Why privatized healthcare is bad

[kilgram]

Well, I've found an article in Spanish to defend the public healthcare in Spain (because we are suffering a conservative government who wants to end all kind of welfare) and it is using many data, I am only going to translate the data that is the most important (in the end I am going to link to the full article in Spanish, sorry)

Rate of survival of breast cancer at 5 years: USA 89% OECD: 84%

Rate of survival of cervix cancer at 5 years: USA 64% OECD 66%

Rate of Survival of colorrectal cancer at 5 years: USA 65% OECD 62%

Death toll of asmathic patients between 5 and 39 years: USA 0.40% OECD 0.09%

Inferior extremities amputation for diabethes for each 100,000 people: USA 32.9% OECD 9.9%

Death toll after 100 days of hospitalization in myocardium heart attack: USA 4.3% OECD 4.6%


Well, the data shows that there is not a big difference, when in USA spends in healthcare much more than the rest of OECD country members.

But, maybe the cause is the price of the drugs that are many times more expensive than in the rest of the world (and many times sold by the same corporations)

Now some graphs:

http://cdn.gurusblog.com/jordi/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/gasto-sanitario.jpg
You can see high inflation in the healthcare spending in USA compared to the rest.

Medical and treatment costs


http://cdn4.gurusblog.com/jordi/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/nexium.jpg
The same drug with same effects is almost ten times more expensive in USA than Netherlands.

Cost of abdominal CT scan
http://cdn3.gurusblog.com/jordi/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/tomografia-abdomen.jpg
Again almost ten times more expensive than the cheapest that is now Spain. We have to considere that the machines are the same in all countries.

Bypass cost
http://cdn.gurusblog.com/jordi/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/bypass.jpg
http://cdn.gurusblog.com/jordi/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/apendicitis-coste.jpg

http://cdn3.gurusblog.com/jordi/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/coste-hospital.jpg

http://cdn2.gurusblog.com/jordi/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/protesis-de-cadera.jpg

What happens why there is difference?

In the OECD there is the concept of universal healthcare where there is a national healthcare service that can make competence to the private healthcare while in USA there is not and people is not free to find substitutes of the services, if you have to receive an appendectomy you must, because the altarnative is death. Then you can only look for a different hospital, is your only alternative. So, it gives a lot of power to private corporations to negotiate their prices.

So, and it is not comparative with other products that are not essential, for example, a Coca-Cola where you have many alternatives like other brands or products like water, lemonade...

In conclusion looks that is necessary to exist an universal public healthcare service is good for everybody even for those who can pay for private healthcare because prevents that private sector raise too much the prices.

Obviously it does not mean that public healthcare has deficiencies and must be corrected. Obviously it has, I am the first to recognize it.

http://www.gurusblog.com/archives/el-obsceno-coste-de-la-sanidad-en-los-eeuu/19/04/2014/

[Kalkin]

Why government run healthcare is bad: the government runs it.

[kilgram]

Why government run healthcare is bad: the government runs it.
Incredible argument.

I don't know if it is irony or no.

[Kalkin]

Incredible argument.

I don't know if it is irony or no.
It actually is rather ingenious in it's simplicity. Look at the government's track record of bureaucracy, debt, inefficiency, and fraud and it becomes quite apparent why thinking people view it skeptically. Add to that the fact that the document that defines our federal government, the Constitution, does not grant it the authority to run our healthcare system. It's a state issue.

[Spectre]

Let's remember that only Canada, Cuba, North Korea and one or two other countries have ALL government-run health care. Most of the rest of the world has mixed systems, and a few of these work much BETTER than either completely government-run or completely private systems.

One such system is the German one, maybe the best health care system in the world. France's is probably just as good.

[kilgram]

It actually is rather ingenious in it's simplicity. Look at the government's track record of bureaucracy, debt, inefficiency, and fraud and it becomes quite apparent why thinking people view it skeptically. Add to that the fact that the document that defines our federal government, the Constitution, does not grant it the authority to run our healthcare system. It's a state issue.
Private corporations are free of those problems? I doubt it.

Really, are you sure about that? And it has not to be the central government to run healthcare. It can be each state. But it must be universal.

Again check the facts.

[kilgram]

Let's remember that only Canada, Cuba, North Korea and one or two other countries have ALL government-run health care. Most of the rest of the world has mixed systems, and a few of these work much BETTER than either completely government-run or completely private systems.

One such system is the German one, maybe the best health care system in the world. France's is probably just as good.
Spanish is pure public and is one of the best of the world, even better than German in many cases.

No, most of them are national. And all the ones that had privatizations lost positions and their services became worse.

[zelmo1234]

One of the nice things about a central healthcare system is the automatic TORT reforms that come with the system.

It is also one of the largest driving factors in the high cost of healthcare n this system.

Running the same tests again and again. because you are covering your behind. Not going over results on the phone because you need the person to sign off. All these things add to the cost of Insurance.

And it was something that the current administration and the GWB administration openly refused to tackle! so both sides are to blame.

[kilgram]

One of the nice things about a central healthcare system is the automatic TORT reforms that come with the system.

It is also one of the largest driving factors in the high cost of healthcare n this system.

Running the same tests again and again. because you are covering your behind. Not going over results on the phone because you need the person to sign off. All these things add to the cost of Insurance.

And it was something that the current administration and the GWB administration openly refused to tackle! so both sides are to blame.
I suppose that government has played a big role in the overpriced American healthcare system and one of those roles is not having a universal public healthcare. Other maybe is not regulate or change the form of working some tests and other things...

[patrickt]

I wonder why the countries that are already in the swamp of socialized medicine don't simply adopt the French system or the German system. It's a mystery, isn't it? It not like their government hasn't already seized the health care system. And some of those countries with a mixed system went through the stage of absolute, total government control and when it failed backed off to a mixed system. That means those without means suffer with government healthcare will those with money don't.

I wonder why socialists and communists are so concerned about the healthcare in the U.S.? We should be concerned about system that send their citizens into the U.S. desperately seeking healthcare. Well, that will be a memory soon.

[Refugee]

There is no doubt U.S. healthcare is expensive and the reason my private one is so cheap is that I declined America to be included.

Yet socialised healthcare in the UK failed and now includes private outsourcing; it was simply going bankrupt. When people talk of socialised healthcare it gives the impression its free. It's certainly not and you pay for it out of your salary, no opt out. The more into bankruptcy it goes the more you pay. It's expensive because you're paying for those that don't work and so don't pay. Any system which uses that criteria is going to be expensive.

[Perianne]

American health care is expensive because of the pot smokers. Or homosexuals. :)

[patrickt]

"Free" for the leftists means someone else pays for the deadbeats. Free food, free education, free healthcare, free cell phones, free cell phone service, free daycare, free housing and free bribes to politicians simply means someone else is paying.

[Mainecoons]

This thread is a laugh coming from someone living in a country that is failing completely because of his ideas: Spain.

[Refugee]

This thread is a laugh coming from someone living in a country that is failing completely because of his ideas: Spain.

Spain is one of the European countries that is collapsing. Leftists blame it on a conservative government, everyone else blames it on a leftist European Union, which is where it gets most of its directives and rulings from.

[kilgram]

There is no doubt U.S. healthcare is expensive and the reason my private one is so cheap is that I declined America to be included.

Yet socialised healthcare in the UK failed and now includes private outsourcing; it was simply going bankrupt. When people talk of socialised healthcare it gives the impression its free. It's certainly not and you pay for it out of your salary, no opt out. The more into bankruptcy it goes the more you pay. It's expensive because you're paying for those that don't work and so don't pay. Any system which uses that criteria is going to be expensive.

And for this reason Spain had healthcare tourism from GB. Because now it is so good, ironic.

[kilgram]

This thread is a laugh coming from someone living in a country that is failing completely because of his ideas: Spain.

Haha Spain is failing because is applying the conservative ideology.

[kilgram]

Spain is one of the European countries that is collapsing. Leftists blame it on a conservative government, everyone else blames it on a leftist European Union, which is where it gets most of its directives and rulings from.

Leftist union? It is the biggest LOL I've ever read. If the Union was leftist the things would have been done in other way.

And obviously it is fail of the neoliberal governments of Spain.

[Mainecoons]

Spain is heavily unionized and has a quite bloated government "work" force. Conservatives don't go for either.

Spain needs to take the Iceland medicine. First thing, all these second tier countries in the EU have to recognize they can't afford the Euro which is basically pegged to Germany.

[Common Sense]

Let's remember that only Canada, Cuba, North Korea and one or two other countries have ALL government-run health care. Most of the rest of the world has mixed systems, and a few of these work much BETTER than either completely government-run or completely private systems.

One such system is the German one, maybe the best health care system in the world. France's is probably just as good.

Canada's healthcare is not run by the govt. It's a mixed system in a sense.

The government isn't actively engaged with administering healthcare in Canada. It sets up standards and administers, basically, an insurance plan through the provinces (single payer). It doesn't collect records and again isn't active in delivering care. Most care is done through private organizations. Most Canadians also have some form of supplemental insurance to cover dental, prescriptions and eye glasses.

It's far from the best system, but Canadians overwhelmingly love it...and very few of us want an American system. We can't fathom it.

[Peter1469]

The European health care system is in for a big shock. The US is ending its role as world police. Europe has gutted its defenses. They will have to rebuild them. Less free social services for Europe.

[Chris]

I hope someone has brought attention to the fact the US does not represent private healthcare. More and more of it is government-run, -managed, and -regulated. And as that increases so too do costs.

[kilgram]

Spain is heavily unionized and has a quite bloated government "work" force. Conservatives don't go for either.

Spain needs to take the Iceland medicine. First thing, all these second tier countries in the EU have to recognize they can't afford the Euro which is basically pegged to Germany.

Government workforce is smaller than the German or any other European. The same the unions that are very weak and less combative.

[kilgram]

I hope someone has brought attention to the fact the US does not represent private healthcare. More and more of it is government-run, -managed, and -regulated. And as that increases so too do costs.

What explanation do you give to the graphs?

[Chris]

What explanation do you give to the graphs?

Government management and regulation drive up costs.

One example comes to mind, and that's regional pricing in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug companies charge difference prices in different areas, drugs in CA are generally less than in the US. Why? Well, one reason is they know, generally speaking, people in the US are willing to pay more. Those who would prefer lower prices are prevented by government regulation from easy access to the CA drug market, they are a captive audience.

[kilgram]

2
Government management and regulation drive up costs.

One example comes to mind, and that's regional pricing in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug companies charge difference prices in different areas, drugs in CA are generally less than in the US. Why? Well, one reason is they know, generally speaking, people in the US are willing to pay more. Those who would prefer lower prices are prevented by government regulation from easy access to the CA drug market, they are a captive audience.

Well, but why other countries with regulated prices are 10 times cheaper?

Also you must add that countries with mixed healthcare but with the idea of universal is much cheaper. What is the problem with USA? How many Medicare, Medicaid and other similar programs do you have? Instead having one universal that would compete with the private healthcare.

[Chris]

2

Well, but why other countries with regulated prices are 10 times cheaper?

Also you must add that countries with mixed healthcare but with the idea of universal is much cheaper. What is the problem with USA? How many Medicare, Medicaid and other similar programs do you have? Instead having one universal that would compete with the private healthcare.


For similar reasons, their people aren't as willing to pay high prices, generally speaking.

Now you might say but by government regulation they pay lower prices, but that's not really true since those lower prices are subsidized by government, the funding for which comes through taxes from the people anyhow.

For years I argued with some Canadians who would extol their system as being free. But you do pay through taxes do you not? Well, yea, but.

Universal is not cheaper. The costs are hidden in government management and regulation and taxation. By the very nature of a monopolistic system, prices will only increase. Only competition can drive costs down.

[Spectre]

Health care is one of those rare areas--the military is another--where the obvious superiority of markets in most facets of life breaks down.

Medical issues have one standard: How do I save this life and make this person well again? That is a questoon where money has no place, because a human life is not measured by how much money a person has in the bank. Human life is intrinsically precious. Therefore, a poor person is just as entitled to prompt, effective medical treatment as a billionaire because the latter is not MORE of a person because he's worth billions.

This is why the state and its intervention in such cases is not only desirable, it is moral.

[kilgram]

For similar reasons, their people aren't as willing to pay high prices, generally speaking.

Now you might say but by government regulation they pay lower prices, but that's not really true since those lower prices are subsidized by government, the funding for which comes through taxes from the people anyhow.

For years I argued with some Canadians who would extol their system as being free. But you do pay through taxes do you not? Well, yea, but.

Universal is not cheaper. The costs are hidden in government management and regulation and taxation. By the very nature of a monopolistic system, prices will only increase. Only competition can drive costs down.

Is cheaper, even considering taxes. We pay less for an "insurance". Essential services don't work well in private hands because its market is basically monopolistic or oligopolistic.

[nic34]

Why government run healthcare is bad: the government runs it.

Ideology of preconception. Typical.

[nic34]

Health care is one of those rare areas--the military is another--where the obvious superiority of markets in most facets of life breaks down.

Medical issues have one standard: How do I save this life and make this person well again? That is a questoon where money has no place, because a human life is not measured by how much money a person has in the bank. Human life is intrinsically precious. Therefore, a poor person is just as entitled to prompt, effective medical treatment as a billionaire because the latter is not MORE of a person because he's worth billions.

This is why the state and its intervention in such cases is not only desirable, it is moral.

Bingo. How is it that fellow conservatives don't get that?

[Chris]

Health care is one of those rare areas--the military is another--where the obvious superiority of markets in most facets of life breaks down.

Medical issues have one standard: How do I save this life and make this person well again? That is a questoon where money has no place, because a human life is not measured by how much money a person has in the bank. Human life is intrinsically precious. Therefore, a poor person is just as entitled to prompt, effective medical treatment as a billionaire because the latter is not MORE of a person because he's worth billions.

This is why the state and its intervention in such cases is not only desirable, it is moral.



Sorry, but the political/economic question is not how save lives but how better save lives. Simply government siphoning off wealth for "free" services begs the question how are you going to pay for it? Like most progressives, you don't have an answer to that in your emotional plea for social justice.

[Chris]

Ideology of preconception. Typical.



^^Ideology of preconception. Typical.

[Newpublius]

Private corporations are free of those problems? I doubt it.

Really, are you sure about that? And it has not to be the central government to run healthcare. It can be each state. But it must be universal.

Again check the facts.

well, bottom line major portions of US healthcare is publicly funded: medicare, medicaid, VA, public employees.

single payer systems reduce costs by imposing cost controls, those cost controls invariably create queuing. doesn't matter where you are, it will happen because you're doing the one thing to reduce supply of medical services: you're reducing compensation to that sector.

[kilgram]

Sorry, but the political/economic question is not how save lives but how better save lives. Simply government siphoning off wealth for "free" services begs the question how are you going to pay for it? Like most progressives, you don't have an answer to that in your emotional plea for social justice.

Results prove that being private is not symptom of superiority and government managed healthcare systems like the Spanish gave given equal or better results than many private.

Social justice is not any nonsense neither emotional.

[Newpublius]

well those policies added up to a system that is the fiasco that is spain, kilgram, 25% plus unemployment because at the end of the day you can't run half your economy like East germany. we keep telling you that placing affirmative disincentiveson people to produce has consequences, and then when they have those consequences, somehow you're surprised. socialism.....i'm sorry, it just doesn't work well.....

[Spectre]

Sorry, but the political/economic question is not how save lives but how better save lives. Simply government siphoning off wealth for "free" services begs the question how are you going to pay for it? Like most progressives, you don't have an answer to that in your emotional plea for social justice.

Even Margaret Thatcher--that great 'progressive'--had no intention of dismantling the NHS, although she did try to make it more efficient and workable, one of her less successful projects. But she was quite religious, and, acolyte of Hayek that she was, recognized the moral necessity of health care for all.

[Spectre]

Anarcho-Libertarians are neither religious not moral, and the idea of the intrinsic value of a human life will strike them as strange and superstitious.

[Chris]

Results prove that being private is not symptom of superiority and government managed healthcare systems like the Spanish gave given equal or better results than many private.

Social justice is not any nonsense neither emotional.

Sorry, not sure I understand that.

Proof? What proof?

Social justice is fine as motive and even goal, but it's not the means.

[Chris]

Even Margaret Thatcher--that great 'progressive'--had no intention of dismantling the NHS, although she did try to make it more efficient and workable, one of her less successful projects. But she was quite religious, and, acolyte of Hayek that she was, recognized the moral necessity of health care for all.


You give me names, where's your rational argument?

[Mainecoons]

NHS couldn't be made more workable anymore than any other government activity.

By its nature, government evolves towards incompetence and bloat. There is simply no competitive force to make it otherwise.

And Spectre, one is not "entitled" to health care any more than they are entitled to free food. This is the mentality that is driving the entire western world to collapse as the number of "entitled" continues to grow and the number of people paying for them continues to shrink.

You simply demonstrate that we have learned nothing about human nature since bread and circuses ushered the Roman Empire into the trash can of history.

Liberals like you and Nic never learn from history or your mistakes because that doesn't feel good. And feeling good is what liberalism is all about, not actually constructing durable and successful societies.

[Chris]

Anarcho-Libertarians are neither religious not moral, and the idea of the intrinsic value of a human life will strike them as strange and superstitious.



What'd I just say above, question the emotionalism of a progressive and you get called a heartless bastard. It's the sum total of the progressive argument. Funny, too, when you think about it, how progressive personhood arguments for abortion consider the intrinsic value of human life.

[Spectre]

What'd I just say above, question the emotionalism of a progressive and you get called a heartless bastard. It's the sum total of the progressive argument. Funny, too, when you think about it, how progressive personhood arguments for abortion consider the intrinsic value of human life.

I'm FEROCIOUSLY anti-abortion.

[Chris]

NHS couldn't be made more workable anymore than any other government activity.

By its nature, government evolves towards incompetence and bloat. There is simply no competitive force to make it otherwise.

And Spectre, one is not "entitled" to health care any more than they are entitled to free food. This is the mentality that is driving the entire western world to collapse as the number of "entitled" continues to grow and the number of people paying for them continues to shrink.

You simply demonstrate that we have learned nothing about human nature since bread and circuses ushered the Roman Empire into the trash can of history.

Liberals like you and Nic never learn from history or your mistakes because that doesn't feel good. And feeling good is what liberalism is all about, not actually constructing durable and successful societies.



Ah, but if you accept FDR's second bill of rights, then we're entitled to be provided by government not only health but clothing and shelter, you're guaranteed to be protected from life--so much for the value and dignity of life!

[Chris]

I'm FEROCIOUSLY anti-abortion.


Emotionalism again.

[Newpublius]

well, let's look at it this way. surely there is an altruistic to humanity. no problem, but the doctors, the nurses, the people developing the pharmaceuticals. those people need to be paid. why? why not a system where the medical personnel are compelled to provide the service without remuneration? why wouldn't that work? its obvious, no? and yet you'll willfully reduce everybody else's compensation and don't think a similar effect will set in?

[kilgram]

well, let's look at it this way. surely there is an altruistic to humanity. no problem, but the doctors, the nurses, the people developing the pharmaceuticals. those people need to be paid. why? why not a system where the medical personnel are compelled to provide the service without remuneration? why wouldn't that work? its obvious, no? and yet you'll willfully reduce everybody else's compensation and don't think a similar effect will set in?

Who is talking to not pay them?

[Chris]

Who is talking to not pay them?


How does socialized health care pay to incentivize medical professionals to pursue such careers?

[Common Sense]

How does socialized health care pay to incentivize medical professionals to pursue such careers?

Do you think doctors in Canada are poor? Canadian doctors make anywhere from$200K to $400 plus.

[kilgram]

How does socialized health care pay to incentivize medical professionals to pursue such careers?

How Spain produces so good nurses or doctors that even they are demanded in other countries when Spain has socialized healthcare?

How is it possible? And why many of them want to work in the public hospitals? Because they have good wages and they do what they like.

[Spectre]

I don't believe in completely socialized health care. It doesn't work in the long run, and will eventually break down, especially as the population gets older and makes more demands on it.

A mixed system, with a built-in encouragement to private care, is the best system, and the most cost-effective.

Obamacare might go down in history as THE worst, most confusing and chaotic medical system ever invented.

[Spectre]

Again, as in so many aspects of life, some presence of the state is necessary to have a civilized, decent life for its citizens.

Obviously, not nearly as big a state as most progressives want, but you must have some: there are two roads to Hell: a monstrous, tentacular, all-powerful state, and no state at all.

[Kalkin]

Private corporations are free of those problems? I doubt it.

Really, are you sure about that? And it has not to be the central government to run healthcare. It can be each state. But it must be universal.

Again check the facts.
Who said private corporations don't have problems? The only difference is the free citizen can decline to do business with them.
I have no problems with individual states trying their hands at it (nor does the Constitution). However, your inner dictator comes out when you say silly things like "it must be universal". That's not your call to make. You have a vote in your state. Respect the freedom of others to choose, please.
As far as checking facts, I can cite the fact of our spiraling national debt to support my claims, 17 trillion and growing by the second.

[Kalkin]

I wonder why socialists and communists are so concerned about the healthcare in the U.S.? We should be concerned about system that send their citizens into the U.S. desperately seeking healthcare. Well, that will be a memory soon.
Good question. Myob, commies. I'm not bitching about other country's high priced mediocre systems, yet we get a constant whinge from foreigners about ours.

[Kalkin]

Human life is intrinsically precious. Therefore, a poor person is just as entitled to prompt, effective medical treatment as a billionaire because the latter is not MORE of a person because he's worth billions.

Healthcare services are someone else's time, labor, expertise, facilities, and equipment. No one is entitled to the labor (and those other things) of another, regardless of how precious their need is perceived to be.

[Chris]

Do you think doctors in Canada are poor? Canadian doctors make anywhere from$200K to $400 plus.


No but for years now CA has been suffering a shortage of medical professionals. Al a matter of incentives, government regulates compensation for services, fewer people are inventivised.

[Kalkin]

Ideology of preconception. Typical.
I prefer "self-fulfilling prophecy" mixed with a dash of "a zebra doesn't change it's stripes"

[Chris]

How Spain produces so good nurses or doctors that even they are demanded in other countries when Spain has socialized healthcare?

How is it possible? And why many of them want to work in the public hospitals? Because they have good wages and they do what they like.



Every country has good medical professionals. The question remains, what will incentivise more?

[Spectre]

Healthcare services are someone else's time, labor, expertise, facilities, and equipment. No one is entitled to the labor of another, regardless of how precious their need is perceived to be.

In almost all other aspects of life this principle holds. As I said, it falls apart when one deals with health care and two or three more areas. The primacy of human life trumps every other consideration...if we're civilized and not savages, that is.

[Chris]

Again, as in so many aspects of life, some presence of the state is necessary to have a civilized, decent life for its citizens.

Obviously, not nearly as big a state as most progressives want, but you must have some: there are two roads to Hell: a monstrous, tentacular, all-powerful state, and no state at all.



Still waiting for a single rational argument for your assertions.

[Kalkin]

Anarcho-Libertarians are neither religious not moral, and the idea of the intrinsic value of a human life will strike them as strange and superstitious.
Human life has intrinsic value. That value does not justify marxism.

[Chris]

In almost all other aspects of life this principle holds. As I said, it falls apart when one deals with health care and two or three more areas. The primacy of human life trumps every other consideration...if we're civilized and not savages, that is.



Assume the value of human life. Now explain, in a rational way, how it follows from that assumption that people are entitled to government-provided healthcare.

[Spectre]

Still waiting for a single rational argument for your assertions.
The burden of proof lies on the person--you, in this case--who believes in an ideology that can point to not a single polity EVER run on its principles. Not on a person that believes in the state, which is the only condition humanity knows.

States exist; anarcho-libertarianism doesn't. YOU'RE the one who needs to do the proving.

[Kalkin]

Again, as in so many aspects of life, some presence of the state is necessary to have a civilized, decent life for its citizens.

Obviously, not nearly as big a state as most progressives want, but you must have some: there are two roads to Hell: a monstrous, tentacular, all-powerful state, and no state at all.
We just disagree on the degree of government, not whether or not it should exist. Nationalized healthcare is a degree of State control that I find appalling, tbh. Bigger government = less freedom.

[Spectre]

Assume the value of human life. Now explain, in a rational way, how it follows from that assumption that people are entitled to government-provided healthcare.

Because where it doesn't exist poorer people don't get it and suffer much higher rates of mortality.

[Spectre]

We just disagree on the degree of government, not whether or not it should exist. Nationalized healthcare is a degree of State control that I find appalling, tbh. Bigger government = less freedom.
You might want to explain to the guy who's dying because he can't afford a cancer drug that, he may be dying a horrible, painful death, but he can take great comfort from the fact that he is still a little more 'free'.:sad:

[Kalkin]

In almost all other aspects of life this principle holds. As I said, it falls apart when one deals with health care and two or three more areas. The primacy of human life trumps every other consideration...if we're civilized and not savages, that is.
I disagree. We are all mortal, there is no escaping death. If you want to avail yourself of someone else's time/expertise/property to extend your life, you have to pay them. You, who want the services, not me, who doesn't. I'm not a "takes a village" guy.

[Kalkin]

Assume the value of human life. Now explain, in a rational way, how it follows from that assumption that people are entitled to government-provided healthcare.
The ends justify the means, obviously.

[Kalkin]

Because where it doesn't exist poorer people don't get it and suffer much higher rates of mortality.
Everyone suffers a 100% mortality rate. We're talking about extending lives with other people's resources.

[Kalkin]

You might want to explain to the guy who's dying because he can't afford a cancer drug that, he may be dying a horrible, painful death, but he can take great comfort from the fact that he is still a little more 'free'.:sad:
Sure, I'll explain it to anyone. Have him PM me.

[Spectre]

Look, the same general principles apply to the military: you don't have soldiers supply their own weapons and uniform from their own pockets, nor do you supply the armed forces based on market forces: you give them the best, most advanced and state-of-the-art wepons systems you can get them, and with the best training you can give them. Market forces are not a consideration here. There are higher priorities here.

[Spectre]

Everyone suffers a 100% mortality rate. We're talking about extending lives with other people's resources.
Which is a moral obligation.

[Kalkin]

Look, the same general principles apply to the military: you don't have soldiers supply their own weapons and uniform from their own pockets, nor do you supply the armed forces based on market forces: you give them the best, most advanced and state-of-the-art wepons systems you can get them, and with the best training you can give them. Market forces are not a consideration here. There are higher priorities here.
The military is a constitutional use of taxation, socialized healthcare is not.

[Spectre]

The military is a constitutional use of taxation, socialized healthcare is not.
In your opinion; not according to the only opinion that counts: the Supreme Court.

[Kalkin]

Which is a moral obligation.
Whose morality, yours? When balancing the desire to extend a mortal's life against the freedom and liberty innate in all men, my morality lies with freedom and liberty.

[Kalkin]

In your opinion; not according to the only opinion that counts: the Supreme Court.
I can read. The constitution mentions nothing about providing healthcare at the expense of others. The supreme court is compromised of men no better or worse than you or I. They are not infallible gods.

[Chris]

The burden of proof lies on the person--you, in this case--who believes in an ideology that can point to not a single polity EVER run on its principles. Not on a person that believes in the state, which is the only condition humanity knows.

States exist; anarcho-libertarianism doesn't. YOU'RE the one who needs to do the proving.


Spectre, you're the one made the assertion healthcare must be socialized. It' seems your for days now promised rational defense of your view amounts to shifting the burden followed by the naturalistic fallacy that "States exist; anarcho-libertarianism doesn't."

The depths of your rational mind have been plumbed and it is fallaciously shallow.

[Chris]

Which is a moral obligation.



Again, mere assertion. No rational argument for it.

[Chris]

In your opinion; not according to the only opinion that counts: the Supreme Court.



Appeal to authority. Still waiting for that rational argument you keep promising us.... http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/2302/smileyyawn.gif

[Ransom]

So, the federal government's moral obligation is to deliver you, educate you, provide your community, provide health care, housing, unemployment, food, create you a job, and then entitle you to ss and Medicare?

[Kalkin]

So, the federal government's moral obligation is to deliver you, educate you, provide your community, provide health care, housing, unemployment, food, create you a job, and then entitle you to ss and Medicare?
All on the backs of your neighbors and unborn descendants if you can't afford the cost, apparently.

[Common Sense]

Assume the value of human life. Now explain, in a rational way, how it follows from that assumption that people are entitled to government-provided healthcare.

How are people entitled to medicare or medicaid? They pay into a system that provides it.

People aren't entitled to roads, bridges, fire departments, police departments, parks, libraries etc... Yet they are provided by the govt and funded by the people. It's called society.

[Common Sense]

The military is a constitutional use of taxation, socialized healthcare is not.

Technically the current army is unconstitutional...

(Clause 12 – Army)
[The Congress shall have Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

[Chris]

So, the federal government's moral obligation is to deliver you, educate you, provide your community, provide health care, housing, unemployment, food, create you a job, and then entitle you to ss and Medicare?


If you extend spectre's argument, apparently so. Still waiting to hear from him some sort of justification.

[Chris]

How are people entitled to medicare or medicaid? They pay into a system that provides it.

People aren't entitled to roads, bridges, fire departments, police departments, parks, libraries etc... Yet they are provided by the govt and funded by the people. It's called society.



I'm not the one arguing for entitlements, spectre is.

I'd argue we need to depend on society rather than government.

[Common Sense]

I'm not the one arguing for entitlements, spectre is.

I'd argue we need to depend on society rather than government.


Government is the legislative arm of society.

It seems that some around here talk about government as if it's from another planet or country.

[Chris]

Government is the legislative arm of society.

It seems that some around here talk about government as if it's from another planet or country.


True, but legislated, it is designed when man is incapable of such design. Society and much of it's institutions, like the free market, are not designed but emergent.

[Common Sense]

True, but legislated, it is designed when man is incapable of such design. Society and much of it's institutions, like the free market, are not designed but emergent.

They emerge but are managed, molded and shaped by government. For the people by the people.

[Chris]

They emerge but are managed, molded and shaped by government. For the people by the people.

Government tries to manage society, true, but it does a lousy job even at just that.

That was Lincoln, not the Founders, who would have seen the expression as the people created government, see Declaration, or Preamble. Create, as in design.

[Dr. Who]

For similar reasons, their people aren't as willing to pay high prices, generally speaking.

Now you might say but by government regulation they pay lower prices, but that's not really true since those lower prices are subsidized by government, the funding for which comes through taxes from the people anyhow.

For years I argued with some Canadians who would extol their system as being free. But you do pay through taxes do you not? Well, yea, but.

Universal is not cheaper. The costs are hidden in government management and regulation and taxation. By the very nature of a monopolistic system, prices will only increase. Only competition can drive costs down.

Competition doesn't always drive down prices, especially when you are talking about insurance. Insurance pricing is not that flexible. It is predicated on risk assessment, loss-ratios and statistics. Premiums must have a chance to earn interest before they are paid out in losses or the company can't turn a profit. That's why there generally isn't much difference in pricing between carriers, just variability in coverage offered and better or worse claims service.

[Chris]

Competition doesn't always drive down prices, especially when you are talking about insurance. Insurance pricing is not that flexible. It is predicated on risk assessment, loss-ratios and statistics. Premiums must have a chance to earn interest before they are paid out in losses or the company can't turn a profit. That's why there generally isn't much difference in pricing between carriers, just variability in coverage offered and better or worse claims service.

One, we're talking healthcare, not insurance.

Two, competition to win customers, market share, will either be by finding ways to reduce costs and thereby prices, or to improve the product or service, or, yes, go out of business to those who can.

[Newpublius]

and secondly, to expound on Chris' point, who, with respect to insurance, health insurance included, its so heavily regulated at the state level that its difficult to refer to the result as a 'market result' or anything even resembling it.

[Chris]

and secondly, to expound on Chris' point, who, with respect to insurance, health insurance included, its so heavily regulated at the state level that its difficult to refer to the result as a 'market result' or anything even resembling it.


Exactly, though I'd argue it is that regulation that drives prices up. The example I gave earlier of the use of regional pricing by pharmas is a case in point, where regulation protects them and allows for the raising of prices. Were Americans completely free to purchase medication from Canada or Mexico or elsewhere, you'd see prices drop significantly.

[Dr. Who]

One, we're talking healthcare, not insurance.

Two, competition to win customers, market share, will either be by finding ways to reduce costs and thereby prices, or to improve the product or service, or, yes, go out of business to those who can.
As I recall there was a conversation comparing single payer vs private coverage for healthcare. You said: "Universal is not cheaper. The costs are hidden in government management and regulation and taxation. By the very nature of a monopolistic system, prices will only increase. Only competition can drive costs down." Private coverage for health care = insurance, no? Insurance companies may compete by offering better service, but there isn't much chance of them lowing prices without reducing coverage. Actuaries set the prices - there is no way to discount them without risking insolvency. Unlike other industries, insurers can no more control the means of production than a bookie controls the outcome of a horse race. However, in both instances they are required to pay off at the end of the day, except that the insurer usually also has shareholders that also get a piece of the profits.

The biggest difference with single payer systems is that since they work through government, they have much more access to the means of production. By owning the hospitals, being the employer of the medical staff, and ordering drugs in volume, they ensure that the cost of coverage is lower. By reducing the overhead and not paying third party profits, the proportion of tax needed to deliver medical care is lower than the cost of private insurance in a system where everything is privatized and every aspect of the process involves profit taking.

[Kalkin]

Make participation voluntary and get your funding from those who freely decide to participate and I have no problem with government healthcare.

[Chris]

As I recall there was a conversation comparing single payer vs private coverage for healthcare. You said: "Universal is not cheaper. The costs are hidden in government management and regulation and taxation. By the very nature of a monopolistic system, prices will only increase. Only competition can drive costs down." Private coverage for health care = insurance, no? Insurance companies may compete by offering better service, but there isn't much chance of them lowing prices without reducing coverage. Actuaries set the prices - there is no way to discount them without risking insolvency. Unlike other industries, insurers can no more control the means of production than a bookie controls the outcome of a horse race. However, in both instances they are required to pay off at the end of the day, except that the insurer usually also has shareholders that also get a piece of the profits.

The biggest difference with single payer systems is that since they work through government, they have much more access to the means of production. By owning the hospitals, being the employer of the medical staff, and ordering drugs in volume, they ensure that the cost of coverage is lower. By reducing the overhead and not paying third party profits, the proportion of tax needed to deliver medical care is lower than the cost of private insurance in a system where everything is privatized and every aspect of the process involves profit taking.


Single payer is still not insurance, it's merely administration of payment. If the idea's so good, why not private single payer, I select one, you select yours? Again, even here, competition should drive down costs.

My point about universal is was simply that the costs are hidden in government bureaucracy that i truth we pay for just the same.

I think too much of what is now expected for insurance coverage has nothing to do with the concept of insurance against risk. If I build next to a river known to flood, I wouldn't expect insurance against what's likely, only what's unlikely, accidental--same for women's contraceptives.

[Chris]

Make participation voluntary and get your funding from those who freely decide to participate and I have no problem with government healthcare.


Liberal ideas, so good they have to be mandatory.

[kilgram]

One, we're talking healthcare, not insurance.

Two, competition to win customers, market share, will either be by finding ways to reduce costs and thereby prices, or to improve the product or service, or, yes, go out of business to those who can.

It is illusive and goes against the principle of any corporation make profit. In essential services I can have reduced costs and high prices because people will require my services yes or yes. So they will pay anything.

[Chris]

It is illusive and goes against the principle of any corporation make profit. In essential services I can have reduced costs and high prices because people will require my services yes or yes. So they will pay anything.


That is true for monopolies.

Socialized healthcare is monopolistic.

[lynn]

Your graphs are not telling the true story of comparing costs in each country. For the graphs to be based on the truth you have to obtain average reimbursement or allowed amount of all the insurance companies including Medicare's allowable. For example, a hospital stay whether it be 1 to 3 days, insurance companies will only allow the max $2300 and the hospital must write off the rest.

The intent of these graphs was to justify the high premiums insurance companies charge its consumers. That is why it is important that consumers start demanding a copy of the fee schedule that provides the actual cost of each and every procedure performed by healthcare providers.

[Dr. Who]

Liberal ideas, so good they have to be mandatory.
It's still insurance regardless of the provider. The only difference is that it is mandatory, and that is because the same system also provides for people who are unemployed.

in·sur·ance
inˈSHo͝orəns/
noun

1.
a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

[Chris]

Your graphs are not telling the true story of comparing costs in each country. For the graphs to be based on the truth you have to obtain average reimbursement or allowed amount of all the insurance companies including Medicare's allowable. For example, a hospital stay whether it be 1 to 3 days, insurance companies will only allow the max $2300 and the hospital must write off the rest.

The intent of these graphs was to justify the high premiums insurance companies charge its consumers. That is why it is important that consumers start demanding a copy of the fee schedule that provides the actual cost of each and every procedure performed by healthcare providers.

Yes, there's a whole prgression of cost control/passing on costs from Medicaid to medicare to managed care to private insurance. See Lipstein on Hospitals (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/12/lipstein_on_hos.html).

[Chris]

It's still insurance regardless of the provider. The only difference is that it is mandatory, and that is because the same system also provides for people who are unemployed.

in·sur·ance
inˈSHo͝orəns/
noun

1.
a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.




But the loss ought to be unexpected for it to be called insurance.

Wikipedia: "Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."

Risk of loss.

[Dr. Who]

But the loss ought to be unexpected for it to be called insurance.

Wikipedia: "Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."

Risk of loss.
How is single payer at odds with that or at least any different from private insurance in that respect?

[lynn]

Yes, there's a whole prgression of cost control/passing on costs from Medicaid to medicare to managed care to private insurance. See Lipstein on Hospitals (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/12/lipstein_on_hos.html).

Thanks for the link

[Chris]

How is single payer at odds with that or at least any different from private insurance in that respect?

Single payer is administration, not insurance.

[Dr. Who]

Single payer is administration, not insurance.You could say the same of private plans. Private insurance covers hospitalization for self-inflicted reasons like childbirth. Medical insurance or single payer cover the same things.

[Chris]

You could say the same of private plans. Private insurance covers hospitalization for self-inflicted reasons like childbirth. Medical insurance or single payer cover the same things.


Yes, I suppose you could, but it's offered, not mandated.


I guess our understandings of single payer differ. To me it's merely administration of healthcare costs.

[kilgram]

That is true for monopolies.

Socialized healthcare is monopolistic.

Essential services always are monopolistic.

[Kalkin]

Essential services always are monopolistic.
Essential services?

[kilgram]

Essential services?

Yes, essential. Is it a surprise for you?

[Dr. Who]

Yes, I suppose you could, but it's offered, not mandated.


I guess our understandings of single payer differ. To me it's merely administration of healthcare costs.

Well check out the rates for single payer in Ontario, CA. These numbers are for individuals, but you can roughly double them for families -premiums are income controlled:


Individual Taxable Income
Premium for Tax Year


Up to $20,000
$0.00


$21,000
$60.00


$22,000
$120.00


$23,000
$180.00


$24,000
$240.00


From $25,000 to $36,000
$300.00


$36,500
$330.00


$37,000
$360.00


$37,500
$390.00


$38,000
$420.00


From $38,500 to $48,000
$450.00


$48,100
$475.00


$48,200
$500.00


$48,300
$525.00


$48,400
$550.00


$48,500
$575.00


From $48,600 to $72,000
$600.00


$72,100
$625.00


$72,200
$650.00


$72,300
$675.00


$72,400
$700.00


$72,500
$725.00


From $72,600 to $200,000
$750.00


$200,100
$775.00


$200,200
$800.00


$200,300
$825.00


$200,400
$850.00


$200,500
$875.00


$200,600 and over
$900.00



http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/tax/healthpremium/rates.html

[Spectre]

You might want to explain to the guy who's dying because he can't afford a cancer drug that, he may be dying a horrible, painful death, but he can take great comfort from the fact that he is still a little more 'free'.:sad:

And I suppose if it was your wife or your child you would also bow to fate and sit by them as they die for lack of the money to save their lives? Or if it was yourself, you would spurn medicare money and grip your teeth and die for the sake of an empty principle?

You would NOT.

How do I know this?

The case of the death of Ayn Rand, a death that invalidated her entire life's work.

[Chris]

You might want to explain to the guy who's dying because he can't afford a cancer drug that, he may be dying a horrible, painful death, but he can take great comfort from the fact that he is still a little more 'free'.:sad:


And I suppose if it was your wife or your child you would also bow to fate and sit by them as they die for lack of the money to save their lives? Or if it was yourself, you would spurn medicare money and grip your teeth and die for the sake of an empty principle?

You would NOT.

How do I know this?

The case of the death of Ayn Rand, a death that invalidated her entire life's work.



Spectre urging now with spectre. ��

[Spectre]

You're familiar with the death of Ayn Rand, stalwart enemy of 'statism' and champion of rugged individualism?

[Spectre]

You're familiar with the death of Ayn Rand, stalwart enemy of 'statism' and champion of rugged individualism?

I guess the answer is 'no'.

After a lifetime of smoking, Ayn Rand contracted cancer.

She could not afford the cancer treatment on her own.

She took GOVERNMENT FUNDS, Medicare, so that she might live a little while longer, while telling everyone else that they should not.

[lynn]

I guess the answer is 'no'.

After a lifetime of smoking, Ayn Rand contracted cancer.

She could not afford the cancer treatment on her own.

She took GOVERNMENT FUNDS, Medicare, so that she might live a little while longer, while telling everyone else that they should not.

Was it Medicare or Medicaid that she took? Either way it doesn't really matter since she paid into Medicare her entire working life and the cigarettes she brought, the tax is used by the state and federal government for Medicaid.

[Captain Obvious]

Was it Medicare or Medicaid that she took? Either way it doesn't really matter since she paid into Medicare her entire working life and the cigarettes she brought, the tax is used by the state and federal government for Medicaid.

Sure she did, but it's the hypocrisy that's the point.

[Spectre]

Sure she did, but it's the hypocrisy that's the point.

Exactly. She was against the entire idea of Medicare and Medicaid. But she took it. Just as the blow-hard libertarians here WILL take it if they can't afford medical care when THEY or their loved ones come down with a terrible disease.

[lynn]

You are both right. I believe our healthcare dollars should go directly to our healthcare providers and allow them to put together a system that works for all of us. Have it be as transparent as possible so no one can game the system. Not allow government or wall street to capitalize off of it.

It would be a lot cheaper for healthcare and everyone would benefit from it.

[Kalkin]

Yes, essential. Is it a surprise for you?
Liberal stupidity stopped surprising me decades ago. Let me rephrase for you: what do you consider "essential" enough to enslave your fellow man? Socialized healthcare? Lol. Go back to Cuba.

[Kalkin]

And I suppose if it was your wife or your child you would also bow to fate and sit by them as they die for lack of the money to save their lives? Or if it was yourself, you would spurn medicare money and grip your teeth and die for the sake of an empty principle?

You would NOT.

How do I know this?

The case of the death of Ayn Rand, a death that invalidated her entire life's work.
I'm assuming you were responding to me and not yourself. I am not ayn rand. What she did or did not do isn't indicative of what I would or would not do. If a loved one were dying and couldn't get the money for treatment, I would borrow it or ask for charity. I would not expect the government to take it from my fellow citizens just to delay the inevitable.

[Kalkin]

Sure she did, but it's the hypocrisy that's the point.
There is no hypocrisy in wanting a return on money you were forced to contribute, even if you are against the program you were forced into.

[Captain Obvious]

There is no hypocrisy in wanting a return on money you were forced to contribute, even if you are against the program you were forced into.

Then do as I say, not as I do.

Gotcha.

[Kalkin]

Then do as I say, not as I do.
Do as who says?

Gotcha.
Apparently you don't.

[Dr. Who]

I'm assuming you were responding to me and not yourself. I am not ayn rand. What she did or did not do isn't indicative of what I would or would not do. If a loved one were dying and couldn't get the money for treatment, I would borrow it or ask for charity. I would not expect the government to take it from my fellow citizens just to delay the inevitable.
And if you reached the limit of your credit and the charities couldn't pay enough and it was your child? There are untold people who have faced that problem, because their insurer denied coverage and they've sold everything they had, borrowed everything they could and appealed to charities to save the life of their child. Do you suppose that anyone would stand on principle when their child's life is at stake?

[Captain Obvious]

Do as who says?

Apparently you don't.

4th and 10 and it's a...

http://pad2.whstatic.com/images/thumb/7/78/Punt-a-Football-Step-6.jpg/670px-Punt-a-Football-Step-6.jpg

[Kalkin]

And if you reached the limit of your credit and the charities couldn't pay enough and it was your child? There are untold people who have faced that problem, because their insurer denied coverage and they've sold everything they had, borrowed everything they could and appealed to charities to save the life of their child. Do you suppose that anyone would stand on principle when their child's life is at stake?
Then the kid dies. Kids die. So do adults. The world goes on. And yes, my heartlessness allows me to put your neighbors' freedom from theft over your emotional scenario to justify it.

[Kalkin]

4th and 10 and it's a...

http://pad2.whstatic.com/images/thumb/7/78/Punt-a-Football-Step-6.jpg/670px-Punt-a-Football-Step-6.jpg
You didn't need to punt so soon, dude. I was just getting warmed up.

[Captain Obvious]

You didn't need to punt so soon, dude. I was just getting warmed up.

Pee Wee want's his jokebook back.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/files/2011/03/pee-wee-herman.jpg

[Kalkin]

Pee Wee want's his jokebook back.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/files/2011/03/pee-wee-herman.jpg
You reap what you sow, cap'n oblivious.
I love when libtards go off the rails because they can't compete intellectually. Next.

[Dr. Who]

Then the kid dies. Kids die. So do adults. The world goes on. And yes, my heartlessness allows me to put your neighbors' freedom from theft over your emotional scenario to justify it.
A kid shouldn't die if there is a way to safe his or her life. It's only money. Human life is worth more than money. If you think money is worth more than human life, then what can I say?

[Chris]

Sure she did, but it's the hypocrisy that's the point.


It's not hypocrisy if you know Ayn Rand. She was not an anarchist. She was not anti-government. And, as lynn said, she got out what she paid in.

[Captain Obvious]

I love when libtards go off the rails because they can't compete intellectually. Next.

Yeah, you're just too witty for me.

[Captain Obvious]

It's not hypocrisy if you know Ayn Rand. She was not an anarchist. She was not anti-government. And, as lynn said, she got out what she paid in.

Anarchy or anti-gubment have nothing to do with it.

Did she not take the position that gubmint provided benefits should not be?

[Kalkin]

A kid shouldn't die if there is a way to safe his or her life. It's only money. Human life is worth more than money. If you think money is worth more than human life, then what can I say?
"Shouldn't" is a moral call. Not everyone shares your morality. You spend your money as you'd like and I'll decide how to spend mine. If you ask nicely, I might donate some to your sick kid. If you demand, well, there's the door, buddy.

[Chris]

Exactly. She was against the entire idea of Medicare and Medicaid. But she took it. Just as the blow-hard libertarians here WILL take it if they can't afford medical care when THEY or their loved ones come down with a terrible disease.



Wrong.

Liberals Call Ayn Rand A Hypocrite For Collecting Social Security And Medicare Benefits (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/liberals-call-ayn-rand-a-hypocrite-for-collecting-social-security-and-medicare-benefits/)


So Ayn Rand is a hypocrite and the proponents of big government are right, blah, blah, blah.

Except, there’s one problem: Rand herself addressed the issue of individuals taking benefits from government programs they were forced to pay into in a 1966 article for The Objectivist newsletter:



It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.


In other words, programs like Social Security and Medicare aren’t optional. We are forced to pay into them or we go to jail for tax evasion. Given that reality, there’s really nothing hypocritical at all for a proponent of limited government – and an opponent to social programs like Social Security and Medicare – to try and get back from these programs what we are forced to put in.


http://i.snag.gy/C726z.jpg

...for the liberals.

[Kalkin]

Yeah, you're just too witty for me.
You're still fun to bat around.

[Chris]

Anarchy or anti-gubment have nothing to do with it.

Did she not take the position that gubmint provided benefits should not be?



See previous post. Get to know her before criticizing her.

[Chris]

A kid shouldn't die if there is a way to safe his or her life. It's only money. Human life is worth more than money. If you think money is worth more than human life, then what can I say?



The question isn't the emotionalized one you make it, of course all life is valuable (from conception), the question is what is the better way to a better world?

[Kalkin]

See previous post. Get to know her before criticizing her.
It's always the same shuck-n-jive with these guys. Ayn rand has nothing to do with this thread.

[Captain Obvious]

See previous post. Get to know her before criticizing her.

Thanks for the tip.

Remote's on the table.

[Captain Obvious]

It's always the same shuck-n-jive with these guys. Ayn rand has nothing to do with this thread.

So how do you manage to not spill those buckets when kissing so much ass?

[Kalkin]

So how do you manage to not spill those buckets when kissing so much ass?
You're dismissed, son. Hit the showers.

[Captain Obvious]

You're dismissed, son. Hit the showers.

Maybe next time, scooter.

[lynn]

Our healthcare system should not be driven by profit since it removes the incentive to find cures for any of our health problems. All of the new technology in healthcare is how many different new methods of testing for diagnostic purposes which is driving up cost. The pharmaceutical companies make their profits on getting as many people taking prescriptions on a regular basis that end up creating new health issues for that population.

Until the public realize this and start demanding they spend our money on finding cures, the system will only get worse.

[Dr. Who]

The question isn't the emotionalized one you make it, of course all life is valuable (from conception), the question is what is the better way to a better world?Life and death is emotional unless one is incapable of feeling emotion. Finding ways to save lives and not bankrupt a nation must be a combination of emotion and analysis. Without emotion, we would just let people die, unless they had some particularly special use to society. Yes, I know you hate emotional pleading, but come on, some things are emotional.

[Kalkin]

Maybe next time, scooter.
Up your game or there won't be a next time, Gomer.

[Captain Obvious]

Our healthcare system should not be driven by profit since it removes the incentive to find cures for any of our health problems. All of the new technology in healthcare is how many different new methods of testing for diagnostic purposes which is driving up cost. The pharmaceutical companies make their profits on getting as many people taking prescriptions on a regular basis that end up creating new health issues for that population.

Until the public realize this and start demanding they spend our money on finding cures, the system will only get worse.

What should it be driven by then, gubmint waste, special interests and inefficiency?

Profit isn't the perfect answer but if it's between the two I'll take free market or a reasonable facsimile. At least you have competition keeping the playing field tilted toward honest. Don't get that with gubment.

I can tell you from a provider standpoint that the only reason my hospital's doors are still open is because of private, commercial insurers.

[Captain Obvious]

Up your game or there won't be a next time, Gomer.

Yeah, you're a rube. It's why you're here.

Trust me, unfortunately there will be next times for you.

[Kalkin]

Life and death is emotional unless one is incapable of feeling emotion. Finding ways to save lives and not bankrupt a nation must be a combination of emotion and analysis. Without emotion, we would just let people die, unless they had some particularly special use to society. Yes, I know you hate emotional pleading, but come on, some things are emotional.
If you could extend the life of a child by 10 years, but it would cost 47 trillion dollars, would you authorize stealing that money from everyone to do so? How many others would die from you having stolen their means?

[Chris]

Our healthcare system should not be driven by profit since it removes the incentive to find cures for any of our health problems. All of the new technology in healthcare is how many different new methods of testing for diagnostic purposes which is driving up cost. The pharmaceutical companies make their profits on getting as many people taking prescriptions on a regular basis that end up creating new health issues for that population.

Until the public realize this and start demanding they spend our money on finding cures, the system will only get worse.



The motives of pharmas are suspect, they thrive off making us believe we have problems and they have the cures when they best thing for you is healthy diet and exercise.

Still, if profit wasn't involved there'd be less incentive to innovate.

[Kalkin]

Yeah, you're a rube. It's why you're here.

Trust me, unfortunately there will be next times for you.
Are you related to Brook? You sure do babble like one...

[Chris]

Life and death is emotional unless one is incapable of feeling emotion. Finding ways to save lives and not bankrupt a nation must be a combination of emotion and analysis. Without emotion, we would just let people die, unless they had some particularly special use to society. Yes, I know you hate emotional pleading, but come on, some things are emotional.



Sure it's emotional, but emotions are solutions. I don't hate emotions, passions drive us, but emotional pleading, yes, it's irrational. It leads to ever bigger, more domineering, controlling government, which doesn't do a thing to help that dying kid.

[Dr. Who]

If you could extend the life of a child by 10 years, but it would cost 47 trillion dollars, would you authorize stealing that money from everyone to do so? How many others would die from you having stolen their means?
I'm not really talking so much about life extending, but life saving - cancer treatment, difficult surgery, medications that don't cure, but keep people alive. Not 47 trillion dollars, but more than a family can afford.

[Kalkin]

I'm not really talking so much about life extending, but life saving - cancer treatment, difficult surgery, medications that don't cure, but keep people alive. Not 47 trillion dollars, but more than a family can afford.
Everyone dies, medical procedures just extend life.
If 47 trillion is too much, you are a hypocrite for accusing me of valuing money over life.

[Dr. Who]

Everyone dies, medical procedures just extend life.
If 47 trillion is too much, you are a hypocrite for accusing me of valuing money over life.

There are no treatments that cost $47T. There is either a treatment or there isn't one. Yes everyone dies, but everyone doesn't die prematurely. Also borrowing money for treatment that is otherwise covered by government medical, to the point where you probably can't pay it back also costs other people. Furthermore, any charity knowing that there is available treatment that you refuse to avail yourself of, is unlikely to give you a nickel.

[Spectre]

Wrong.

Liberals Call Ayn Rand A Hypocrite For Collecting Social Security And Medicare Benefits (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/liberals-call-ayn-rand-a-hypocrite-for-collecting-social-security-and-medicare-benefits/)




http://i.snag.gy/C726z.jpg

...for the liberals.

Lame evasions!

She was against the entire program! She knew that everyone had to pay into it, but she opposed it anyhow! Yet, when she fell desperately ill, she took advantage of it herself.

Hypocrite!!!

[Kalkin]

There are no treatments that cost $47T. There is either a treatment or there isn't one. Yes everyone dies, but everyone doesn't die prematurely. Also borrowing money for treatment that is otherwise covered by government medical, to the point where you probably can't pay it back also costs other people. Furthermore, any charity knowing that there is available treatment that you refuse to avail yourself of, is unlikely to give you a nickel.
So you agree that money is more important than extending a life, but it's just a matter of how much money?

[Kalkin]

Also borrowing money for treatment that is otherwise covered by government medical, to the point where you probably can't pay it back also costs other people.
Only a fool lends money to someone who can't pay it back. That's why they say a fool and his money are soon parted.

[Dr. Who]

So you agree that money is more important than extending a life, but it's just a matter of how much money?

Where did I say that? I'm just dissecting your argument.

[Kalkin]

Lame evasions!

She was against the entire program! She knew that everyone had to pay into it, but she opposed it anyhow! Yet, when she fell desperately ill, she took advantage of it herself.

Hypocrite!!!
Do you really think someone who is forced to pay into a program shouldn't try to recoup that loss? That's ridiculous and has nothing to do with being against forced participation in the first place.

[Dr. Who]

Only a fool lends money to someone who can't pay it back. That's why they say a fool and his money are soon parted.Bank might not know that after you borrowed the money on your line of credit, that you intended to sell your house.

[Kalkin]

Where did I say that? I'm just dissecting your argument.
I'm asking you if you would take 47T from everyone else to extend a life. It's a yes/no question. That there is currently no treatment that costs 47T is irrelevant. There was a time when no treatment cost 1 million dollars.

[Kalkin]

Bank might not know that after you borrowed the money on your line of credit, that you intended to sell your house.
We can dance around with hypothetical situations all day. What it comes down to is that no one owes you free healthcare.

[Spectre]

We can dance around with hypothetical situations all day. What it comes down to is that no one owes you free healthcare.
Unless your name happens to be Ayn Rand!:laugh:

[Dr. Who]

I'm asking you if you would take 47T from everyone else to extend a life. It's a yes/no question. That there is currently no treatment that costs 47T is irrelevant. There was a time when no treatment cost 1 million dollars.
Reductum ad absurdum.

[Mainecoons]

unless your name happens to be ayn rand!:laugh:


reductum ad absurdum.

[Dr. Who]

We can dance around with hypothetical situations all day. What it comes down to is that no one owes you free healthcare.

Why should some live because they have money and others die for lack of money?

[Kalkin]

Unless your name happens to be Ayn Rand!:laugh:
That wasn't free, she was forced to pay for it before the fact.

[Kalkin]

Why should some live because they have money and others die for lack of money?
Some can afford to pay others to extend their lives, others cannot. Unless we enslave the medical industry, that's how the cookie crumbles. Or we pay the medical industry with money we've stolen from enslaved taxpayers. Extrapolated, it's still the same slavery. Someone's labor is taken without their permission to pay for someone else's bills.

[Chris]

Lame evasions!

She was against the entire program! She knew that everyone had to pay into it, but she opposed it anyhow! Yet, when she fell desperately ill, she took advantage of it herself.

Hypocrite!!!


Even given a quotation of her stating her position you deny it. Pathetic.

BTW, when are we going to get those rational arguments you promised, spectre?

[Spectre]

When the Constitution was written, medicine was the saw-bones and the yarb doctor, within the means of just about everyone, however poor.

Today, it is MRIs, CAT scans, and 12-hour surgeries. It's a different world altogether. Different answers need to be found.

[Spectre]

Even given a quotation of her stating her position you deny it. Pathetic.

BTW, when are we going to get those rational arguments you promised, spectre?

You're not the brightest bulb here, are you?:smiley:

[Kalkin]

When the Constitution was written, medicine was the saw-bones and the yarb doctor, within the means of just about everyone, however poor.

Today, it is MRIs, CAT scans, and 12-hour surgeries. It's a different world altogether. Different answers need to be found.
Then amend the Constitution.

[Spectre]

Then amend the Constitution.

The decision has already been made. The only voices that count have spoken, and they have long ago found that many social programs are constitutional, even as bad a system as Obamacare.

[Kalkin]

The decision has already been made. The only voices that count have spoken, and they have long ago found that many social programs are constitutional, even as bad a system as Obamacare.
When those voices are wrong, it's my duty as a supporter of liberty to oppose them.

[kilgram]

Liberal stupidity stopped surprising me decades ago. Let me rephrase for you: what do you consider "essential" enough to enslave your fellow man? Socialized healthcare? Lol. Go back to Cuba.
I am happy with Spain, thank you (the only thing I like of this country)

One of the best healthcare systems of the world. In many areas better than USA like heart and other areas only worse in cancer, and with no big difference.

And yes, health is essential. If I have to receive an appendoctomy it is essential, because the opposite is death. Do you get it? Health is life or death. Or do you mean that something like that is not essential?

Because maybe the cruelty and inhumanity of conservative does not surprise me. And with that ideas you prove me that your ideology is dangerous.

Enslave? Enslave is not being able to receive the right treatment because I didn't have money. Enslavement is terminating an agreement with an insurance because I have a cronic disease or not being able to contract an insurance for that reason. That is enslave.

It is the difference between you and me. For me economic freedom leads to slavery. Economic freedom without social freedom and equality is nothing, only slavery.

[Kalkin]

It is the difference between you and me. For me economic freedom leads to slavery. Economic freedom without social freedom and equality is nothing, only slavery.
No, the difference between you and I is that I don't give a fuck what you people in Spain want to burden yourselves with, and you are butting into my country's healthcare system with your whiney marxist opinions.

That doublespeak "economic liberty leads to slavery" is hilarious, btw.

[Refugee]

I am happy with Spain, thank you (the only thing I like of this country)

One of the best healthcare systems of the world. In many areas better than USA like heart and other areas only worse in cancer, and with no big difference.

And yes, health is essential. If I have to receive an appendoctomy it is essential, because the opposite is death. Do you get it? Health is life or death. Or do you mean that something like that is not essential?

Because maybe the cruelty and inhumanity of conservative does not surprise me. And with that ideas you prove me that your ideology is dangerous.

Enslave? Enslave is not being able to receive the right treatment because I didn't have money. Enslavement is terminating an agreement with an insurance because I have a cronic disease or not being able to contract an insurance for that reason. That is enslave.

It is the difference between you and me. For me economic freedom leads to slavery. Economic freedom without social freedom and equality is nothing, only slavery.

Don’t get me wrong, you can’t beat socialized care in an emergency, but . . .if you happen to break your leg on Saturday morning and hop into hospital to find that the X ray department is closed for the weekend? Hop back out with some painkillers and a, “Come back on Monday morning”. Or perhaps you’ve been waiting for five years for a non-emergency hip replacement?

Spain is in the progressive European Union and is just about collapsing. Look at the 22 reasons why.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/22-signs-that-the-collapsing-spanish-economy-is-heading-into-a-great-depression (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/22-signs-that-the-collapsing-spanish-economy-is-heading-into-a-great-depression)

Your own house is on fire Kilgram!
What? I see no fire. :smiley:

[kilgram]

No, the difference between you and I is that I don't give a fuck what you people in Spain want to burden yourselves with, and you are butting into my country's healthcare system with your whiney marxist opinions.

That doublespeak "economic liberty leads to slavery" is hilarious, btw.

It's not double speak. Because that freedom is as real as the market regulates himself.

Social freedom is the only possible liberation from the chains.

If you achieve absolute social freedom you don't have any restriction. You can do whatever you want.

With economic freedom you create a society of privileges. Privileged class and non privileged class. A new kind of feudalism.

We are exchanging opinions. I don't force anything on the rest.

[kilgram]

Don’t get me wrong, you can’t beat socialized care in an emergency, but . . .if you happen to break your leg on Saturday morning and hop into hospital to find that the X ray department is closed for the weekend? Hop back out with some painkillers and a, “Come back on Monday morning”. Or perhaps you’ve been waiting for five years for a non-emergency hip replacement?

Spain is in the progressive European Union and is just about collapsing. Look at the 22 reasons why.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/22-signs-that-the-collapsing-spanish-economy-is-heading-into-a-great-depression (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/22-signs-that-the-collapsing-spanish-economy-is-heading-into-a-great-depression)

Your own house is on fire Kilgram!
What? I see no fire. :smiley:
Hip replacement in less than two months was done to my father.

X-ray service is opened 24 hours daily.

Anything else?

Is there any reason to talk about "progressivism"? Because I don't see any. All them are pretty economic reasons result of liberal economics (in the European sense).

[Peter1469]

Ideology of preconception. Typical.

The US is very consistent in failing to properly manage bureaucratic programs. A lot of that is due to our size. Set a standard and then push these decisions to the state level (like Canada).

[Spectre]

The US is very consistent in failing to properly manage bureaucratic programs. A lot of that is due to our size. Set a standard and then push these decisions to the state level (like Canada).
That seems to be reasonable.

But, any country that wants to avoid an inevitable economic collapse like Spain and Greece and other EU nations must insist that those who are able to afford to pay for their own health care and/health insurance must do so. The state should only be a provider of last resort, otherwise the increasing demands placed on the system by an aging population will collapse it and the entire economy with it.

[Peter1469]

I certainly want to have private insurance available.


That seems to be reasonable.

But, any country that wants to avoid an inevitable economic collapse like Spain and Greece and other EU nations must insist that those who are able to afford to pay for their own health care and/health insurance must do so. The state should only be a provider of last resort, otherwise the increasing demands placed on the system by an aging population will collapse it and the entire economy with it.

[Refugee]

Hip replacement in less than two months was done to my father.

X-ray service is opened 24 hours daily.

Anything else?

Is there any reason to talk about "progressivism"? Because I don't see any. All them are pretty economic reasons result of liberal economics (in the European sense).

Perhaps the UK should adopt the Spanish model, it seems our socialized system is collapsing faster than yours. It’s why so many people go to other countries and pay privately for treatment?

Yes, progressivism is inherent in the EU; it’s where the European rules and regulations come from. You did read the 22 points about the mess Spain is in didn’t you? And Greece and Portugal and Ireland . . .

[kilgram]

Perhaps the UK should adopt the Spanish model, it seems our socialized system is collapsing faster than yours. It’s why so many people go to other countries and pay privately for treatment?

Yes, progressivism is inherent in the EU; it’s where the European rules and regulations come from. You did read the 22 points about the mess Spain is in didn’t you? And Greece and Portugal and Ireland . . .

None of the points can be accused for progressivism. All those points are thanks to liberal decisions or conservative.

UK healthcare is failing because it is not socialized anymore. It receives a lot of cuts. UK healthcare is in bad shape from long time ago. I remember you that Spain received many British tourists to receive treatment here (in Spain) from many years ago.

[kilgram]

I certainly want to have private insurance available.
All socialized healthcare systems let to have private insurance. If you want it you can have it.

However, many times happen that private healthcare is inferior to the nationalized, for example in Spain.

[Refugee]

All socialized healthcare systems let to have private insurance. If you want it you can have it.

However, many times happen that private healthcare is inferior to the nationalized, for example in Spain.

So I pay for my national insurance, I pay for yours if you don't work and if I don't want stand in line behind you, I then pay again for my private care. Any chance I can just pay for myself and leave the government to worry about everyone else?

[Refugee]

None of the points can be accused for progressivism. All those points are thanks to liberal decisions or conservative.

UK healthcare is failing because it is not socialized anymore. It receives a lot of cuts. UK healthcare is in bad shape from long time ago. I remember you that Spain received many British tourists to receive treatment here (in Spain) from many years ago.

The UK, like Spain has for many years had it's orders from the EU and you know it. The UK is being privatised because the socialist dream went bankrupt. The UK has had socialised care for 60 years, before it started to collapse. We know what socialism is; Spain is just about to find that out. :smiley: Happy landings, comrade.

P.S. Those who can still run abroad to buy private care. It's to avoid standing in a queue behind the millions who don't pay. We run from socialism, not towards it.

[Chris]

It's not double speak. Because that freedom is as real as the market regulates himself.

Social freedom is the only possible liberation from the chains.

If you achieve absolute social freedom you don't have any restriction. You can do whatever you want.

With economic freedom you create a society of privileges. Privileged class and non privileged class. A new kind of feudalism.

We are exchanging opinions. I don't force anything on the rest.



You can do whatever you want.

Sorry, but that's the freedom from responsibility teenagers seek.

If Spain has socialized healthcare then you pay for and are restricted to what a few central planners decide is good for you.

[Refugee]

"Social freedom is the only possible liberation from the chains."
What ‘freedom’ is it that you don’t have?

“If you achieve absolute social freedom you don't have any restriction. You can do whatever you want.”
Which is what the market is doing. The problem for you is they’re doing it for them and not you.

"With economic freedom you create a society of privileges. Privileged class and non privileged class. A new kind of feudalism."
The class system is not new, it’s been around for thousands of years.

"We are exchanging opinions. I don't force anything on the rest."
Thank God for that, comrade. I wish the European Union agreed with you. :smiley:

[Chris]

"Social freedom is the only possible liberation from the chains."
What ‘freedom’ is it that you don’t have?

“If you achieve absolute social freedom you don't have any restriction. You can do whatever you want.”
Which is what the market is doing. The problem for you is they’re doing it for them and not you.

"With economic freedom you create a society of privileges. Privileged class and non privileged class. A new kind of feudalism."
The class system is not new, it’s been around for thousands of years.

"We are exchanging opinions. I don't force anything on the rest."
Thank God for that, comrade. I wish the European Union agreed with you. :smiley:








Kilgram wants freedom from all hierarchy: economy (no bosses), religion (no priests), family (no fathers), life (no hungers). Level all social order to attain freedom.

[kilgram]

The UK, like Spain has for many years had it's orders from the EU and you know it. The UK is being privatised because the socialist dream went bankrupt. The UK has had socialised care for 60 years, before it started to collapse. We know what socialism is; Spain is just about to find that out. :smiley: Happy landings, comrade.

P.S. Those who can still run abroad to buy private care. It's to avoid standing in a queue behind the millions who don't pay. We run from socialism, not towards it.

We disagree. UK started to be privatized only by ideological reasons with the witch. No because it didn't work.

We are paying the same price for voting an ignorant conservative government.

[Dr. Who]

So I pay for my national insurance, I pay for yours if you don't work and if I don't want stand in line behind you, I then pay again for my private care. Any chance I can just pay for myself and leave the government to worry about everyone else?
Your NHS has been the victim of many things, but primarily of unemployment. Your industries have departed for cheaper shores leaving a large sector of unemployed people and consequently a shrinking tax base. Perhaps it could also save money by not covering dental, optical or prescription drugs for those who can afford to pay for them through private insurance for that purpose.

[Kalkin]

It's not double speak. Because that freedom is as real as the market regulates himself.

Social freedom is the only possible liberation from the chains.

If you achieve absolute social freedom you don't have any restriction. You can do whatever you want.

With economic freedom you create a society of privileges. Privileged class and non privileged class. A new kind of feudalism.

We are exchanging opinions. I don't force anything on the rest.
You sound very young and naive, tbh. Absolute social freedom would make murder acceptable. It's an impossible dream that only works in the absence of society.

[Cigar]

The Problem with The Right Wing Scare Tactics, is there expiration dates is so short and they keep getting proven wrong.

[Kalkin]

The Problem with The Right Wing Scare Tactics, is there expiration dates is so short and they keep getting proven wrong.
Where expiration dates?

[Ransom]

Your NHS has been the victim of many things, but primarily of unemployment. Your industries have departed for cheaper shores leaving a large sector of unemployed people and consequently a shrinking tax base. Perhaps it could also save money by not covering dental, optical or prescription drugs for those who can afford to pay for them through private insurance for that purpose.

Perhaps it could save money by permitting state to state competition. Allow a lizard to get on TV and sell health insurance. Have the camel walking through anyone's office asking what day it is on Wednesday. Perhaps then establish some tort reform, doctors, nurses, and health professionals wouldn't have to carry this outrageous insurance thus making health care that much more expensive. Perhaps consider removing government altogether unless it's to administer to it's entitlements for the poor, interned, and elderly. Perhaps let people keep their chosen doctor and chosen plan. Allow Americans to make their own decisions on health care?

[Dr. Who]

Perhaps it could save money by permitting state to state competition. Allow a lizard to get on TV and sell health insurance. Have the camel walking through anyone's office asking what day it is on Wednesday. Perhaps then establish some tort reform, doctors, nurses, and health professionals wouldn't have to carry this outrageous insurance thus making health care that much more expensive. Perhaps consider removing government altogether unless it's to administer to it's entitlements for the poor, interned, and elderly. Perhaps let people keep their chosen doctor and chosen plan. Allow Americans to make their own decisions on health care?
I was commenting on the British NHS, which is single payer.

[Kalkin]

Perhaps let people keep their chosen doctor and chosen plan. Allow Americans to make their own decisions on health care?
This ^^^

[Cigar]

Where expiration dates?

The same place as the $6.00 per/gallon Gas and Obama taking your Guns :laugh:

[Ransom]

I know that's an entirely alien ideal for some of you leftist leaning blue bellies.....but....perhaps we allow Americans to engage their Endowed rights, allowed to provide and access health care through their own volition. Establish a safety net for the poor, elderly, interned, young, and handicapped....but allow the remainder of Americans to make their own decisions, shop for insurance as they would an Amazon account? Open market. Same with dental, drug prescrips, and electives like plastic surgery or birth control?

[Kalkin]

The same place as the $6.00 per/gallon Gas and Obama taking your Guns :laugh:
And the $2500 savings families will see on healthcare insurance?

[nic34]

This ^^^

I have no problem with that.

Let people be their own doctors, dentists too.

Then let them be their own lawyers if they want..... :laugh:

[Ransom]

I was commenting on the British NHS, which is single payer.

Then perhaps it could save money by permitting marketplace competition. Allow our lizard to get on TV and sell you health insurance. Have the camel walking through Hyde Park offices asking what day it is on Wednesday. Establish some tort reform for doctors, nurses, and health professionals in your country as well. Perhaps consider removing government altogether from the British system unless it's to administer to it's entitlements for the poor, interned, and elderly. Perhaps allow Brits their chosen doctor and chosen plan? Allow Britons to make their own decisions on health care?

[Kalkin]

I have no problem with that.

Let people be their own doctors, dentists too.

Then let them be their own lawyers if they want..... :laugh:
If they so choose, yes. They can also choose to hire professionals to do such things. It's called freedom.

[Ransom]

I have no problem with that.

Let people be their own doctors, dentists too.

Then let them be their own lawyers if they want..... :laugh:

That "if they want"...very very important and what you normally miss, nic. That is correct...you can under our Constitution...represent yourself. It is your right. It may not be advisable. It may not be anyone's best decision they ever make...but it is their right....to both defend and represent themselves...."if they want."

Thus, it should be anyone's decision to seek health care...if they want. If they want to hire a dentist, doctor, or even lawyer on the private market....they should be able to do so. That "if they want" is CRITICAL. It's the boat most lefties...such as yourself....utterly miss.

:tumbleweed:

[nic34]

That "if they want"...very very important and what you normally miss, nic. That is correct...you can under our Constitution...represent yourself. It is your right. It may not be advisable. It may not be anyone's best decision they ever make...but it is their right....to both defend and represent themselves...."if they want."

Thus, it should be anyone's decision to seek health care...if they want. If they want to hire a dentist, doctor, or even lawyer on the private market....they should be able to do so. That "if they want" is CRITICAL. It's the boat most lefties...such as yourself....utterly miss.

:tumbleweed:


I already said I have no problem with it. Did you miss that, or are you a just slow this morning?

Tighten up.....

[lynn]

We are never going to see cost go down for health coverage. Do you realize how our government is going to bail out insurance companies if they have a higher then average healthcare cost? By making the other health insurance companies make payments to the government when they have below average healthcare cost.

This is insane and it invites fraud in doctoring the books to always make it look they are paying more on healthcare claims so they can get that check from the government instead of paying the government.

[Chris]

I have no problem with that.

Let people be their own doctors, dentists too.

Then let them be their own lawyers if they want..... :laugh:


How the heck do you translate let people keep their doctor and plan to let them be their own doctor and insuror? :huh:

[nic34]

How the heck do you translate let people keep their doctor and plan to let them be their own doctor and insuror? :huh:

Freedom?

[Chris]

If we're going to let people choose then we need to get insurance out of not only the hands of government but also employers. Employers as part of benefits can help pay for insurance, but the plan should be yours, and you can keep it when you change employers, it follows you around.

[Chris]

Freedom?

You're making as much sense as cigar today. Bad hair day?

[Kalkin]

Why do libs have such a hard time thinking clearly and following a conversation?

[nic34]

You're making as much sense as cigar today. Bad hair day?

Well if it helps I actually agree (again) with your other post....

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24821-Why-privatized-healthcare-is-bad?p=584898&viewfull=1#post584898

[lynn]

If we're going to let people choose then we need to get insurance out of not only the hands of government but also employers. Employers as part of benefits can help pay for insurance, but the plan should be yours, and you can keep it when you change employers, it follows you around.


They are working on it as far as reducing employer coverage in the future.

[Kalkin]

If we're going to let people choose then we need to get insurance out of not only the hands of government but also employers. Employers as part of benefits can help pay for insurance, but the plan should be yours, and you can keep it when you change employers, it follows you around.
That seems reasonable, with the caveat that the ex-employee would need to cover the portion that the employer currently does. Iow, you have your own insurance policy, which covers things of your choice, and a potential employer offers to pay a portion of it as long as you're employed by them. Of course, employers would have the option of not participating in such a program, just like employees would.

[Chris]

Well if it helps I actually agree (again) with your other post....

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24821-Why-privatized-healthcare-is-bad?p=584898&viewfull=1#post584898


OK. The problem I see with it is group insurance has always been cheaper, thus the value of workplace insurance. Would doing away with that for individual insurance force insurance companies to lower price of insurance?

People could group together in other voluntary associations. I've heard of that.

[Chris]

That seems reasonable, with the caveat that the ex-employee would need to cover the portion that the employer currently does. Iow, you have your own insurance policy, which covers things of your choice, and a potential employer offers to pay a portion of it as long as you're employed by them. Of course, employers would have the option of not participating in such a program, just like employees would.


There's that, but I think then the benefit becomes explicit and either the employer pays a portion for insurance or an equal amount added to salary.

[Dr. Who]

Then perhaps it could save money by permitting marketplace competition. Allow our lizard to get on TV and sell you health insurance. Have the camel walking through Hyde Park offices asking what day it is on Wednesday. Establish some tort reform for doctors, nurses, and health professionals in your country as well. Perhaps consider removing government altogether from the British system unless it's to administer to it's entitlements for the poor, interned, and elderly. Perhaps allow Brits their chosen doctor and chosen plan? Allow Britons to make their own decisions on health care?

The vast majority of Brits want to keep the NHS. They can't afford to go on private insurance and the ones who do have the option to opt out and go private. So how are their rights being infringed? But have no fear, the neoliberal agenda is at work there under the Conservative Government trying to give preference to private healthcare patients in public hospitals and working toward privatizing hospitals so that they too can enjoy costlier healthcare. Anything to ensure that the well off don't have to wait in line behind the plebes. I mean how dare poor people enjoy the same level of care as the wealthy. Are there no workhouses?

[Kalkin]

There's that, but I think then the benefit becomes explicit and either the employer pays a portion for insurance or an equal amount added to salary.
I believe compensation levels and benefit package for employment is an agreement to be reached solely between the employer and employee.

[Kalkin]

The vast majority of Brits want to keep the NHS.
People like free stuff.

They can't afford to go on private insurance and the ones who do have the option to opt out and go private.
Can they opt out of the portion of their taxes that fund it? If not, they aren't really opting out.

[Matty]

The vast majority of Brits want to keep the NHS. They can't afford to go on private insurance and the ones who do have the option to opt out and go private. So how are their rights being infringed? But have no fear, the neoliberal agenda is at work there under the Conservative Government trying to give preference to private healthcare patients in public hospitals and working toward privatizing hospitals so that they too can enjoy costlier healthcare. Anything to ensure that the well off don't have to wait in line behind the plebes. I mean how dare poor people enjoy the same level of care as the wealthy. Are there no workhouses?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9654465/Britains-taxes-among-highest-in-world-accountants-say.html

[Dr. Who]

People like free stuff.

Can they opt out of the portion of their taxes that fund it? If not, they aren't really opting out.Kind of hard to do since it is funded through National Insurance contributions which also funds state pensions.

[Dr. Who]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9654465/Britains-taxes-among-highest-in-world-accountants-say.html

Healthcare is not the only thing eating up tax contributions. Great Britain has a rather well funded military that is also gobbling up resources. I think healthcare beats playing world cop with the Americans.

[Kalkin]

Kind of hard to do since it is funded through National Insurance contributions which also funds state pensions.
Then the "opt out" isn't really an opt out. That's like saying I have the right to opt out of social security as long as I continue to have the tax taken from my paycheck.
Also, what do you mean by "contributions"? Mandated taxes? I tire of government doublespeak.

[Chris]

I believe compensation levels and benefit package for employment is an agreement to be reached solely between the employer and employee.


Agreed. Everything by contract. I just think to keep employees employers would have to consider other ways of compensating for group insurance.

[Kalkin]

Healthcare is not the only thing eating up tax contributions. Great Britain has a rather well funded military that is also gobbling up resources. I think healthcare beats playing world cop with the Americans.
Please stop calling taxation "contributions", as if it was a voluntary act of charity.
I agree with the rest of your post, though.

[Kalkin]

Agreed. Everything by contract. I just think to keep employees employers would have to consider other ways of compensating for group insurance.
Agreed.

[Ransom]

The vast majority of Brits want to keep the NHS. They can't afford to go on private insurance and the ones who do have the option to opt out and go private. So how are their rights being infringed? But have no fear, the neoliberal agenda is at work there under the Conservative Government trying to give preference to private healthcare patients in public hospitals and working toward privatizing hospitals so that they too can enjoy costlier healthcare. Anything to ensure that the well off don't have to wait in line behind the plebes. I mean how dare poor people enjoy the same level of care as the wealthy. Are there no workhouses?

Really? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-94561/Public-unhappy-NHS--poll.html

[Ransom]

Healthcare is not the only thing eating up tax contributions. Great Britain has a rather well funded military that is also gobbling up resources. I think healthcare beats playing world cop with the Americans.

Good thing we didn't consider healthcare beating playing world cop with the Brits during two world wars.

That military the reason you're still speaking english, Dr.

[Ransom]

The vast majority of Brits want to keep the NHS.

That's all well and good do theynrealize that;


NHS trusts are sinking ever deeper into debt, and the financial prognosis is gloomy.
Are they or the good Dr. Who aware that;

more than 80 per cent of NHS trust finance directors are fairly or very pessimistic about the financial state of the wider health (and care) economy over the next year. For 2015/16, a breath-taking 98 per cent of NHS trust finance directors rated the chances of delivering the 15 per cent reduction in emergency admissions that NHS England estimates is needed as quite or very unlikely, with the `verys’ strongly predominant.

Doesn't sound like everyone is up on the NHS, Dr.


The mood of pessimism is borne out by the latest news on actual financial performance. For foundation trusts, Monitor reported that for the year-to-date 39 organisations are in deficit and for trusts, the NHS Trust Development Authority reports that 26 organisations forecast an end-year deficit. For both foundation trusts and trusts these numbers are higher than planned.

Socialized medicine..."higher than planned"...go f'n figure, Dr.!


The rising tide of financial woe will pose difficult questions for more than just providers and commissioners. The current NHS financial failure regime and the wider financial architecture has been designed for relatively rare persistent failure, not the general contagion that seems to be spreading. And while all this goes on someone has to pick up the tab to keep the service afloat and ultimately that can only mean HM Treasury.

And while all this goes on someone has to pick up the tab to keep the service afloat and we all know who that will be don't we, Dr.

How many think this NHS is so grand.....the "vast majority?" It's falling on it's own face and you'd like to keep it?

Typical.

- See more at: http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2014/04/nhs-the-new-deficit-normal/#sthash.xtuNaSnY.dpuf

[Ransom]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-cash-crisis--south-941600

[Dr. Who]

Please stop calling taxation "contributions", as if it was a voluntary act of charity.
I agree with the rest of your post, though.
I think they are technically called premiums. It's not perfect, but they are delivering health care at probably 1/8 the cost of the US model. Now does it make sense to pay 8 x as much to get maybe 20% more out of the system, or to go to a public/private model, where insurance tops up the regular system?

[Dr. Who]

Good thing we didn't consider healthcare beating playing world cop with the Brits during two world wars.

That military the reason you're still speaking english, Dr.I'm not British.

[Dr. Who]

That's all well and good do theynrealize that;


Are they or the good Dr. Who aware that;


Doesn't sound like everyone is up on the NHS, Dr.



Socialized medicine..."higher than planned"...go f'n figure, Dr.!



And while all this goes on someone has to pick up the tab to keep the service afloat and we all know who that will be don't we, Dr.

How many think this NHS is so grand.....the "vast majority?" It's falling on it's own face and you'd like to keep it?

Typical.

- See more at: http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2014/04/nhs-the-new-deficit-normal/#sthash.xtuNaSnY.dpuf

TBH I don't think that the NHS is perfect - I prefer a model funded by individual states that delivers what the people want and is more answerable to their constituents.

[Chris]

TBH I don't think that the NHS is perfect - I prefer a model funded by individual states that delivers what the people want and is more answerable to their constituents.

Problem is central planners, even at the state level, cannot know what the people want, it's too complex and dynamic.

[Dr. Who]

Problem is central planners, even at the state level, cannot know what the people want, it's too complex and dynamic.
There can be no attainment of perfection. Perfect comes at a price few are willing to pay and most are unable to pay. Your perfect house might be worth $3 or $4M and be situated on a hill overlooking the ocean, but in reality what is acceptable and affordable is a 3 or 4 bedroom in the suburbs. Some might achieve option one, more will achieve option two, most make do with less.

[Chris]

There can be no attainment of perfection. Perfect comes at a price few are willing to pay and most are unable to pay. Your perfect house might be worth $3 or $4M and be situated on a hill overlooking the ocean, but in reality what is acceptable and affordable is a 3 or 4 bedroom in the suburbs. Some might achieve option one, more will achieve option two, most make do with less.


No, not talking about perfection--that's too easy a straw man.

Talking about knowing each person's needs better than the person does.

[Kalkin]

I think they are technically called premiums. It's not perfect, but they are delivering health care at probably 1/8 the cost of the US model. Now does it make sense to pay 8 x as much to get maybe 20% more out of the system, or to go to a public/private model, where insurance tops up the regular system?
You can also get 1000 casios for the price of a Rolex.
It makes sense for free people to be able to decide what they want to spend their own money on.

[Kalkin]

TBH I don't think that the NHS is perfect - I prefer a model funded by individual states that delivers what the people want and is more answerable to their constituents.
That would be more in line with the federal limitations outlined in the Constitution.

[Dr. Who]

No, not talking about perfection--that's too easy a straw man.

Talking about knowing each person's needs better than the person does.
Not really. People without money don't really have a voice in society. Yes, everyone can vote, for whatever good that does, but the only people with a voice command important economic segments of society. Those are not the people at the bottom of the economic heap who form the majority of the population. Beyond the election they have no voice because they have no money for extras. The only time they are taken seriously is when they start revolting. The most indigent receive free medical care, but those who have any income at all, but not enough to afford insurance are thrown to the wolves - or were before the ACA, which is admittedly a dog's breakfast.

Within the current paradigm, it makes more sense to go single payer to reduce cost by cutting out the middle men in the process. That is simply logic. To reject government as the provider simply because they are not the best in efficiency is to ignore the option to demand change. Insurance providers are efficient, but still end up costing 8 times more than government providers of the same service simply because they have to pay shareholders. It is not really possible for insurance to provide the same service at the same cost as government. They don't have the buying power, or the ability to control costs. So the end result of private payer is that those with money or employer provided insurance get good service, the indigent get some medical care under public care, and everyone in between are on their own. That's a lot of tax payers who are being thrown to the wolves and who have to decide whether the illness of one member of the household is worth sacrificing the future of the rest. What it often means in families is that someone, usually an adult, does without healthcare or medication and dies as a result of sacrificing themselves for the economic good of the rest. Of course that might mean a family is now doing without a father or a mother and the value that they might bring to the future of their children.

[Ransom]

I'm not British.

Then how would you know the "vast majority" support the NHS?

[Dr. Who]

Then how would you know the "vast majority" support the NHS?

Read British press. People are unhappy with service, but don't want to go private payer.

[Ransom]

Government is to provide from cradle to grave, simple 'logic.' Whatever you say Karl

[Chris]

Not really. People without money don't really have a voice in society. Yes, everyone can vote, for whatever good that does, but the only people with a voice command important economic segments of society. Those are not the people at the bottom of the economic heap who form the majority of the population. Beyond the election they have no voice because they have no money for extras. The only time they are taken seriously is when they start revolting. The most indigent receive free medical care, but those who have any income at all, but not enough to afford insurance are thrown to the wolves - or were before the ACA, which is admittedly a dog's breakfast.

Within the current paradigm, it makes more sense to go single payer to reduce cost by cutting out the middle men in the process. That is simply logic. To reject government as the provider simply because they are not the best in efficiency is to ignore the option to demand change. Insurance providers are efficient, but still end up costing 8 times more than government providers of the same service simply because they have to pay shareholders. It is not really possible for insurance to provide the same service at the same cost as government. They don't have the buying power, or the ability to control costs. So the end result of private payer is that those with money or employer provided insurance get good service, the indigent get some medical care under public care, and everyone in between are on their own. That's a lot of tax payers who are being thrown to the wolves and who have to decide whether the illness of one member of the household is worth sacrificing the future of the rest. What it often means in families is that someone, usually an adult, does without healthcare or medication and dies as a result of sacrificing themselves for the economic good of the rest. Of course that might mean a family is now doing without a father or a mother and the value that they might bring to the future of their children.



Your argument leads incontrovertibly--at least I agree!--to the conclusion that those few central planners, be they industry giants or government officials, should not be put in positions to plan anything.

[Dr. Who]

Government is to provide from cradle to grave, simple 'logic.' Whatever you say Karl

Taxes are paid either by you or on your behalf from the cradle to grave, so why are you picking and choosing what government should pay for? Roads and bridges are good and healthcare is bad? It's OK to donate billions to foreign nations or spend it in world policing that has little to no affect on America, but not OK to take care of your own? Do you sent the neighbor's kid to camp but force your own to do odd jobs to make money?

[Ransom]

Read British press. People are unhappy with service, but don't want to go private payer.

Source please

[Ransom]

Taxes are paid either by you or on your behalf from the cradle to grave, so why are you picking and choosing what government should pay for? Roads and bridges are good and healthcare is bad? It's OK to donate billions to foreign nations or spend it in world policing that has little to no affect on America, but not OK to take care of your own? Do you sent the neighbor's kid to camp but force your own to do odd jobs to make money?

I'm picking and choosing what government pays for Dr., because my government is supposed to receive it's power to govern from the consent of that governed. We the People....in this nation Dr., specifically empower the government, that picking and choosing by local referendum or prior to Obamacare, managed by each state. We have states rights here, Dr., in fact a history of debating such rights on order to limit the powers of a central government. Furthermore, I believe you underestimate the affect on spending billions abroad including our since WW2 mission to keep the world's sea lanes own. Our consistent presence keeping an iron curtain at bay during the last decades of the 20th century to our continued presence in South Korea ensuring freedom and economic opportunity for millions....including ourselves. You're not looking to your investments.