PDA

View Full Version : What Are Our Ideas to Fix US Healthcare?



Codename Section
09-27-2013, 07:38 AM
I like the medi-share idea. It's very "voluntarist" and works. There's hundreds of these things popping up.

People come together to pool money for their group. When someone has a health concern they publish it to the group and those who were designed to administer it writes the check. There is no approval since everyone pooled in the beginning and accepts that at some point they will get to use it, ergo everyone's bills get paid.

http://samaritanministries.org/testimonies/

This group has never not funded someone's health care.

I think a combination of this and hospitals like the one in Oklahoma that has drastically lowered prices. I'll submit something about it from Think Progress because they are the opposite of me in thought

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/10/2281401/oklahoma-surgical-center-price-transparency/


In Oklahoma City, one surgical center is successfully reducing the price tag for their procedures by thousands of dollars — and encouraging nearby hospitals to follow suit.

What’s the secret?


The two doctors who started the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, Dr. Keith Smith and Dr. Steven Lantier, are committed to charging fair prices, and they founded their hospital with the goal of price transparency. “What we’ve discovered is health care really doesn’t cost that much,” Dr. Smith told KFOR-TV (http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-online/). “What people are being charged for is another matter altogether.”
They have been posting all of their prices online (http://www.surgerycenterok.com/pricing/) for the past several years, and they charge significantly less than other hospitals in the area.


“When we first started we thought we were about half the price of the hospitals,” Dr. Lantier said (http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-online/). “Then we found out we’re less than half price. Then we find out we’re a sixth to an eighth of what their prices are. I can’t believe the average person can afford health care at these prices.”


After comparing the Surgery Center’s prices with the bills for the same surgical procedures at other Oklahoma City hospitals, KFOR-TV confirmed just how wide that gulf is (http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-online/). For example, a $3,500 breast biopsy at Surgery Center of Oklahoma will cost $16,244 at nearby Mercy Hospital. A hysterectomy jumps from $8,000 at Surgery Center to $37,174 at Integris Baptist Hospital. And the OU Medical Center consistently charges about $15,000 more than what the Surgery Center does for common procedures like open fracture repairs and gall bladder removal.


The two doctors started somewhat of a medical bidding war after they started publicizing their pricing options. People began traveling from out town and even from out of state to take advantage of the much lower bills at the Surgery Center — and other hospitals took notice. At least five other Oklahoma City-area medical facilities started posting their own prices online, and some of them are even beginning to lower their bills as their patients push for price-matching.


I just don't believe that we need government to handle this. I believe in people's essential goodness. I lived through Hurrican Katrina on the Gulf Coast and I know that when your neighbor is in trouble, you help.

Mainecoons
09-27-2013, 07:44 AM
Do they have an emergency room?

jillian
09-27-2013, 07:47 AM
I like the medi-share idea. It's very "voluntarist" and works. There's hundreds of these things popping up.

People come together to pool money for their group. When someone has a health concern they publish it to the group and those who were designed to administer it writes the check. There is no approval since everyone pooled in the beginning and accepts that at some point they will get to use it, ergo everyone's bills get paid.

http://samaritanministries.org/testimonies/


how nice... religious control of health care. that isn't health insurance. that's a charity... and not even a charity. i forget what they call it in the carribbean community but i don't think they're legal.

at least you're trying though.


This group has never not funded someone's health care.

neither has the heritage foundation or fund for growth. your point other than to say something... anything... ?

we are the only civilized nation in the world that doesn't provide healthcare to its citizens.

why do you think that's ok?

Cigar
09-27-2013, 07:49 AM
how nice... religious control of health care. that isn't health insurance. that's a charity... and not even a charity. i forget what they call it in the carribbean community but i don't think they're legal.

at least you're trying though.



neither has the heritage foundation or fund for growth. your point other than to say something... anything... ?

we are the only civilized nation in the world that doesn't provide healthcare to its citizens.

why do you think that's ok?

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::rofl mao:

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 07:54 AM
how nice... religious control of health care. that isn't health insurance. that's a charity... and not even a charity. i forget what they call it in the carribbean community but i don't think they're legal.

It doesn't have to be religious. It could be a group of atheists.

jillian
09-27-2013, 07:57 AM
It doesn't have to be religious. It could be a group of atheists.

there are already charities.... they are insufficient... or over 50% of our bankruptcies wouldn't be the result of unanticipated medical problems.

again... you didn't say why it's ok for us to be the only westernized nation who can't manage to take care of it's people.

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 07:59 AM
Well look at that the private market has succeed in lowering health care costs in both of these situations.

But in the first, all the people under the medical care co-ops, well they will have to add the Obamacare fins to the cost of their healthcare, because they do not consider them to be insurance companies, even though everything is covered.

And it will be interesting to see if the Surgery Center can survive a lawsuit or if they are finding a legal way to fend off Tort Reform.

But the answer if you actually want lower costs, Lies in the private sector. Her are a few things that could lower the cost for people

#1 Allow Groups and people to create insurance pools and co-ops for buying power, and allow business to contribute the employer share to these pools. Imagine the buying power of the Catholic Church if all there members were in the same pool?

#2 Tort Reform. having a crack addict sue the doctor and hospital because their high risk crack addicted baby dies, so they can get money to fund their crack habit, should stop, and the pay outs on real mal practice should be the cost of mistake and if the person can't work, 100% of the money they would have made, plus any additional cost of care.

#3 let all health insurance companies Compete nation wide and let people select the plan that works for them, This would create competition and once again lower the cost of care.

#4 increase the deductions for small and large businesses that provide insurance for their employee's This will encourage more companies to provide insurance, and with the lower costs of insurance, make it even more feasible.

#5 Letting parents keep their children on their insurance until they are 26 bothers no one, and because they are in large part healthy the insurance companies don't care? So what does it hurt.

#6 For those that must purchase their own insurance, Turn the Tax deductions into a tax credit! Thus eliminating actual cost.


If you enacted these 6 things it would lower the population of un insured dramatically then and only then should the government move to create a program to cover some things.

For example they could create a pool for those pre existing conditions. Not the total insurance package but just the pre existing condition. So if you has skin cancer, and your plan has you exempt from skin cancer because of a pre existing condition, you g to the pools and get your skin cancer coverage.

And they could at that point look at an expansion of Medicare if needed to cover the very poor

jillian
09-27-2013, 08:05 AM
the "free market" of insurance companies has been a failure in providing health coverage.

we still have to address the costs of health CARE.

it is always to the benefit of the "free market" to cancel coverage for people as soon as they use their coverage... which is what happens now.

and this is part of what is being corrected.

you still shilling for the insurance industry, zelmo?

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 08:07 AM
there are already charities.... they are insufficient... or over 50% of our bankruptcies wouldn't be the result of unanticipated medical problems.

again... you didn't say why it's ok for us to be the only westernized nation who can't manage to take care of it's people.

Here lies the problem, we have liberal that twist the statistics, and try and make you think that everyone on the planet has these huge medical debts.

So what do we know about liberals. THEY LIE!

The actual number of bankruptcies caused by medical debt is about 17% but there is an actual medical bill in 64% of bankruptcies. and that includes Doctors visits that they would have paid for on a credit card.

So to biggest cause of US bankruptcy is the same problem that our government has Over spending!

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w74.full

Mainecoons
09-27-2013, 08:09 AM
You still shilling for that gross failure called the Federal government, Jillian?

Yep. As always.

jillian
09-27-2013, 08:15 AM
You still shilling for that gross failure called the Federal government, Jillian?

Yep. As always.


i'm sure it's much better for you in mexico.

i don't shill for "government". i believe there are certain things that having a profit motive makes untenable in terms of public interest.

gee... who'd think that... a profit motive making corporations not act in the public interest...

how silly of moi.

he, however, reads like one of those posters paid by an industry to dissemminate their propaganda.

(not saying he is, he might actually have been convinced of what he writes... but he sure sounds like it).

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:16 AM
there are already charities.... they are insufficient... or over 50% of our bankruptcies wouldn't be the result of unanticipated medical problems.

You didn't read it if you say its a charity. It's a health care cooperative. They just happen to be Christians.

Look, I actually think highly of you and think you are smart. For this dumbass marine will you look into health care cooperatives before you label it a charity and give it a fair look?

jillian
09-27-2013, 08:19 AM
You didn't read it if you say its a charity. It's a health care cooperative. They just happen to be Christians.

Look, I actually think highly of you and think you are smart. For this dumbass marine will you look into health care cooperatives before you label it a charity and give it a fair look?

and what happens when someone in that health care cooperative needs $100,000 worth of cancer treatment? you think that money is ever getting covered?

and, if you notice, i initially said it "isn't even a charity" and pointed out its the kind of thing certain carribbean people do when they come to this country.

and that's a failure, too... why? because ponzi schemes are illegal... and getting the money back is almost impossible for the group.

Chris
09-27-2013, 08:20 AM
the "free market" of insurance companies has been a failure in providing health coverage.

we still have to address the costs of health CARE.

it is always to the benefit of the "free market" to cancel coverage for people as soon as they use their coverage... which is what happens now.

and this is part of what is being corrected.

you still shilling for the insurance industry, zelmo?



What free market, jillian, it's mismanaged by government cronyism: Industry Consolidation: The Smoking Gun of “Crony Capitalism” (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16978-Industry-Consolidation-The-Smoking-Gun-of-%E2%80%9CCrony-Capitalism%E2%80%9D).


Still shilling for socialism, jillian?

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:23 AM
and what happens when someone in that health care cooperative needs $100,000 worth of cancer treatment? you think that money is ever getting covered?

They were able to cover $100,000 cancer treatments. You didn't read. :(

It's a cooperative. Do you know what a cooperative is? The one I pointed out has been in business for 15 years and has covered cancer treatments.

How can you comment on something you don't know anything about? If you'd read it you would see that they have absolutely covered these things using this model.

Chris
09-27-2013, 08:24 AM
i'm sure it's much better for you in mexico.

i don't shill for "government". i believe there are certain things that having a profit motive makes untenable in terms of public interest.

gee... who'd think that... a profit motive making corporations not act in the public interest...

how silly of moi.

he, however, reads like one of those posters paid by an industry to dissemminate their propaganda.

(not saying he is, he might actually have been convinced of what he writes... but he sure sounds like it).



You do shill for government, jillian, every post of yours in this thread is a shill for government control of healthcare. Medicare, rife with corruption, Trustees: Medicare Will Go Broke in 2016, If You Exclude Obamacare's Double-Counting (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/23/trustees-medicare-will-go-broke-in-2016-if-you-exclude-obamacares-double-counting/).

That's not a solution.

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:25 AM
From their site

Praise God! What looked impossible 10 months ago has been accomplished. All bills connected with Phil’s colon cancer are paid in full. We have seen God provide for our needs every step of the way. Tests show no indication of any remaining cancer. We have been deeply encouraged and our faith has been strengthened by the faithfulness of our Lord and the Samaritan members. We are rejoicing.
Phil and Kathy Robertson
Altamonte Springs, FL

Praise God for this ministry. It can only work with Him being in control. It is overwhelming to think we are provided for by other Christians. The notes and shares members send faithfully are so uplifting. The staff is always cheerful and helpful. To Him be the glory.All our bills from Joe’s fall from the ladder were provided for. Amazingly they totaled more than $30,000! When we tell other people about it they just look at us in disbelief, especially when they see Joe back to almost 100 percent. That is only possible because of all the prayers. Thank you fellow Christians and staff at SMI. To Him be the glory!
Joe and Trena Mendoza
Paonia, CO

God has been so good to us during my battle with cancer. Many of the members, in fact, most, sent very personal encouraging notes with their share. They don’t know me and we probably will never meet, but their family was praying for me. Sometimes children would decorate the card and sign their names! Words of concern were written and Scripture verses shared. It was uplifting. I knew I wasn’t alone in this. My family was thought of and prayed for all across the country. What an encouragement! It meant so much.My husband actually took the stacks of checks to the hospital to show the billing receptionist, who was amazed. She called coworkers to see for themselves. She said that had revived her faith in humanity. People still do care about helping each other. Then she began to cry. Samaritan Ministries is truly a testimony of God’s love for His children.
Vern and Delores Eliason
Fredonia, WI

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:30 AM
Here, non-Christian hippies doing it

http://www.shareable.net/blog/communities-self-insure-for-cooperative-healthcare

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 08:31 AM
the "free market" of insurance companies has been a failure in providing health coverage.

we still have to address the costs of health CARE.

it is always to the benefit of the "free market" to cancel coverage for people as soon as they use their coverage... which is what happens now.

and this is part of what is being corrected.

you still shilling for the insurance industry, zelmo?

If government control is so great? Why does Massachusetts have the highest healthcare cost in the nation?

Why is healthcare a higher percentage of people income in countries that have single payer, and why are their waiting times and denied coverage rates higher and longer.


Why has the cost of insurance skyrocketed since everyone had to be insured?

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 08:33 AM
Here, non-Christian hippies doing it

http://www.shareable.net/blog/communities-self-insure-for-cooperative-healthcare

You don't understand, that is not about who is doing it, it is that it is working and it does not have the one thing that liberals desire more than anything else

It does not give them governmental control over peoples lives, and they can't stand that

KC
09-27-2013, 08:37 AM
we are the only civilized nation in the world that doesn't provide healthcare to its citizens.

why do you think that's ok?

That's awfully ethnocentric, to imply the vast majority of nations in the world are uncivilized.

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:38 AM
You don't understand, that is not about who is doing it, it is that it is working and it does not have the one thing that liberals desire more than anything else

It does not give them governmental control over peoples lives, and they can't stand that


I have finally come around to the fact that it's not "liberal" or "conservative" or Left and Right, but "statists" versus "nonstatists".

I have more in common with kilgram who is an anarcho-communist/socialist than I do jillian.

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:38 AM
That reminds me
kilgram

http://www.shareable.net/blog/communities-self-insure-for-cooperative-healthcare


can you look at that a minute and tell me what you think?

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 08:44 AM
I have finally come around to the fact that it's not "liberal" or "conservative" or Left and Right, but "statists" versus "nonstatists".

I have more in common with @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) who is an anarcho-communist/socialist than I do jillian.

I can live with that. and you are right the vast majority of all politicians want more government control.

Just a caution you have to watch for that Anarchy stuff though, there are Wolves among the sheep that would like to see that happen.

Chris
09-27-2013, 08:45 AM
If government control is so great? Why does Massachusetts have the highest healthcare cost in the nation?

Why is healthcare a higher percentage of people income in countries that have single payer, and why are their waiting times and denied coverage rates higher and longer.


Why has the cost of insurance skyrocketed since everyone had to be insured?



Socialized, government healthcare has been wholly ineffective in lowering healthcare costs.

http://i.snag.gy/gPjH4.jpg

Mainecoons
09-27-2013, 08:47 AM
I'm not sure that graph proves your point, Chris.

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:49 AM
People don't care about lowering healthcare costs. They care about what they pay and insurance prevents them from seeing actual health care costs.

Because they won't see the portion of their taxes which goes to health care costs or the total of what they pay in their lifetime versus what they get, the people will fall for anything--as long as the still have some money each month.

Mainecoons
09-27-2013, 08:51 AM
People don't care about lowering healthcare costs. They care about what they pay and insurance prevents them from seeing actual health care costs.

Because they won't see the portion of their taxes which goes to health care costs or the total of what they pay in their lifetime versus what they get, the people will fall for anything--as long as the still have some money each month.

That post is called, "getting to the heart of the matter."

kilgram
09-27-2013, 08:55 AM
That reminds me
@kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867)

http://www.shareable.net/blog/communities-self-insure-for-cooperative-healthcare


can you look at that a minute and tell me what you think?
It looks interesting. I think it can be a good idea. But I think that for now it is limited. But not bad.

However for healthcare I am for two options:

- Statist: Public Universal Healthcare

- Collective: Similar to that, but purely collective, and would work similar to the statist option but without the state.

But always I am afraid if the collective option would be enough. My basic idea is that nobody should be left out of receiving healthcare. It is my goal. And for me the collective system, statist or non statist are the only ones that make it sure.

The same is with other things like education, shelter, food...

I think that for now, the best option for the American system is becoming public, nationalize it, and obviously keeping the private institutions for who wants it. But I think that any private institution should not receive any money from the government.

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:56 AM
That post is called, "getting to the heart of the matter."

It's the disconnect between most of the conservatives with the country. When people live paycheck to paycheck they could care less about trends in health care costs.

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:58 AM
It looks interesting. I think it can be a good idea. But I think that for now it is limited. But not bad.

I think this is how and why the anti-state movement is taking off. I'm not a technological Luddite like Alyosha. I'm with Ethereal in technology freeing us from government. If we can quickly pool together resources we can do things for ourselves.

We need to form our own communities and elect our own private security and create our own health and food cooperatives.

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 09:01 AM
I think this is how and why the anti-state movement is taking off. I'm not a technological Luddite like Alyosha. I'm with @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) in technology freeing us from government. If we can quickly pool together resources we can do things for ourselves.

We need to form our own communities and elect our own private security and create our own health and food cooperatives.

I know where you can get a security company, but I warn you, you are all going to be working for them!

Chris
09-27-2013, 09:03 AM
I like the medi-share idea. It's very "voluntarist" and works. There's hundreds of these things popping up.

People come together to pool money for their group. When someone has a health concern they publish it to the group and those who were designed to administer it writes the check. There is no approval since everyone pooled in the beginning and accepts that at some point they will get to use it, ergo everyone's bills get paid.

http://samaritanministries.org/testimonies/

This group has never not funded someone's health care.

I think a combination of this and hospitals like the one in Oklahoma that has drastically lowered prices. I'll submit something about it from Think Progress because they are the opposite of me in thought

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/10/2281401/oklahoma-surgical-center-price-transparency/


I just don't believe that we need government to handle this. I believe in people's essential goodness. I lived through Hurrican Katrina on the Gulf Coast and I know that when your neighbor is in trouble, you help.




Have looked at your several links and believe cooperative healthcare--be it religious or hippyish--does look like an attractive alternative. I don't see why people cannot pool together and provide this and other safety nets. I would think they could better bargain for the needs of the cooperative than insurance companies who bargain more for their own self-interest.

An employee-owned company I worked at purchased it's own insurance which gave us bargaining power and kept costs down. Not quite the same as what we bargained for was not healthcare but insurance.


A note on the doctor-owned hospitals/centers, they are, according to one such doctor, losing out to Industry Consolidation: The Smoking Gun of “Crony Capitalism” (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16978-Industry-Consolidation-The-Smoking-Gun-of-%E2%80%9CCrony-Capitalism%E2%80%9D).


Thanks for starting this thread!

kilgram
09-27-2013, 09:09 AM
I'm not sure that graph proves your point, Chris.
That graph proves that nationalized healthcare is cheaper than the privatized. The American Healthcare is the most expensive of the world.

And for example, Spanish healthcare is the 4th most productive of the world, and it has the advantage over the one of USA that gives healthcare to everybody. Even the Spanish system had problems because it suffered what is known as Healthcare tourism. It is that tourism that came to the country to receive treatment, for example from Great Britain or other countries.

AmazonTania
09-27-2013, 09:09 AM
In the 1960's, nearly 60% of all personal health care expenditures were paid out of pocket. Today, its less than 30%.

Seemed like the the market worked pretty well until we started subsidising the ill…

kilgram
09-27-2013, 09:11 AM
I think this is how and why the anti-state movement is taking off. I'm not a technological Luddite like Alyosha. I'm with @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) in technology freeing us from government. If we can quickly pool together resources we can do things for ourselves.

We need to form our own communities and elect our own private security and create our own health and food cooperatives.
It is true, that technology makes us more independent, for example the renewable energies are a good example.

For example, we have a farm, and we are considering to build a house to live there. And we will build this house only using renewable energies, Solar and wind, but we are not going to use mainstream energy network. It is, we will not depend of nobody else except our own energy production.

kilgram
09-27-2013, 09:12 AM
In the 1960's, nearly 60% of all personal health care expenditures were paid out of pocket. Today, its less than 30%.

Seemed like the the market worked pretty well until we started subsidising the ill…
Maybe the problem is the mixture system that you have. But even with that, I believe is better a nationalized healthcare. And for anyone who can pay it, using the private system.

Chris
09-27-2013, 09:16 AM
I'm not sure that graph proves your point, Chris.


Costs are rising regardless the type of system, whether government managed like our or government controlled like Canada's, Sweden's, etc.

Chris
09-27-2013, 09:18 AM
People don't care about lowering healthcare costs. They care about what they pay and insurance prevents them from seeing actual health care costs.

Because they won't see the portion of their taxes which goes to health care costs or the total of what they pay in their lifetime versus what they get, the people will fall for anything--as long as the still have some money each month.

Agree, unless people pay for it themselves or more directly, they don't think about it, and since it's "free" they overuse it.

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 09:20 AM
I know where you can get a security company, but I warn you, you are all going to be working for them!

I own one with some other dudes on here. :D

Chris
09-27-2013, 09:22 AM
It looks interesting. I think it can be a good idea. But I think that for now it is limited. But not bad.

However for healthcare I am for two options:

- Statist: Public Universal Healthcare

- Collective: Similar to that, but purely collective, and would work similar to the statist option but without the state.

But always I am afraid if the collective option would be enough. My basic idea is that nobody should be left out of receiving healthcare. It is my goal. And for me the collective system, statist or non statist are the only ones that make it sure.

The same is with other things like education, shelter, food...

I think that for now, the best option for the American system is becoming public, nationalize it, and obviously keeping the private institutions for who wants it. But I think that any private institution should not receive any money from the government.



I thought the cooperative alternatives Codename presented were non-statist collective solutions. How does your collective vision differ?


Government control leads only to corruption, higher costs or shortages.

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 09:22 AM
Have looked at your several links and believe cooperative healthcare--be it religious or hippyish--does look like an attractive alternative. I don't see why people cannot pool together and provide this and other safety nets. I would think they could better bargain for the needs of the cooperative than insurance companies who bargain more for their own self-interest.

An employee-owned company I worked at purchased it's own insurance which gave us bargaining power and kept costs down. Not quite the same as what we bargained for was not healthcare but insurance.


A note on the doctor-owned hospitals/centers, they are, according to one such doctor, losing out to Industry Consolidation: The Smoking Gun of “Crony Capitalism” (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16978-Industry-Consolidation-The-Smoking-Gun-of-“Crony-Capitalism”).


Thanks for starting this thread!


The only reason why I post on forums is to engage people who are leaning away from the state so we can all work towards grass roots solutions for the "government problem".

AmazonTania
09-27-2013, 09:27 AM
Maybe the problem is the mixture system that you have. But even with that, I believe is better a nationalized healthcare. And for anyone who can pay it, using the private system.

The problem with the American system is the third-party payer plus subsidies, not a mixed system.

Alyosha
09-27-2013, 09:32 AM
I'm all for health care cooperatives or any cooperative that thwarts the government. People can do great things without government. They always have.

I think Ethereal is right. Maybe technology will make government obsolete.

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 09:33 AM
I thought the cooperative alternatives Codename presented were non-statist collective solutions. How does your collective vision differ?


They were non-state cooperative solutions.

Boris The Animal
09-27-2013, 09:34 AM
there are already charities.... they are insufficient... or over 50% of our bankruptcies wouldn't be the result of unanticipated medical problems.

again... you didn't say why it's ok for us to be the only westernized nation who can't manage to take care of it's people.So you think total government control of the healthcare sector is the solution??

kilgram
09-27-2013, 09:51 AM
I thought the cooperative alternatives Codename presented were non-statist collective solutions. How does your collective vision differ?


Government control leads only to corruption, higher costs or shortages.
It does not differ. Just I believe to be possible, the government and corporations should be abolished. But it is a good starting point.

Alyosha
09-27-2013, 10:05 AM
It does not differ. Just I believe to be possible, the government and corporations should be abolished. But it is a good starting point.

Corporations are just a group of people working together on the same goal. It's only the motivations that change the outcome.

AmazonTania
09-27-2013, 10:14 AM
It's very common for people to believe a corporation is merely an office building made up of desk, telephones and computers.

Chris
09-27-2013, 10:23 AM
Corporations are just a group of people working together on the same goal. It's only the motivations that change the outcome.



Problem is some corporations stick to economics means to get what they want, while others use political means and collude with government in crony capitalism. In the former, everyone benefits, in the later only the ruling class.

kilgram
09-27-2013, 10:23 AM
It's very common for people to believe a corporation is merely an office building made up of desk, telephones and computers.
A corporation for me is that organization where the only important thing are the profits and it has only to answer to the share holders.

roadmaster
09-27-2013, 10:36 AM
They were able to cover $100,000 cancer treatments. You didn't read. :(

It's a cooperative. Do you know what a cooperative is? The one I pointed out has been in business for 15 years and has covered cancer treatments.

How can you comment on something you don't know anything about? If you'd read it you would see that they have absolutely covered these things using this model.

Sounds like they are doing a great job. You get cancer and the company will let you go somehow. Trying to get insurance is impossible. Many without insurance that they don't count won't go for treatment because of the cost. As long as people are being helped I don't care what they call themselves.

Captain Obvious
09-27-2013, 10:52 AM
Get the fucking gubmint out of the process - that would fix healthcare.

Unfortunately we're going the opposite direction - to a single payer system. As if Medicare weren't huge, bloated, inefficient, corrupt, economically catastrophic enough. Here's a great fucking idea, hand all of the market over to that.

AmazonTania
09-27-2013, 11:35 AM
A corporation for me is that organization where the only important thing are the profits and it has only to answer to the share holders.

Yes. You're right. And?

Alyosha
09-27-2013, 11:46 AM
Yes. You're right. And?

He was responding to the argument that the word corporation has changed from its ancient more cooperative roots.

AmazonTania
09-27-2013, 12:20 PM
He was responding to the argument that the word corporation has changed from its ancient more cooperative roots.

Nothing has changed about the root term of the definition. Corporations are made up if individuals who decide to incorporate and pool their resources together. The fact that they're concerned about profits had always been the case. Businesses exist to make a profit.

nic34
09-27-2013, 12:57 PM
I thought the cooperative alternatives Codename presented were non-statist collective solutions. How does your collective vision differ?

Really interesting here seeing folks all basically say they'd be open to socialized/communistic form of healthcare system. Actually that's what "government" run health care is.... a cooperative, just on a larger scale.

But that's the problem with the community cooperative it only works for a small portion of the population.



Government control leads only to corruption, higher costs or shortages.

And insurance monolopies lead to higher costs, shortages, and outright denial of coverage.....

You choose.

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 01:02 PM
I own one with some other dudes on here. :D

So did I for several years. I sold mine out to another W MI resident that has a really big company.

I can see why you advocate this then, Who would not want to be the boss and have servants

Chris
09-27-2013, 01:06 PM
I thought the cooperative alternatives Codename presented were non-statist collective solutions. How does your collective vision differ?


Government control leads only to corruption, higher costs or shortages.



Really interesting here seeing folks all basically say they'd be open to socialized/communistic form of healthcare system. Actually that's what "government" run health care is.... a cooperative, just on a larger scale.

But that's the problem with the community cooperative it only works for a small portion of the population.




And insurance monolopies lead to higher costs, shortages, and outright denial of coverage.....

You choose.



What part of non-statist did you miss?


Government created the insurance monopolies and with Obamacare Obama supported them. They wrote the bill and he promised them millions new customers.

jillian
09-27-2013, 01:09 PM
They were able to cover $100,000 cancer treatments. You didn't read. :(

It's a cooperative. Do you know what a cooperative is? The one I pointed out has been in business for 15 years and has covered cancer treatments.

How can you comment on something you don't know anything about? If you'd read it you would see that they have absolutely covered these things using this model.

i know what a coooperative is... it's socialism. :D

you know, its more that i don't think these things work if they're not public. i actually compliment you for actually trying. i don't believe in that type of thing... there are no controls. and it doesn't address the problem this country has taking care of its people.

but when i get home, if i have time, i'll read it more closely.

Chris
09-27-2013, 01:10 PM
Nothing has changed about the root term of the definition. Corporations are made up if individuals who decide to incorporate and pool their resources together. The fact that they're concerned about profits had always been the case. Businesses exist to make a profit.



In many ways the criticism of Adam Smith of joint-stock company corporate form still apply to corporations today:


The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own.Like the stewards of a rich man, they are apt to consider attention to small matters as not for their master's honour, and very easily give themselves a dispensation from having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company. It is upon this account, that joint-stock companies for foreign trade have seldom been able to maintain the competition against private adventurers.

Mainecoons
09-27-2013, 01:10 PM
Maybe it is actually voluntary socialism, occurring without the crushing dictatorial hand of government.

These things can and do work on small scale. Somehow, they never survive the scale up.

Chris
09-27-2013, 01:12 PM
i know what a coooperative is... it's socialism. :D

you know, its more that i don't think these things work if they're not public. i actually compliment you for actually trying. i don't believe in that type of thing... there are no controls. and it doesn't address the problem this country has taking care of its people.

but when i get home, if i have time, i'll read it more closely.



Right, you like nic only believe in the statist type of "cooperation." I think we get that.

Chris
09-27-2013, 01:13 PM
Maybe it is actually voluntary socialism, occurring without the crushing dictatorial hand of government.

These things can and do work on small scale. Somehow, they never survive the scale up.



Scaling up seems to require the coercion of making everyone join.

Paperback Writer
09-27-2013, 01:27 PM
i know what a coooperative is... it's socialism. :D

you know, its more that i don't think these things work if they're not public. i actually compliment you for actually trying. i don't believe in that type of thing... there are no controls. and it doesn't address the problem this country has taking care of its people.

but when i get home, if i have time, i'll read it more closely.

Why don't you believe they can work if they're not public? They're working. You mean that you wish everyone to be on one whether they choose it or not, yeh?

Younger people without the same health concerns are paying for older people with them. Most older people have better paying jobs than the 18-28 year olds that are being forced to buy insurance to subsidise those who have more money and income but more health concerns.

That's a seriously crap model.

The US refuses to take on total national health, but instead tears down better private models to subsidise the very worst in a big corporatist fellation.

nic34
09-27-2013, 01:49 PM
The US refuses to take on total national health, but instead tears down better private models to subsidise the very worst in a big corporatist fellation

How is a co-operative private and how would a model such as that cover millions?

What chris and others here don't quite get, is that government is the people, and the people working together to solve problems is the why government was created. Go read the declaration if you don't believe me.

If it's the government that's f-ed up, then fix that. Maybe then medicare for all would work.

If that doesn't work, then a private payer system that employs private insurance would be the next best. I never advocated for, or championed Obamacare in any way until it became the healthcare reform of last resort.

But you're just not going to solve anything in a nation of hundreds of millions with small agrarian style co-ops as much as I wish it were possible..... and as maincoons said "they never survive the scale up."

Paperback Writer
09-27-2013, 01:52 PM
How is a co-operative private and how would a model such as that cover millions?\

Why should it have to? Why should the government do what private citizens rich and poor have done, better, alone? These cooperatives are run by a mixed bag of people. Proving that people at a grass roots level can take care of themselves and others.

Not all of those millions of people even want the government's help.

I used to be more like you. You can't help it in Europe. Then I realised that everything the government does comes with strings attached.

Chris
09-27-2013, 01:56 PM
How is a co-operative private and how would a model such as that cover millions?

What chris and others here don't quite get, is that government is the people, and the people working together to solve problems is the why government was created. Go read the declaration if you don't believe me.

If it's the government that's f-ed up, then fix that. Maybe then medicare for all would work.

If that doesn't work, then a private payer system that employs private insurance would be the next best. I never advocated for, or championed Obamacare in any way until it became the healthcare reform of last resort.

But you're just not going to solve anything in a nation of hundreds of millions with small agrarian style co-ops as much as I wish it were possible..... and as maincoons said "they never survive the scale up."


I'll let others address the cooperative question and will only address the fat the the government is NOT the people. If that were true we'd all be government officials and I doubt any of us are. People working together to solve problems is NOT why our government was created--do you see that in the Declaration, nic, then please point it out. The declaration say we're created equal before the law with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit, I repeat, pursuit of happiness. Government provided happiness is not pursuit. The Declaration goes on to say government a created by the people to protect our rights, period, there is no other legitimate use of government, not according to the Declaration.

Cthulhu
09-27-2013, 02:19 PM
Insurance is the problem-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI

Once again I must praise Stossel.

Don't Socialize. Stosselize.

While I like the option of medi-share much more than the standard options. It is still not as good as paying for it yourself.

jillian
09-27-2013, 02:19 PM
Why don't you believe they can work if they're not public? They're working. You mean that you wish everyone to be on one whether they choose it or not, yeh?

Younger people without the same health concerns are paying for older people with them. Most older people have better paying jobs than the 18-28 year olds that are being forced to buy insurance to subsidise those who have more money and income but more health concerns.

That's a seriously crap model.

The US refuses to take on total national health, but instead tears down better private models to subsidise the very worst in a big corporatist fellation.

because if they were actually interested in doing it, it would have been done already. they haven't. we have x people who can't get insurance. we have x people who had insurance but got dumped when they got sick... we have x people who have insurance through their jobs... they get sick, they use their sick days... they lose their job (or they lose their job b/c of economics) and poof... there goes their coverage. any idea what COBRA coverage costs?

the problem is simply too large for a small group of altruists... no matter how well-meaning they might be.

and i have to wonder why someone who said that he wouldn't want to give up his government health care is so supportive of people who don't want our people to even have health insurace... much less health care.

nic34
09-27-2013, 02:32 PM
I'll let others address the cooperative question and will only address the fat the the government is NOT the people. If that were true we'd all be government officials and I doubt any of us are. People working together to solve problems is NOT why our government was created--do you see that in the Declaration, nic, then please point it out. The declaration say we're created equal before the law with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit, I repeat, pursuit of happiness. Government provided happiness is not pursuit. The Declaration goes on to say government a created by the people to protect our rights, period, there is no other legitimate use of government, not according to the Declaration.

Well you can keep saying government is not the people since it seems the corportists have gotten you to succumb to that...

... but Thomas Paine said it best: individual persons should be more powerful than any other institution.

“It has been thought,” he wrote in The Rights of Man in 1791,

that government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.

The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist."

Chris
09-27-2013, 02:34 PM
because if they were actually interested in doing it, it would have been done already. they haven't. we have x people who can't get insurance. we have x people who had insurance but got dumped when they got sick... we have x people who have insurance through their jobs... they get sick, they use their sick days... they lose their job (or they lose their job b/c of economics) and poof... there goes their coverage. any idea what COBRA coverage costs?

the problem is simply too large for a small group of altruists... no matter how well-meaning they might be.

and i have to wonder why someone who said that he wouldn't want to give up his government health care is so supportive of people who don't want our people to even have health insurace... much less health care.



You state opinions like they're facts. But they're not. For instance "the problem is simply too large for a small group of altruists". You simply assume this is true, and argue form it, without ever establishing it as such.

Chris
09-27-2013, 02:41 PM
Well you can keep saying government is not the people since it seems the corportists have gotten you to succumb to that...

... but Thomas Paine said it best: individual persons should be more powerful than any other institution.

“It has been thought,” he wrote in The Rights of Man in 1791,

that government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.

The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist."






What "corportists", sic, nic, what government/business colluders have forced me to say the people and the government are not the same. That a common liberal progressive mantra. You point to the Declaration for proof, but it's not there.

So then you go fishing in Paine...


that government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.

This contradicts your assumption, nic. It says the people preceded government, the people created it, they are separate.


The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist."

Ah, so if I contract with the telephone company, an Internet service, cable service, Walmart, Amazon...I and those entities are one and the same as you assume? You cannot enter into a contract with yourself, nic. Paine is simply say the people, with their rights, precede and create government. Not at all that they are one and the same.

Alyosha
09-27-2013, 03:43 PM
Because something didn't work in the past doesn't mean it can't work now. Isn't that the Democrap approach to Obamacare? Just because it didn't work for Hillary...

Look, it takes a grass roots swell and the same level of effort statists put into it to get people on board with liberty. I think we're energized now and with the technology of today can make it happen if we're willing to invest time and money.

nic34
09-27-2013, 04:00 PM
Paine is simply say the people, with their rights, precede and create government. Not at all that they are one and the same.



You state opinions like they're facts.

Chris
09-27-2013, 04:01 PM
Nic, I demonstrated my opinion by citing Paine, I argued from his words.

I see you're left without so much as an opinion now.

KC
09-27-2013, 04:20 PM
I do not believe it is possible to fix health insurance in the United States.

nic34
09-27-2013, 04:25 PM
I do not believe it is possible to fix health insurance in the United States.

They just did.

It's not perfect.

KC
09-27-2013, 04:28 PM
They just did.

It's not perfect.

They fixed it for the moneyed interests, I mean for the people.

Paperback Writer
09-27-2013, 06:24 PM
There is no money in fixing health care. I cannot believe the naivete of the so-called liberals on here that they believe Obamacare is an honest attempt.

cui bono?

The insurance companies benefit the most from this bill. With the citizens, its up and down. Some benefit, others are hurt. Rich people will still travel to New York or Switzerland for surgeries.

Four years ago I was a Labour voting typical twenty-something Londoner. Then I realised what a sham "Labour" was and went to the Greens. Now, I have some anarchist mates and libertarian mates waking me up to what people can do for themselves.

Alyosha and I have a mate who has lived off the grid on barter and trade for years. He and his friends made their own little community and they actively went out and started trading and negotiating for ALL their services.

Large corporations own 99% of the people in government so all legislation even if it's sold to help the little guy just helps corporate fucks.

jillian
09-27-2013, 06:39 PM
There is no money in fixing health care. I cannot believe the naivete of the so-called liberals on here that they believe Obamacare is an honest attempt.

cui bono?

The insurance companies benefit the most from this bill. With the citizens, its up and down. Some benefit, others are hurt. Rich people will still travel to New York or Switzerland for surgeries.

Four years ago I was a Labour voting typical twenty-something Londoner. Then I realised what a sham "Labour" was and went to the Greens. Now, I have some anarchist mates and libertarian mates waking me up to what people can do for themselves.

Alyosha and I have a mate who has lived off the grid on barter and trade for years. He and his friends made their own little community and they actively went out and started trading and negotiating for ALL their services.

Large corporations own 99% of the people in government so all legislation even if it's sold to help the little guy just helps corporate fucks.

you're looking for perfection. i'm looking for a start. and as a start it's incrementally better.

we'll see what happens from there.

what they really need to do is address the cost of health care delivery now

Chris
09-27-2013, 08:41 PM
you're looking for perfection. i'm looking for a start. and as a start it's incrementally better.

we'll see what happens from there.

what they really need to do is address the cost of health care delivery now



Typical liberal thinking, it feels good, it has good intentions--do you know it will work? No, but we'll see.

If someone ran their life that way, a business like that, it'd be a colossal failure.

AmazonTania
09-27-2013, 09:19 PM
I don't see how Obamacare was even a start for fixing Health Care. It involves a very misconstrued view of what health insurance is, and what it's used for. The purpose of insurance is to cover uncommon, major events that people can't afford to pay out of normal income and savings. 'Real' Health Insurance is high deductible major medical, not expensive pre-payment schemes which exist from Obama care which only exist because of Corporate Welfare Regulations.

There are many ways to fix the Health Care system without spending a dime. Obamacare is definitely not one of them.

ptif219
09-27-2013, 09:26 PM
how nice... religious control of health care. that isn't health insurance. that's a charity... and not even a charity. i forget what they call it in the carribbean community but i don't think they're legal.

at least you're trying though.



neither has the heritage foundation or fund for growth. your point other than to say something... anything... ?

we are the only civilized nation in the world that doesn't provide healthcare to its citizens.

why do you think that's ok?

Better than Obama's funds going for abortions

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/boehner-warned-obamacares-abortion-slush-fund-secrecy-clause



Today, 72 congressmen sent a letter to House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) urging him to insert language ending abortion funding and religious discrimination in Obamacare into any funding or debt ceiling legislation.
"[T]he Obama administration has committed unprecedented attacks against the unborn and the religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution, all under the guise of 'access to health care,'" the letter tells Boehner.
The letter (http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/9.26.13%20Religious%20Freedom_Obamacare%20Letter.p df) implores Boehner to "incorporate H.R. 940, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, along with a cessation of federal dollars for abortions into the continuing resolution or on legislation addressing the debt ceiling."
H.R. 940 says that nothing in the Obamacare law "shall require an individual to purchase individual health insurance coverage that includes coverage of an abortion or other item or service to which such individual has a moral or religious objection, or prevent an issuer from offering or issuing, to such individual, individual health insurance coverage that excludes such item or service."
H.R. 940 also protects employers and health insurers from being forced to buy or provide coverage for things to which they have a "moral or religious objection."
Americans morally opposed to funding abortion may unwittingly sign up for one that does due to Obamacare's "secrecy clause," the letter warns:
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/boehner-warned-obamacares-abortion-slush-fund-secrecy-clause#sthash.tjO3NdmO.dpuf

Ravi
09-28-2013, 06:02 AM
If we rely on volunteers and charity we will be screwed in the long run, and here is why:


Some types of government spending are crucial and necessary. These investments include not only breast cancer research, but all avenues of basic scientific research funded by agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Private industry rarely funds very basic research because it needs a return on investment within two to five years at the most. The government is the only entity with enough patience and deep enough pockets to fund long-term basic research. Private foundations are not even in the same league in dollar amounts. The entire research budgets of charities such as Komen for the Cure ($75M) and the American Cancer Society ($160M) combined are less than the 5 percent sequester cut to the $4.8 billion National Cancer Institute budget.

The biggest breakthroughs, the fundamental advances that enable the development of new cancer drugs for leukemia or melanoma or triple-drug cocktails that keep HIV in check, come from scientists working not in private industry, but at universities, nonprofit research institutions and government labs that are funded bhttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/how-the-debt-deal-screws-over-breast-cancer-patients-and-scientistsy these agencies, and ultimately by the American taxpayer.

jillian
09-28-2013, 06:37 AM
If we rely on volunteers and charity we will be screwed in the long run, and here is why:

thanks for that. you articulated what i was trying to say yesterday.

Alyosha
09-28-2013, 08:01 AM
If we rely on volunteers and charity we will be screwed in the long run, and here is why:

Did you read this article? These are cooperatives, not charities. It's no different than United Health Care except that it is cheaper and cooperatively administered and funded by the individuals participating. If you read the articles you would see that cancer patients had their treatments funded.

As for research, it is private companies who do the advanced research on cancers and other diseases because there is profit in treatment. Sloan-Kettering, for example, is a private corporation that treats cancer patients and is also involved in research.

However, I do believe that there is a place for government (limited government) and I would not personally be opposed to putting money towards research. I just believe that appropriation of funds should be agreed upon and voluntary.

Chris
09-28-2013, 10:30 AM
If we rely on volunteers and charity we will be screwed in the long run, and here is why:

I read your source. It makes the same assumption you and other progressives do: "Some types of government spending are crucial and necessary." It does not explain why, it just assumes it.

The examples given have nothing to do with the type of health care being discussed here, and doesn't do a good job of even that.

Try again though, something might stick.

Chris
09-28-2013, 10:31 AM
thanks for that. you articulated what i was trying to say yesterday.


Well ravi is still trying to substantiate the progressive assumption you share.

lynn
09-29-2013, 10:49 PM
20 years ago the average doctor's visit was $20. Today the average doctor's visit is $150. Most health insurance companies reimburse that visit for aprox $20 plus you pay your co-pay of $25 depending on where you live, this could be higher. If we get health insurance out of the picture right now, everyone could pay easily $45 dollars out of pocket for a doctor's visit.

Right now for a visit you paid your co-pay but don't forget you also paid part or all of that monthly premium too. Most of your life until your reach your later 40's and beyond is having health coverage necessary for aging conditions that occur later in life. Most of your life you are paying for premiums year after year getting nothing in return. We need a better system that is free of greedy individuals that knows these facts and are allowed to capitalize on ignorance of the masses.