs tremendous deficits, and faces immediate problems that need solutions, both domestically and internationally, and your political system can't produce solutions or compromises. Whether it be reforming healthcare or social security, the retirement age, appointing judges or CPA directors, or trying to negotiate an israeli-palestinian solution, the entire system is stuck. Supreme court justices become honorary lifetime members of the party of the president that appointed them.
The current healthcare legislation is a result of that: Finally a compromise measure was reached between two political parties and now the process is being reverted through what can only be described as a backdoor. Yea, you can turn it into a socialized vs. private debate, but that's not what it actually is about. Both socialized and private healthcare could be perfectly constitutional.
The original political problem is that a large part of the population in the US did not have healthcare, due to various reasons, and were essentially freeriding on the system, increasing the total nationwide cost of healthcare, because providing preventive care instead of emergency care to people without insurance would yield savings. Both parties agreed that there needed to be some kind of solution, yet if it gets struck down the original problem is still as big (probably bigger) than before, and your entire political system has wasted what are probably hunderds of thousands of hours of the time of elected officials and the money that goes with that.
There's a reason only 12% of americans approve of what congress is doing: They are essentially doing and accomplishing nothing at all.
|
|
|
|