PDA

View Full Version : Healthcare and Ability to Pay



Perianne
09-15-2017, 08:16 PM
(From an idea formed by a post by Dr. Who)


Should health care be tied to ability to pay?

Kalkin
09-15-2017, 08:26 PM
Should health care be tied to ability to pay?
If you require the services of another person, yes. If you do it yourself, no.

MisterVeritis
09-15-2017, 08:29 PM
(From an idea formed by a post by @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612))
Should health care be tied to ability to pay?
Absolutely. You pay for what you want.

Dr. Who
09-15-2017, 08:40 PM
(From an idea formed by a post by @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612))


Should health care be tied to ability to pay?
From a moral perspective, no. Simply stated, if two people have the identical ailment and the one who can pay will live and the one who cannot will die, then by definition the lives of people with money are more valuable.

MisterVeritis
09-15-2017, 08:44 PM
From a moral perspective, no.
From a moral perspective, yes. Or do you support the New Slavery?


Simply stated, if two people have the identical ailment and the one who can pay will live and the one who cannot will die, then by definition the lives of people with money are more valuable.
No. By definition one can pay for treatments the other cannot.

Peter1469
09-15-2017, 09:06 PM
The US can support a health care system for those who can't pay. But that system can't look like the system for those who can pay.

I again point out Stan Brock and his outstanding work with remote area medical. It can be scaled up and paid for to care for everyone in the US who need free healthcare at a fraction of the cost of any other plan out there.

The problem the US has is everyone thinks they are entitled to platinum service at no charge. That is just silly.

I recently visited a friend in the maternity ward and she was in a one bedroom suite with wood floors- and maxed out cable and wifi. That is fine for her- she paid for it.

For those that can't, you don't get the separate suite with wood floors. You don't get free cable or wifi.

Dr. Who
09-15-2017, 09:15 PM
The US can support a health care system for those who can't pay. But that system can't look like the system for those who can pay.

I again point out Stan Brock and his outstanding work with remote area medical. It can be scaled up and paid for to care for everyone in the US who need free healthcare at a fraction of the cost of any other plan out there.

The problem the US has is everyone thinks they are entitled to platinum service at no charge. That is just silly.

I recently visited a friend in the maternity ward and she was in a one bedroom suite with wood floors- and maxed out cable and wifi. That is fine for her- she paid for it.

For those that can't, you don't get the separate suite with wood floors. You don't get free cable or wifi.

Healthcare and accommodation are two very different things. I am not advocating that every hospital should be a division of Hilton Hotels or that there should not be wards (although there is evidence to suggest that people recuperate better in less populous accommodations). I am only addressing the standards and access to medical care.

Peter1469
09-15-2017, 09:46 PM
Healthcare and accommodation are two very different things. I am not advocating that every hospital should be a division of Hilton Hotels or that there should not be wards (although there is evidence to suggest that people recuperate better in less populous accommodations). I am only addressing the standards and access to medical care.

Make that clear when you call for a vote. Because the biggest reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is because people want it all. The vote will drop off once the people realize the free part doesn't live up to their expectations.

Dr. Who
09-15-2017, 10:08 PM
Make that clear when you call for a vote. Because the biggest reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is because people want it all. The vote will drop off once the people realize the free part doesn't live up to their expectations.

People should be free to buy supplemental coverage for all of those perks.

Peter1469
09-15-2017, 10:12 PM
People should be free to buy supplemental coverage for all of those perks.
Agreed. That is what I have said all along.

A basic coverage for all. Stan Brock again (I hate sounding like a broken record).

resister
09-15-2017, 10:17 PM
Fucking hospitals will let you die if your insurance sucks, thanks Obama.

jimmyz
09-16-2017, 12:34 AM
Is it odd to think that people should pay for the level of care they want? If you want to arrive at the hospital and have paid your healthcare tax then fine. If you want to arrive and and ask for the extra care servive you have paid for then great. Pay for the level you wish to pay for.

jimmyz
09-16-2017, 12:38 AM
Fucking hospitals will let you die if your insurance sucks, thanks Obama.

I went that with Dad. They decided he wasn't worth the costs of IVs and everything else. He, we had the best healthcare money could provide. Some ghoull of a fucking Indian continent administrator came out to give us the fatal speech. I will stop now as I might ban myself going further.

Hal Jordan
09-16-2017, 01:16 AM
Fucking hospitals will let you die if your insurance sucks, thanks Obama.

That has not been my experience. 3 weeks out of the past 3 months in the hospital, and the care has been great. They even connected me with a charity for regular medical care.

Hal Jordan
09-16-2017, 01:25 AM
Hospitals make more than enough to absorb the cost in emergency situations. With or without Obamacare, they overcharge enough (and the government pays them more than other facilities) that those who can't pay can still easily be taken care of. More money for better accommodations is fine. I would leave cable for all in hospitals, since the cost difference is negligible, however, more money giving more channels would be reasonable.

Hal Jordan
09-16-2017, 01:27 AM
That has not been my experience. 3 weeks out of the past 3 months in the hospital, and the care has been great. They even connected me with a charity for regular medical care.
Of course, part of that may have been because the nurses liked me and I tried to make things easier on me. I even had one visit me multiple times when she was working a different area.

Cletus
09-16-2017, 01:55 AM
From a moral perspective, no. Simply stated, if two people have the identical ailment and the one who can pay will live and the one who cannot will die, then by definition the lives of people with money are more valuable.

That doesn't even make sense.

Cthulhu
09-16-2017, 02:28 AM
(From an idea formed by a post by Dr. Who)


Should health care be tied to ability to pay?For a hang nail? Yes.

For a broken femur? No.

Everything in between? Salt morally to taste.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Hal Jordan
09-16-2017, 02:31 AM
That doesn't even make sense.

It makes sense, but saving lives is more under the purview of hospitals, who can afford the burden.

Cletus
09-16-2017, 02:38 AM
It makes sense, but saving lives is more under the purview of hospitals, who can afford the burden.

The statement itself makes no sense.

Refugee
09-16-2017, 02:48 AM
The British version; National Health Service (NHS) would it suit America?
It started off as a paid for insurance scheme and worked. The problem arises when you have high unemployment and in the interests of equality, those not paying started to get the same service free, then the immigrants came, then it was open doors and the world came knocking. The NHS system has been in a continual financial crisis for years. The good thing about it was those who’s lives were in danger got immediate treatment, irrespective of having paid in. The opposite is that it was also expensive if you did pay; ten years ago I was paying a compulsory (non opt out) equivalent of $326 a month and if I needed treatment, I had to stand in a queue behind those that didn’t pay. First come first served.

My point is that you can’t have equality in health care based on ability to pay. Just like everything else, such as accommodation or car insurance, health comes at a price. Eventually as population figures continue to rise, you have got to say to some people, 'sorry, but the one that paid comes first and we’ll get round to you later' and just patch you up, which would freak the British out, but has already been discussed by the government. It’s the same for welfare; eventually you’re going to run out of tax payers to fund the freebies.


The American system sounds complicated. I thought the ones who couldn’t pay already had Medicaid? What’s the point of Obamacare then if you can’t pay, or is it window dressing and the taxpayer pays and you pretend you’ve got cover? Sorry, not very clued up on this. :)

Ethereal
09-16-2017, 03:05 AM
Agreed. That is what I have said all along.

A basic coverage for all. Stan Brock again (I hate sounding like a broken record).

For all? Even irresponsible free-loaders?

Ethereal
09-16-2017, 03:13 AM
The government stifles competition in the healthcare industry and then people complain that the healthcare market isn't working properly.

That's sort of like holding a magnet next to your laptop and then wondering why your data keeps getting corrupted.

Common
09-16-2017, 05:13 AM
From a moral perspective, no. Simply stated, if two people have the identical ailment and the one who can pay will live and the one who cannot will die, then by definition the lives of people with money are more valuable.
Depends on why they have no money. Is it because they are out trying to find a job and they cant get hired, or are they hanging on a corner selling crack to kids? or a member of m13 or some other gang that shows no income, or a woman that would rather have a ton of kids and collect checks each month, or are they here illegally.

I do not want to pay for the healthcare of criminals, illegal immigrants and those that refuse to work nor should I.

Liberals lump everyone together in neat categories, those that can pay and those that cant. The degree of being able to pay varies GREATLY and the reasons for not be able to pay vary greatly.

Obama care did nothing but make healthcare for those that do pay less comprehensive and cost more.

Everyone had health care before obamacare and that included illegal immigrants, they could walk into any hospital and not be turned away.

The left doesnt want health care for all, they want health care to be the same for EVERYONE no matter how it sucks and have those that can pay, pay for themselves and everyone else.

Why would anyone in thier right mind be for something like that

Peter1469
09-16-2017, 07:31 AM
Hospitals make more than enough to absorb the cost in emergency situations. With or without Obamacare, they overcharge enough (and the government pays them more than other facilities) that those who can't pay can still easily be taken care of. More money for better accommodations is fine. I would leave cable for all in hospitals, since the cost difference is negligible, however, more money giving more channels would be reasonable.
Not in many parts of the country. Hospitals are going out of business over free healthcare (http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/the-rural-hospital-closure-crisis-15-key-findings-and-trends.html).

Hoosier8
09-16-2017, 07:31 AM
Does 'the right to eat' mean government should take over restaurants? After all that too is a service industry.

Chris
09-16-2017, 08:06 AM
(From an idea formed by a post by Dr. Who)


Should health care be tied to ability to pay?


It's not. ERs must take all cases.

Of course, not having insurance in such a case makes the rest of us pay for it in various ways. But why, we don't create the need for health, life itself does that, and that being the case, the individual has an obligation to act to deal with that need, by earning enough to afford insurance.


I could see a universal basic income (UBI) in place of all other welfare, with a stipulation that a percentage of it go for health insurance.

Chris
09-16-2017, 08:08 AM
Does 'the right to eat' mean government should take over restaurants? After all that too is a service industry.

Communists have tried that and failed generally with collapsed economies.

Who brought up the notion of a right to eat?

Chris
09-16-2017, 10:13 AM
As to remarks about necessity driving social obligations, see The Road to Serfdom: Condensed Edition (https://fee.org/resources/the-road-to-serfdom-condensed-edition/#part-5)


It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. It began quite openly as a reaction against the liberalism of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be ‘treated as cattle’.

Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker de Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: ‘Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom,’ he said. ‘Democracy attaches all possible value to each man,’ he said in 1848, ‘while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.’

To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives – the craving for freedom – socialists began increasingly to make use of the promise of a ‘new freedom’. Socialism was to bring ‘economic freedom’ without which political freedom was ‘not worth having’.

To make this argument sound plausible, the word ‘freedom’ was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.

resister
09-16-2017, 10:18 AM
It's not. ERs must take all cases.

Of course, not having insurance in such a case makes the rest of us pay for it in various ways. But why, we don't create the need for health, life itself does that, and that being the case, the individual has an obligation to act to deal with that need, by earning enough to afford insurance.


I could see a universal basic income (UBI) in place of all other welfare, with a stipulation that a percentage of it go for health insurance.
Here in Fl ER's can turn you down unless you show up in an ambulance. Or so I have heard by a man that would know how the system works.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 10:18 AM
It makes sense, but saving lives is more under the purview of hospitals, who can afford the burden.
What? From each according... comrade?

Chris
09-16-2017, 10:26 AM
Here in Fl ER's can turn you down unless you show up in an ambulance. Or so I have heard by a man that would know how the system works.

I thought it was federal law ERs must take everyone. It's applied here in Texas.


Yes, the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

Tahuyaman
09-16-2017, 01:16 PM
Where does it stop? Food, shelter, clothing?

Chris
09-16-2017, 01:24 PM
Where does it stop? Food, shelter, clothing?

When rights are defined as abstractions, there is no stop.

Well, unless you tear it all down to the lowest common denominator.

Hal Jordan
09-16-2017, 01:34 PM
What? From each according... comrade?
Okay, drop the communist/Marxist bullshit. You're smart enough to know better. If you want to discuss, discuss. If not, continue making posts like that to people you damn well should know it doesn't apply to.

Hal Jordan
09-16-2017, 02:04 PM
Not in many parts of the country. Hospitals are going out of business over free healthcare (http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/the-rural-hospital-closure-crisis-15-key-findings-and-trends.html).

It's not surprising that rural hospitals are having issues. They don't tend to have the patients to support them, but still have to keep the electricity and everything going just in case. Many of them end up transferring patients to larger hospitals anyway.

Perianne
09-16-2017, 04:09 PM
I thought it was federal law ERs must take everyone. It's applied here in Texas.
Yes, the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

Actually EMTALA:


Any patient who "comes to the emergency department" requesting "examination or treatment for a medical condition" must be provided with "an appropriate medical screening examination" to determine if he is suffering from an "emergency medical condition". If he is, then the hospital is obligated to either provide him with treatment until he is stable or to transfer him to another hospital in conformance with the statute's directives.

If the patient does not have an "emergency medical condition", the statute imposes no further obligation on the hospital.

http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 04:11 PM
People should be free to buy supplemental coverage for all of those perks.
you should have stopped while you were right.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 04:11 PM
Agreed. That is what I have said all along.

A basic coverage for all. Stan Brock again (I hate sounding like a broken record).
We are all socialists now?

AZ Jim
09-16-2017, 04:12 PM
Actually EMTALA:






Do you have patients at this very moment crying out for you services? Heal the sick woman!

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 04:13 PM
What? From each according... comrade?

Okay, drop the communist/Marxist bullshit. You're smart enough to know better. If you want to discuss, discuss. If not, continue making posts like that to people you damn well should know it doesn't apply to.
When it quacks like a Marxist duck...

Chris
09-16-2017, 04:29 PM
What? From each according... comrade?

When it quacks like a Marxist duck...


Hal's not a commie/Marxist. Nothing he's said implies that.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 04:37 PM
Hal's not a commie/Marxist. Nothing he's said implies that.
Right...some should pay (hospitals) based on their ability to pay. Marxism. Pure and simple.

Chris
09-16-2017, 05:15 PM
Right...some should pay (hospitals) based on their ability to pay. Marxism. Pure and simple.

No, Hal was talking about life or death, saving lives, not redistributing wealth.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 05:16 PM
No, Hal was talking about life or death, saving lives, not redistributing wealth.
he clearly said those with the ability to pay, hospitals, should carry that burden. Marxism. It does not get any clearer.

Hal Jordan
09-16-2017, 05:16 PM
Right...some should pay (hospitals) based on their ability to pay. Marxism. Pure and simple.

Not what I said. They were two points. Did I say it was under their purview because they can afford the burden or that it was under their purview and ​they can afford the burden? MisterVeritis is a conservative who thinks that Islam should be eradicated. Does that mean you're a conservative because you think Islam should be eradicated?

Hal Jordan
09-16-2017, 05:21 PM
he clearly said those with the ability to pay, hospitals, should carry that burden. Marxism. It does not get any clearer.

Not if you intentionally misrepresent what was said, like you are doing here. I didn't say why matters of life and death were under their purview, because I thought it was self-explanatory. What is the purpose of hospitals?

The Xl
09-16-2017, 05:27 PM
Under normal circumstances, no. Considering the circumstances we live in, where the merger of government and corporation has led to the fact that people cannot afford care that they otherwise would have, then yes, it's government's responsibly to make that up.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 05:37 PM
Not what I said. They were two points. Did I say it was under their purview because they can afford the burden or that it was under their purview and ​they can afford the burden? MisterVeritis is a conservative who thinks that Islam should be eradicated. Does that mean you're a conservative because you think Islam should be eradicated?
Why not just admit that Marxism appeals to you. You have no problem compelling someone else to pay, do you?

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 05:39 PM
Not if you intentionally misrepresent what was said, like you are doing here. I didn't say why matters of life and death were under their purview, because I thought it was self-explanatory. What is the purpose of hospitals?
Apparently, according to you, it is to redistribute wealth.
What is the purpose of a grocery store?

Peter1469
09-16-2017, 05:41 PM
We are all socialists now?

No, but we are a community. And the method I am talking about is cheap. Basically what every unit goes through before deploying.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 05:41 PM
Under normal circumstances, no. Considering the circumstances we live in, where the merger of government and corporation has led to the fact that people cannot afford care that they otherwise would have, then yes, it's government's responsibly to make that up.
You, too, have become a Marxist.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 05:42 PM
No, but we are a community. And the method I am talking about is cheap. Basically what every unit goes through before deploying.
You, too, have become a Marxist. Are there no honest people left?

Chris
09-16-2017, 05:43 PM
If everyone is a Marxist, then it means nothing.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 05:44 PM
If everyone is a Marxist, then it means nothing.
No. It means you have all been co-opted. This nation is doomed.

Peter1469
09-16-2017, 05:44 PM
You, too, have become a Marxist. Are there no honest people left?
I am not a Marxist.

And my plan would never be acceptable to anyone with a statist bone in his body. It isn't good enough for them.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 05:52 PM
I am not a Marxist.

And my plan would never be acceptable to anyone with a statist bone in his body. It isn't good enough for them.
Once you decide some should pay so others may benefit there is not much difference between your position and Radical Karl's position. If you want something you find a way to earn what it takes to pay for it. Anything else is slavery.

Peter1469
09-16-2017, 05:56 PM
Once you decide some should pay so others may benefit there is not much difference between your position and Radical Karl's position. If you want something you find a way to earn what it takes to pay for it. Anything else is slavery.

Like public schools? Police? Fire? The military?

That stuff?

Common
09-16-2017, 05:56 PM
Once you decide some should pay so others may benefit there is not much difference between your position and Radical Karl's position. If you want something you find a way to earn what it takes to pay for it. Anything else is slavery.
You me and everyone else that ever worked has paid for someone else. Our parents paid for someone else one way or the other. That is never going to change, what changes is the method of how we pay for others.

We as a country and a society cannot be totally void of assistance for others in that society and that doesnt make everyone a marxist who realizes that.

You will never live a single day in a world where no one pays for something for someone else and you never have.

Hal Jordan
09-16-2017, 06:08 PM
Apparently, according to you, it is to redistribute wealth.
What is the purpose of a grocery store?


Quit making things up and answer the question. What is the purpose of hospitals?

The purpose of a grocery store is to sell food items.

There, I answered your question, will you answer mine?

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 06:12 PM
Like public schools? Police? Fire? The military?

That stuff?
I just shake my head.You can justify anything once you decide Marxism is okay.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 06:14 PM
Quit making things up and answer the question. What is the purpose of hospitals?

The purpose of a grocery store is to sell food items.

There, I answered your question, will you answer mine?
The purpose of a hospital is to sell health services.

Why not make grocery stores bear the burden of feeding people? From each...to each, right, comrade?

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 06:15 PM
You me and everyone else that ever worked has paid for someone else. Our parents paid for someone else one way or the other. That is never going to change, what changes is the method of how we pay for others.

We as a country and a society cannot be totally void of assistance for others in that society and that doesnt make everyone a marxist who realizes that.

You will never live a single day in a world where no one pays for something for someone else and you never have.
I get it. Once you decide slavery is acceptable all that is left is to determine who will be our slaves.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 06:16 PM
Like public schools? Police? Fire? The military?

That stuff?
I would argue that public schools should be abolished. They are socialist. I must pay and pay and pay. I receive no benefit.

KathyS
09-16-2017, 06:32 PM
OMG, is it a full moon????

Common
09-16-2017, 06:35 PM
I get it. Once you decide slavery is acceptable all that is left is to determine who will be our slaves.
Mr V you need a rest man

Hal Jordan
09-16-2017, 06:40 PM
The purpose of a hospital is to sell health services.

Why not make grocery stores bear the burden of feeding people? From each...to each, right, comrade?

Wrong. The purpose of a hospital is to save lives.

Funny, comrade. I never even suggested such a thing or any type of socialism. Must be your guilty conscience speaking, Mikhail.

What's really funny is that I can't have been more clear in my history hear that I want the government drastically reduced, but you're saying I want to strengthen it?

Why even compare a grocery store​ to a hospital? It's nonsense.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 07:22 PM
Mr V you need a rest man
I need way less Marxism. All of you have lost it. The nation is doomed. You are all arguing over the best way to become Marxist. Marxism is essentially forever. Once individual liberty is lost you will not see it return.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 07:27 PM
Wrong. The purpose of a hospital is to save lives.
The purpose of a grocery store, then, is to save lives. Grocery stores keep us from starving, don't they comrade?


Funny, comrade. I never even suggested such a thing or any type of socialism. Must be your guilty conscience speaking, Mikhail.
Sadly, you don't recognize just how far you have sunk. Deciding that some must pay for others because they are able to is the cornerstone of Marxism. And you wholly embrace marxism's cornerstone.

What's really funny is that I can't have been more clear in my history hear that I want the government drastically reduced, but you're saying I want to strengthen it?
And yet you stated hospitals should bear the burden because they are able to do so. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Isn't that what you said?

Why even compare a grocery store​ to a hospital? It's nonsense.
Why indeed? Both sell things to keep us alive? And both can bear the burdens for the rest of us. Correct?

Once you embrace a little Marxism the rest becomes easy.

jimmyz
09-16-2017, 07:30 PM
A person needing medical treatment needs it less than a debate whether he or she is able to receive it.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2017, 07:31 PM
A person needing medical treatment needs it less than a debate whether he or she is able to receive it.
Who is your designated slave who must labor to pay for your medical care?

Archer0915
09-16-2017, 07:37 PM
From a moral perspective, no. Simply stated, if two people have the identical ailment and the one who can pay will live and the one who cannot will die, then by definition the lives of people with money are more valuable.

Agreed but where does personal accountability come into play? Say we all have insurance and all pay the same. This means that those who make good choices in their lives will be paying more than those who choose to abuse their bodies.

Still the ER sees no income and must treat to stabilization. Sure there are many cases where some do not get treatment and others do. Like the congress getting the coverage they do while veterans who may have actually done something to serve this country must put up with a crap VA.

jimmyz
09-16-2017, 07:40 PM
Who is your designated slave who must labor to pay for your medical care?

Me, as part of payroll weekly health insurance premiums and my HSA savings account balance to cover deductibles and extras after the yearly deductible costs.

Refugee
09-16-2017, 08:15 PM
The purpose of a grocery store is somewhere to go and buy food. The purpose of a petrol (gas) station is where you go to buy fuel. The purpose of a hospital is where you go when you’re sick and … Who pays? If it’s a charity that’s fine, but it’s not some kind of human right if you can’t pay to expect others to pay above anything but a basic level.

The difference between socialism and socialist is that the first is used to provide needed services and the second is allowing the government to spend tax on what it deems to be ideologically appropriate.

Crepitus
09-16-2017, 08:54 PM
Absolutely. You pay for what you want.

Don't be silly, nobody wants liver cancer or bad knees.

Hal Jordan
09-17-2017, 01:10 AM
The purpose of a grocery store, then, is to save lives. Grocery stores keep us from starving, don't they comrade?

Not at all. Food banks exist. Other charities exist. Grocery stores are not closely tied with charities. Hospitals, however, are.



Sadly, you don't recognize just how far you have sunk. Deciding that some must pay for others because they are able to is the cornerstone of Marxism. And you wholly embrace marxism's cornerstone.

No, I don't, Mikhail. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just weren't paying attention.


And yet you stated hospitals should bear the burden because they are able to do so. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Isn't that what you said?

Not at all, as I have explained since you are so obsessed with Marxism that you missed the obvious.


Why indeed? Both sell things to keep us alive? And both can bear the burdens for the rest of us. Correct?

Not correct in the slightest. Have you even read the entirety of my posts?


Once you embrace a little Marxism the rest becomes easy.

I suppose you would know better than I, comrade. Let me know how your embrace of Marxism has gone.

Hal Jordan
09-17-2017, 01:14 AM
Agreed but where does personal accountability come into play? Say we all have insurance and all pay the same. This means that those who make good choices in their lives will be paying more than those who choose to abuse their bodies.

Still the ER sees no income and must treat to stabilization. Sure there are many cases where some do not get treatment and others do. Like the congress getting the coverage they do while veterans who may have actually done something to serve this country must put up with a crap VA.

The ER sees no income? As one who knows better, due to my work accounting in the medical field, I must correct you on that. An ER makes more in a day than a family doctor makes in a month, even if they have the same volume of patients. Don't get me started on the VA. They're basically worthless.

Archer0915
09-17-2017, 06:39 PM
The ER sees no income? As one who knows better, due to my work accounting in the medical field, I must correct you on that. An ER makes more in a day than a family doctor makes in a month, even if they have the same volume of patients. Don't get me started on the VA. They're basically worthless.
They see no income, only a person that needs treatment. The income of the patient and the bills come later after stabilization. Why do you thin the uninsured always went? Illegals?

Common
09-17-2017, 06:41 PM
The ER sees no income? As one who knows better, due to my work accounting in the medical field, I must correct you on that. An ER makes more in a day than a family doctor makes in a month, even if they have the same volume of patients. Don't get me started on the VA. They're basically worthless.

VA= Americas Socialized Single Payer

Archer0915
09-17-2017, 06:43 PM
Thinking about it. The ER doctor dropped the remainder of my bill after I chewed her group out over the charges made by the physician.

I did pay the hospital and radiology and I made a counter offer for the doctors bill.

3800 dollars for two dislocated metacarpals. All she did was listen to the radiologist, she never looked at the X-Ray... I just needed to know if anything was broken. It is a boxing/sport injury fixed plenty of times in the locker room.

Cletus
09-17-2017, 06:49 PM
What is the purpose of hospitals?

For the most part?

To make money.

MisterVeritis
09-17-2017, 08:52 PM
No, but we are a community. And the method I am talking about is cheap. Basically what every unit goes through before deploying.
Are we a community? So, according to you, I must pay, because I can, for someone else's healthcare? This is theft. It is Marxism.

It is worth a revolution to stop it.

MisterVeritis
09-17-2017, 08:54 PM
Wrong. The purpose of a hospital is to save lives.
No. The purpose of a hospital is to sell services at a profit. No profit. No hospital.

MisterVeritis
09-17-2017, 08:56 PM
Me, as part of payroll weekly health insurance premiums and my HSA savings account balance to cover deductibles and extras after the yearly deductible costs.
This plan, as you have described it is not Marxist. But then, if you were honest you would have known that.

MisterVeritis
09-17-2017, 08:57 PM
Don't be silly, nobody wants liver cancer or bad knees.
If you don't want a bad liver why do you drink so much?

Crepitus
09-17-2017, 08:59 PM
If you don't want a bad liver why do you drink so much?

I don't, and that is far from the only thing that can cause your liver to go bad.

MisterVeritis
09-17-2017, 09:00 PM
The purpose of a grocery store, then, is to save lives. Grocery stores keep us from starving, don't they comrade?

Not at all. Food banks exist. Other charities exist. Grocery stores are not closely tied with charities. Hospitals, however, are.
So grocery stores that provide food, essential to keeping us alive do not keep us from starving?
Is there a test I could use to determine whether or not you are dishonest versus stupid?

MisterVeritis
09-17-2017, 09:01 PM
I don't, and that is far from the only thing that can cause your liver to go bad.
You, like many Marxists, strain at gnats. But you eagerly swallow the camel.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2017, 12:39 AM
No. The purpose of a hospital is to sell services at a profit. No profit. No hospital.

Huh. Then why are the vast majority of hospitals classified as nonprofit? 58.5 percent in the US (which has far more for profit hospitals than any other country) as of 2015. That doesn't include government owned, which stands at 20.2)%. That leaves 21.3% whose supposed goal is to make a profit. http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/hospitals-by-ownership/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22 :%22asc%22%7D


Want to try again, since your answer has been proven false?

Hal Jordan
09-18-2017, 12:46 AM
The purpose of a grocery store, then, is to save lives. Grocery stores keep us from starving, don't they comrade?

So grocery stores that provide food, essential to keeping us alive do not keep us from starving?
Is there a test I could use to determine whether or not you are dishonest versus stupid?

Sure. How many people die of starvation in the US? You forget. I have been homeless. I was fed without being able to go to a grocery store for food, as many have. I have never had food stamps, so you can't credit the government for it. My very survival is because of charities and not the government. Got any other bullshit to throw at me, or are you going to concede defeat, as any intelligent person would?

Grocery stores are good, but not essential, my life now is a testament to that.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2017, 12:49 AM
You, like many Marxists, strain at gnats. But you eagerly swallow the camel.

Whereas you are currently trying to swallow a blue whale. Your love of government control seems to be exceeding that of actual Marxists.

resister
09-18-2017, 12:51 AM
I am disgusted with "health care"

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 03:16 AM
Huh. Then why are the vast majority of hospitals classified as nonprofit? 58.5 percent in the US (which has far more for profit hospitals than any other country) as of 2015. That doesn't include government owned, which stands at 20.2)%. That leaves 21.3% whose supposed goal is to make a profit. http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/hospitals-by-ownership/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22 :%22asc%22%7D


Want to try again, since your answer has been proven false?
Every one of them sells services for profit or they go out of business. Even the so-called non-profit hospitals.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 03:18 AM
Whereas you are currently trying to swallow a blue whale. Your love of government control seems to be exceeding that of actual Marxists.
This is the dumbest thing you have written. Congratulations.

DGUtley
09-18-2017, 03:20 AM
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.


I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

1755 Code of Nature

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 03:21 AM
Sure. How many people die of starvation in the US? You forget. I have been homeless. I was fed without being able to go to a grocery store for food, as many have. I have never had food stamps, so you can't credit the government for it. My very survival is because of charities and not the government. Got any other bullshit to throw at me, or are you going to concede defeat, as any intelligent person would?

Grocery stores are good, but not essential, my life now is a testament to that.
Hospitals are less essential to your life than grocery stores. Where do charities get the food they gave you? Was it from hospitals? Why don't you have a Marxist solution for food care?

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 03:24 AM
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.


I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

1755 Code of Nature
Isn't Marxism wonderful? It is so wonderful it is compelled by force.

Peter1469
09-18-2017, 05:21 AM
Are we a community? So, according to you, I must pay, because I can, for someone else's healthcare? This is theft. It is Marxism.

It is worth a revolution to stop it.
Good luck.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 06:29 AM
Good luck.
What is it about healthcare that turned you to Marxism?

Captain Obvious
09-18-2017, 01:46 PM
(From an idea formed by a post by Dr. Who)


Should health care be tied to ability to pay?

No

Kalkin
09-18-2017, 01:52 PM
From a moral perspective, no. Simply stated, if two people have the identical ailment and the one who can pay will live and the one who cannot will die, then by definition the lives of people with money are more valuable.
Actually, the lives are of equal worth. It's the treatment that has value. Because of said value, a purchase price is set.

Cletus
09-18-2017, 02:21 PM
Actually, the lives are of equal worth. It's the treatment that has value. Because of said value, a purchase price is set.

That is exactly right.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 04:20 PM
Actually, the lives are of equal worth. It's the treatment that has value. Because of said value, a purchase price is set.

I said from a moral perspective, not an economic perspective. Morally, all lives have equal value. If all lives have equal value and $$$ makes the difference between saving one life over another (and I'm not talking about emergency care, but for some kind of condition that will, without treatment, ultimately kill you), then that's a moral problem because it puts a price on human life.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 04:42 PM
I said from a moral perspective, not an economic perspective. Morally, all lives have equal value. If all lives have equal value and $$$ makes the difference between saving one life over another (and I'm not talking about emergency care, but for some kind of condition that will, without treatment, ultimately kill you), then that's a moral problem because it puts a price on human life.
All lives do not have equal value.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 04:54 PM
All lives do not have equal value.
I disagree.

Chris
09-18-2017, 04:59 PM
All value is subjective. Period.

Common
09-18-2017, 05:04 PM
I said from a moral perspective, not an economic perspective. Morally, all lives have equal value. If all lives have equal value and $$$ makes the difference between saving one life over another (and I'm not talking about emergency care, but for some kind of condition that will, without treatment, ultimately kill you), then that's a moral problem because it puts a price on human life.
First of all no one goes untreated that has a condition, you get medicaid its always been that way.

Nothing in this country has ever been equitable. Thats why theyve always had didnt health care plans at different levels at different prices.

The rich bought BCBS Gold Medallion the best of the best, or they paid x amount a year to have a dr at their beck and call and pay cash for any hospitals procedures or tests.
Rich Canadians come to fla for healthcare.

This ideal of tossing everyone in the same health care pot and lowering the quality for everyone for a few is crap. Figure out a way to give them health care without destroying it for everyone else. Obama did a job on medicare recipients with obamacare as it is.

Give everyone medicare and who pays for it, so the left wants to destroy my quality of health care and make me pay through the nose for it on top of that.

My biggest problem with single payer is that I KNOW it will destroy the quality of health care. Just look at the VA thats been singlepayer forever.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 05:26 PM
I disagree.
I guarantee you each of us values our own life far above anyone else's. If it comes down to me or you, Who, it will be me. Disagree all you want.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 05:26 PM
All value is subjective. Period.
I hate it when people type "period."

Period.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 05:53 PM
I guarantee you each of us values our own life far above anyone else's. If it comes down to me or you, Who, it will be me. Disagree all you want.
You're entitled to your opinion.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 05:55 PM
I guarantee you each of us values our own life far above anyone else's. If it comes down to me or you, Who, it will be me. Disagree all you want.

You're entitled to your opinion.
I know. I am also entitled to be right. :-)

Or do you plan to work extra so I can have healthcare insurance at no cost to me?

Kalkin
09-18-2017, 05:56 PM
I said from a moral perspective, not an economic perspective. Morally, all lives have equal value. If all lives have equal value and $$$ makes the difference between saving one life over another (and I'm not talking about emergency care, but for some kind of condition that will, without treatment, ultimately kill you), then that's a moral problem because it puts a price on human life.
Money only makes a difference when you are trying to purchase something valued by another entity. No one is purchasing lives, they are purchasing services.

Kalkin
09-18-2017, 05:58 PM
I disagree.

Hitler and Gandhi. Equal?

Charles Manson and a newborn child?

Mother Theresa and Donald Trump?

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 06:43 PM
First of all no one goes untreated that has a condition, you get medicaid its always been that way.

Nothing in this country has ever been equitable. Thats why theyve always had didnt health care plans at different levels at different prices.

The rich bought BCBS Gold Medallion the best of the best, or they paid x amount a year to have a dr at their beck and call and pay cash for any hospitals procedures or tests.
Rich Canadians come to fla for healthcare.

This ideal of tossing everyone in the same health care pot and lowering the quality for everyone for a few is crap. Figure out a way to give them health care without destroying it for everyone else. Obama did a job on medicare recipients with obamacare as it is.

Give everyone medicare and who pays for it, so the left wants to destroy my quality of health care and make me pay through the nose for it on top of that.

My biggest problem with single payer is that I KNOW it will destroy the quality of health care. Just look at the VA thats been singlepayer forever.

Lots of people, unfortunately, go untreated. Either they can't afford the medical bills or they can't afford the drugs. There are many people who can't really afford insurance, nor are they eligible for medicare or medicaid. That's really what Obamacare was trying to address, however unsuccessfully. UHC would make it possible for those people to have coverage and there is nothing to stop insurers from offering supplemental coverage to provide the extras that UHC wouldn't provide. I'm not sure that a federal model is the way to go. States are far more in touch with their electorate and far more accountable to them.

TBH, I think that UHC is inevitable because the cost of medicine in general is rising exponentially because it has become big business. That means that no matter how much competition there is in the market, the price of premiums are going to keep increasing and there are far fewer health providers than ever before. Like all other insurers they have been merging in record numbers. The result is that they compete, but they also collude on pricing. They have shareholders to satisfy. That also means without regulation (force as some would describe it), they will only want to insure healthy people or charge premiums that are so high that the average person with any health condition would be unable to afford them.

I suspect that they will eventually start DNA testing for genetic predispositions for heart disease, cancer and MS and other expensive health issues. That would be, in terms of insurance, proper risk assessment. Many people would end up in the substandard risk category and as a result, have to pay a much higher premium to get coverage or end up with specific exclusions for their genetic predispositions. Basically death panels in advance. Without some kind of intervention, as much as half the population will end up uninsured in the not too distant future. Young people will be the first to stop buying health insurance because they figure that they are healthy and won't want to choose between insurance, eating and having a roof over their heads. Next will be the lower middle class, because they won't qualify for Medicare or Medicade - on paper they make too much money. People with kids and bills to pay. Eventually, only the upper middle class and the wealthy will have coverage.

I know that some will say, so what? If you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail. We are not used to seeing kids with club feet, spinal deformations, cleft pallets or obvious deformations anymore. You will see that again, along with bad teeth, epidemics of measles, mumps, chicken pox, rheumatic fever, scabies, whooping cough.... all the things that preventative medicine prevents.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 07:00 PM
I guarantee you each of us values our own life far above anyone else's. If it comes down to me or you, Who, it will be me. Disagree all you want.

I know. I am also entitled to be right. :-)

Or do you plan to work extra so I can have healthcare insurance at no cost to me?
You forget that I believe that UHC will allow the purchasers of medical equipment, pharmaceuticals and even medical services to dictate how much they will pay. As it stands, the sellers of those services name their price and the buyers have to capitulate because there is no economy of scale or any real competition. Healthcare is a bizarre insurance product. It's not property nor is it based in liability. It's about health and human life.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 07:02 PM
Hitler and Gandhi. Equal?

Charles Manson and a newborn child?

Mother Theresa and Donald Trump?

I'll just say one thing. You can't execute a sick person. That should tell you something.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 07:08 PM
You forget that I believe that UHC will allow the purchasers of medical equipment, pharmaceuticals and even medical services to dictate how much they will pay. As it stands, the sellers of those services name their price and the buyers have to capitulate because there is no economy of scale or any real competition. Healthcare is a bizarre insurance product. It's not property nor is it based in liability. It's about health and human life.
All these things indicate we need way less government. Not more.

People sell services. Other people buy health care. But if they really cared would they do the things they do?

Mister D
09-18-2017, 07:11 PM
Are progressives imposing their morality on others again? Shocking.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 07:15 PM
All these things indicate we need way less government. Not more.

People sell services. Other people buy health care. But if they really cared would they do the things they do?

Sure if you got government out of the way, pharmaceutical prices would come down, but none of the rest of it. Insurance companies are owned by multinational companies as are the providers of medical equipment and supplies and even the owners of hospitals. If they buy up all of the competition surreptitiously, you are left with little competition and they collude to keep prices up.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 07:29 PM
Sure if you got government out of the way, pharmaceutical prices would come down, but none of the rest of it. Insurance companies are owned by multinational companies as are the providers of medical equipment and supplies and even the owners of hospitals. If they buy up all of the competition surreptitiously, you are left with little competition and they collude to keep prices up.
Your arguments are simply stupid.

Competition and market forces work EVERY DAMNED TIME THEY ARE TRIED.

God, I hate you Marxists!

Chris
09-18-2017, 07:35 PM
Medical monopolies exist for one and only one reason, the government supports and protects them.

It is ever so ironic that some fear what should befall us without the government has happened with it.

nic34
09-18-2017, 07:43 PM
(From an idea formed by a post by Dr. Who)


Should health care be tied to ability to pay?

Just don't get sick, if you do, have the consideration for others to die quickly

Chris
09-18-2017, 07:46 PM
Just don't get sick, if you do, have the consideration for others to die quickly

Or think smart and purchase insurance for what might come later.

A matter of low time preference.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 08:11 PM
Your arguments are simply stupid.

Competition and market forces work EVERY DAMNED TIME THEY ARE TRIED.

God, I hate you Marxists!

Times have changed MV. Competition is not what it used to be. Shareholder return on investment has changed it forever. The manufacturing of only some products can be off-shored to third world countries. That doesn't include most medical products or pharmaceuticals. BEFORE the ACA, the news was full of stories about people receiving substandard treatment or death panels because of HMO's and all the rest. The prices haven't come down in the last eight years. In fact, they have gone up even more because of low interest rates and reduced investment income. Heck, the cost of college and tuition fees have increased 1,120 percent (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/cost-of-college-degree-increase-12-fold-1120-percent-bloomberg_n_1783700.html) in the last 30 years and 15% just between 2008 and 2010. A medical degree now costs a whopping $820,000. (http://www.bestmedicaldegrees.com/is-medical-school-worth-it-financially/) Even at current rates of remuneration, getting a medical degree doesn't even make any economic sense anymore. This economic paradigm of yours is not working. It's going to collapse under its own bloated greed.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 08:17 PM
Medical monopolies exist for one and only one reason, the government supports and protects them.

It is ever so ironic that some fear what should befall us without the government has happened with it.

It's not just government, it's the enormous multinationals that are driving up medical costs everywhere. They just have more latitude in the US.

Chris
09-18-2017, 08:23 PM
It's not just government, it's the enormous multinationals that are driving up medical costs everywhere. They just have more latitude in the US.

And your evidence for that is what? Evidence multinationals operate without government support and protection and are raising prices, which would have to be in collusion with each other, and maintain that collusion, despite being in competition for market share. Good luck.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 08:34 PM
And your evidence for that is what? Evidence multinationals operate without government support and protection and are raising prices, which would have to be in collusion with each other, and maintain that collusion, despite being in competition for market share. Good luck.
The mistake is believing that just because there is competition that there is no collusion in pricing. When competition is reduced to a few players, they can agree to minimum level pricing and really just compete on new tech or better services.

Chris
09-18-2017, 08:41 PM
The mistake is believing that just because there is competition that there is no collusion in pricing. When competition is reduced to a few players, they can agree to minimum level pricing and really just compete on new tech or better services.

The mistake is imagining reality without any empirical evidence,

I know from reading about the misapplication of anti-monopoly cases in the US, that often companies were taken to court for such collusion, fixing prices, and such, and that what the courts found was that in each case, immediately after meetings of collusion, companies would go out and break their agreements.

It just doesn't make sense that I would agree not to compete with others when profit depends so much on market share.

So, your evidence again is what? Nothing?

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 08:55 PM
The mistake is imagining reality without any empirical evidence,

I know from reading about the misapplication of anti-monopoly cases in the US, that often companies were taken to court for such collusion, fixing prices, and such, and that what the courts found was that in each case, immediately after meetings of collusion, companies would go out and break their agreements.

It just doesn't make sense that I would agree not to compete with others when profit depends so much on market share.

So, your evidence again is what? Nothing?
Basically, in order to satisfy shareholder return on investment, multinationals have to maintain a certain profit margin. That doesn't allow for the kind of competitive pricing that was once a fixture of the first world. They collude because if even one competitor starts undercutting prices they will all start losing profits. The CEOs of these companies sit on each other's boards of directors for heaven's sake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate

Chris
09-18-2017, 09:01 PM
Basically, in order to satisfy shareholder return on investment, multinationals have to maintain a certain profit margin. That doesn't allow for the kind of competitive pricing that was once a fixture of the first world. They collude because if even one competitor starts undercutting prices they will all start losing profits. The CEOs of these companies sit on each other's boards of directors for heaven's sake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate

You've provided evidence of how a multinational corporation controls itself, not how this is managed among many different multinationals.

And your logic makes no sense. I mean, it is the very return on investment, the need for profit, that drives multinationals to compete with one another, not not compete.

Evidence that multinational A colludes with multinational B and C and D and E? That was your claim.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 09:16 PM
You've provided evidence of how a multinational corporation controls itself, not how this is managed among many different multinationals.

And your logic makes no sense. I mean, it is the very return on investment, the need for profit, that drives multinationals to compete with one another, not not compete.

Evidence that multinational A colludes with multinational B and C and D and E? That was your claim.

I provided a link for the explanation, however let me paste it here for you:

According to some observers (John Asimakopoulos), interlocks allow for cohesion, coordinated action, and unified political-economic power of corporate executives.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-John_Asimakopoulos_2009-3) They allow corporations to increase their influence by exerting power as a group, and to work together towards common goals.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-salinger-437-4) They help corporate executives maintain an advantage, and gain more power over workers and consumers, by reducing intra-class competition and increasing cooperation.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-salinger-438-2)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-5) In the words of Scott R. Bowman, interlocks "facilitate a community of interest among the elite of the corporate world that supplants the competitive and socially divisive ethos of an earlier stage of capitalism with an ethic of cooperation and a sense of shared values and goals."[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-bowman-1996-21-6)


Interlocks act as communication channels, enabling information to be shared between boards via multiple directors who have access to inside information for multiple companies.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-scott-1997-7-1) The system of interlocks forms what Michael Useem calls a "transcorporate network, overarching all sectors of business".[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-7) Interlocks have benefits over trusts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(monopoly)), cartels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartels), and other monopolistic/oligopolistic forms of organization, due to their greater fluidity, and lower visibility (making them less open to public scrutiny).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-salinger-437-4) They also benefit the involved companies, due to reduced competition, increased information availability for directors, and increased prestige

As I said, they compete, but not over price. They compete for market share based on advertising, new development and service, not by undercutting pricing. The only actors that do that are new players in the market and they often get squeezed out or are bought up in short order.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 09:23 PM
Times have changed MV. Competition is not what it used to be. Shareholder return on investment has changed it forever. The manufacturing of only some products can be off-shored to third world countries. That doesn't include most medical products or pharmaceuticals. BEFORE the ACA, the news was full of stories about people receiving substandard treatment or death panels because of HMO's and all the rest. The prices haven't come down in the last eight years. In fact, they have gone up even more because of low interest rates and reduced investment income. Heck, the cost of college and tuition fees have increased 1,120 percent (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/cost-of-college-degree-increase-12-fold-1120-percent-bloomberg_n_1783700.html) in the last 30 years and 15% just between 2008 and 2010. A medical degree now costs a whopping $820,000. (http://www.bestmedicaldegrees.com/is-medical-school-worth-it-financially/) Even at current rates of remuneration, getting a medical degree doesn't even make any economic sense anymore. This economic paradigm of yours is not working. It's going to collapse under its own bloated greed.
You say what all Marxists say.

Governments have caused these problems. And you foolishly believe more government is the solution.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 09:25 PM
It's not just government, it's the enormous multinationals that are driving up medical costs everywhere. They just have more latitude in the US.
All problems are made greater through government interference.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 09:28 PM
The mistake is believing that just because there is competition that there is no collusion in pricing. When competition is reduced to a few players, they can agree to minimum level pricing and really just compete on new tech or better services.

Government meddling reduces competition.It doesn't have to be this way. We need a wall of separation between the government and the private sector.

Chris
09-18-2017, 09:44 PM
I provided a link for the explanation, however let me paste it here for you:

According to some observers (John Asimakopoulos), interlocks allow for cohesion, coordinated action, and unified political-economic power of corporate executives.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-John_Asimakopoulos_2009-3) They allow corporations to increase their influence by exerting power as a group, and to work together towards common goals.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-salinger-437-4) They help corporate executives maintain an advantage, and gain more power over workers and consumers, by reducing intra-class competition and increasing cooperation.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-salinger-438-2)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-5) In the words of Scott R. Bowman, interlocks "facilitate a community of interest among the elite of the corporate world that supplants the competitive and socially divisive ethos of an earlier stage of capitalism with an ethic of cooperation and a sense of shared values and goals."[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-bowman-1996-21-6)


Interlocks act as communication channels, enabling information to be shared between boards via multiple directors who have access to inside information for multiple companies.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-scott-1997-7-1) The system of interlocks forms what Michael Useem calls a "transcorporate network, overarching all sectors of business".[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-7) Interlocks have benefits over trusts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(monopoly)), cartels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartels), and other monopolistic/oligopolistic forms of organization, due to their greater fluidity, and lower visibility (making them less open to public scrutiny).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate#cite_note-salinger-437-4) They also benefit the involved companies, due to reduced competition, increased information availability for directors, and increased prestige

As I said, they compete, but not over price. They compete for market share based on advertising, new development and service, not by undercutting pricing. The only actors that do that are new players in the market and they often get squeezed out or are bought up in short order.

I read it already.

It describes, as I already said, how an international operates, not multiple internationals. Try responding to what I posted rather than merely repeating.

It's also all theoretical.

Interlocks are illegal.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 09:44 PM
You say what all Marxists say.

Governments have caused these problems. And you foolishly believe more government is the solution.
Hey, they all go to those Ivy League schools together and scratch each other's backs forevermore. Those ties and obligations happen well before they reach government. As long as the biggest qualification for office is the ability to raise money, nothing is going to change. That's not a Marxist observation, it's a realist's observation. TBH, I'm OK under the current system from an economic point of view. I would be unlikely to be better off under a socialist system, however, the current system is unsustainable as it currently stands. The handwriting is on the wall. The term 'failure to launch' exists because kids are not moving out like they used to and that's because they cannot get the kind of employment that would pay for independence. Employment numbers are illusory. They don't compare the relative income from one era to another. Service industry jobs pay a pittance, so kids are not moving out. The slightly previous generation is in debt up to their eyeballs if not bankrupt. It's not sustainable, any more than a health care system controlled by multinational corporations who don't give a rat's behind if half the country is uninsured, as long as they are getting sufficient premiums or selling pharmaceuticals or medical equipment and supplies to turn a profit.

MisterVeritis
09-18-2017, 09:47 PM
Hey, they all go to those Ivy League schools together and scratch each other's backs forevermore. Those ties and obligations happen well before they reach government. As long as the biggest qualification for office is the ability to raise money, nothing is going to change. That's not a Marxist observation, it's a realist's observation. TBH, I'm OK under the current system from an economic point of view. I would be unlikely to be better off under a socialist system, however, the current system is unsustainable as it currently stands. The handwriting is on the wall. The term 'failure to launch' exists because kids are not moving out like they used to and that's because they cannot get the kind of employment that would pay for independence. Employment numbers are illusory. They don't compare the relative income from one era to another. Service industry jobs pay a pittance, so kids are not moving out. The slightly previous generation is in debt up to their eyeballs if not bankrupt. It's not sustainable, any more than a health care system controlled by multinational corporations who don't give a rat's behind if half the country is uninsured, as long as they are getting sufficient premiums to turn a profit.
Governments caused this problem. We do not need doctors to solve every problem.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 10:03 PM
I read it already.

It describes, as I already said, how an international operates, not multiple internationals. Try responding to what I posted rather than merely repeating.

It's also all theoretical.

Interlocks are illegal.
First of all, they do involve multiple internationals (https://hbr.org/2016/04/how-corporate-boards-connect-in-charts). Secondly, although illegal in the US, they are multinationals, so they don't have to be headquartered in the US. That is how they are dodging the laws. There is a reason why a fair number of multinationals located their legal headquarters in Switzerland - very lax laws regarding monopolies and cartels. They'd locate their headquarters on the moon if it would avoid those laws regarding monopolies. They could certainly move them to a PO box in Somalia if necessary. If you don't believe it. Fine. However, don't accuse me of not responding to what you posted.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2017, 11:07 PM
This is the dumbest thing you have written. Congratulations.

Yet infinitely more brilliant than your claim that I'm a Marxist.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2017, 11:12 PM
Every one of them sells services for profit or they go out of business. Even the so-called non-profit hospitals.
...

I have to assume you are unfamiliar with the concept of nonprofit. Your statement is like saying people who are antiabortion need abortion in order to function.

Chris
09-19-2017, 08:11 AM
First of all, they do involve multiple internationals (https://hbr.org/2016/04/how-corporate-boards-connect-in-charts). Secondly, although illegal in the US, they are multinationals, so they don't have to be headquartered in the US. That is how they are dodging the laws. There is a reason why a fair number of multinationals located their legal headquarters in Switzerland - very lax laws regarding monopolies and cartels. They'd locate their headquarters on the moon if it would avoid those laws regarding monopolies. They could certainly move them to a PO box in Somalia if necessary. If you don't believe it. Fine. However, don't accuse me of not responding to what you posted.


They share board members. That's a far cry from colluding to fix prices. Still waiting....


If you read up on the history of monopoly you will find the government prosecuting for things like this, consistently failing to find evidence of it, but finding instead that such collusion is possible, it could be done, therefore you break up such companies, you fine them and penalize them, all for what they might do.

Chris
09-19-2017, 08:24 AM
From Dr Who's above link to How Corporate Boards Connect, in Charts (https://hbr.org/2016/04/how-corporate-boards-connect-in-charts) -- and note the true title is about boards, not companies.


The number of influential super connectors, too, has fallen precipitously: Just five board members were super connectors in 2013, accounting for 12% of all links (compared to the 23 people who accounted for 31% of links in 1976). Demands of the position and increased regulation mean executives don’t like to or can’t sit on as many boards as they used to.

Some people have argued that consensus among the global business elite during the 2008 crisis helped keep the world financial system intact, much the way the dense network of regional links staved off an earlier economic and energy crisis in 1976. But because today’s board network is less interconnected in structure, companies have a harder time working together to reach consensus about the proper response to a crisis.

There’s no question that the network of interlocking board members is becoming thinner, less centralized, and less oligarchic in structure. Some research suggests that fragmented networks will be ill-equipped to respond to major shifts and economic breakdowns. (This argument is best developed in Mark Mizruchi’s book The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite.) Rather than concluding that the system of interlocking boards worked following the 2008 financial crisis, we acknowledge that the dissipating, less linked governance structure survived. But for how long will it continue to do so?

IOW, it's a thing of the past, and when someone argues its benefits, oh, no, it's far to weak at effectively "working together to reach consensus."


Good lord, people, read what you post in defense or it will turn hostile witness.

MisterVeritis
09-19-2017, 10:29 AM
Yet infinitely more brilliant than your claim that I'm a Marxist.
The fault is yours. If you don't like being identified as a Marxist perhaps you should tone down your Marxist statements. When you accept that some people should be forced to pay for others because someone (you?) decided they can bear the burden you are a Marxist.

Once you accept the cornerstone belief can Venezuela-like results be far behind?

MisterVeritis
09-19-2017, 10:32 AM
...
I have to assume you are unfamiliar with the concept of nonprofit. Your statement is like saying people who are antiabortion need abortion in order to function.
Try a mental test. How do so-called non-profits stay in business? They charge well above cost for the goods and services they provide. They profit. Non-profit status is more about tax laws and what they do with their profits. If you wanted to see an end to non-profits then tax every hospital exactly the same way.

Hospitals are not the only places where one can buy a health-related good or service.

Hal Jordan
09-19-2017, 11:02 AM
The fault is yours. If you don't like being identified as a Marxist perhaps you should tone down your Marxist statements. When you accept that some people should be forced to pay for others because someone (you?) decided they can bear the burden you are a Marxist.

Once you accept the cornerstone belief can Venezuela-like results be far behind?

I never made a Marxist statement. I never said anyone should pay because they should bear the burden. Since you are continually lying here after the falseness of your statement has been pointed out multiple times, I'm done here.

MisterVeritis
09-19-2017, 11:42 AM
I never made a Marxist statement. I never said anyone should pay because they should bear the burden. Since you are continually lying here after the falseness of your statement has been pointed out multiple times, I'm done here.
Post 15: "Hospitals make more than enough to absorb the cost in emergency situations." And ... "those who can't pay can still easily be taken care of."

From each...to each, Hal?

Post 19: "It makes sense, but saving lives is more under the purview of hospitals, who can afford the burden."
From each...to each, Hal?

Post 46: "Did I say it was under their purview because they can afford the burden or that it was under their purview and they can afford the burden?"

This is a distinction without a difference. Some must labor while others benefit. Do you prefer slavery to Marxism? Really, aren't they the same thing at a fundamental level?

How would an admitted Marxist state the things you said? It seems an admitted Marxist would say the same things you said. If you believe you are not a Marxist maybe you should reconsider your statements.

Kalkin
09-19-2017, 01:45 PM
I'll just say one thing. You can't execute a sick person. That should tell you something.

It tells me you don't want to address my post. Funny that a person can execute a perfectly healthy human fetus, though.

Chris
09-19-2017, 01:47 PM
Hal's not in the least Marxist no matter how much you "admit" it, MV.


It's one thing in criticizing opinions and ideas to reference Marx as a shortcut to his popular ideas on oppression and labor and such, it saves tomes of words. It's another to try an make out another as a Marxist as the sole point.

Kalkin
09-19-2017, 01:53 PM
Try a mental test. How do so-called non-profits stay in business? They charge well above cost for the goods and services they provide. They profit. Non-profit status is more about tax laws and what they do with their profits. If you wanted to see an end to non-profits then tax every hospital exactly the same way.

Hospitals are not the only places where one can buy a health-related good or service.

Just look at the top salaries at these "non-profit" organizations to see where the actual profits are hidden.

Kalkin
09-19-2017, 01:54 PM
Post 15: "Hospitals make more than enough to absorb the cost in emergency situations." And ... "those who can't pay can still easily be taken care of."

From each...to each, Hal?

Post 19: "It makes sense, but saving lives is more under the purview of hospitals, who can afford the burden."
From each...to each, Hal?

Post 46: "Did I say it was under their purview because they can afford the burden or that it was under their purview and they can afford the burden?"

This is a distinction without a difference. Some must labor while others benefit. Do you prefer slavery to Marxism? Really, aren't they the same thing at a fundamental level?

How would an admitted Marxist state the things you said? It seems an admitted Marxist would say the same things you said. If you believe you are not a Marxist maybe you should reconsider your statements.

It's sad that these people spout marxist dogma yet aren't educated enough to realize it.

Kalkin
09-19-2017, 01:56 PM
Hal's not in the least Marxist no matter how much you "admit" it, MV.


It's one thing in criticizing opinions and ideas to reference Marx as a shortcut to his popular ideas on oppression and labor and such, it saves tomes of words. It's another to try an make out another as a Marxist as the sole point.

My litmus test for a marxist is whether or not one believes those with means should be forced to subsidize those with needs.

Chris
09-19-2017, 02:08 PM
My litmus test for a marxist is whether or not one believes those with means should be forced to subsidize those with needs.

I don't think that's specifically Marxist, not as an idea he espoused. Communism took away all property, wealth, etc and put it in the hands of the people, well, first the state, who never gave up the power--so that doesn't exactly fit. And it's too general because everyone from Adam Smith to Friedrich Hayek to Charles Murray has advocated some sort of basic welfare in modern society.

MisterVeritis
09-19-2017, 02:21 PM
Hal's not in the least Marxist no matter how much you "admit" it, MV.
It's one thing in criticizing opinions and ideas to reference Marx as a shortcut to his popular ideas on oppression and labor and such, it saves tomes of words. It's another to try an make out another as a Marxist as the sole point.
Chris, if Hal was a Marxist how would he have worded his nonsense statements differently?

I am not making Hal out to be a Marxist. His own statements reveal the sickness in his heart.

MisterVeritis
09-19-2017, 02:22 PM
Just look at the top salaries at these "non-profit" organizations to see where the actual profits are hidden.
I had a friend who started a do-gooder non-profit organization. His goal was to become very well off. The non-profit status of his organization brought in the gullible from far and wide. My friend became very well off.

MisterVeritis
09-19-2017, 02:25 PM
I don't think that's specifically Marxist, not as an idea he espoused. Communism took away all property, wealth, etc and put it in the hands of the people, well, first the state, who never gave up the power--so that doesn't exactly fit. And it's too general because everyone from Adam Smith to Friedrich Hayek to Charles Murray has advocated some sort of basic welfare in modern society.
Right. If you prefer tyranny or statism instead of Marxism to explain away the desire of some to take wealth from others to buy votes how is it any different? It is, at its core, slavery.

Kalkin
09-19-2017, 02:25 PM
I don't think that's specifically Marxist, not as an idea he espoused. Communism took away all property, wealth, etc and put it in the hands of the people, well, first the state, who never gave up the power--so that doesn't exactly fit. And it's too general because everyone from Adam Smith to Friedrich Hayek to Charles Murray has advocated some sort of basic welfare in modern society.
If one's default solution to nearly every problem is to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots, I consider them marxists, whether they realize it or not. At it's core, marxism/communism/socialism is all about redistribution from those with means to those with needs. Is there a place in society for marxist-style safety nets? IMO, yes, but to a very small degree and only temporary in nature (preferably with a tab to be paid back by those who use them).

Chris
09-19-2017, 02:26 PM
If one's default solution to nearly every problem is to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots, I consider them marxists, whether they realize it or not. At it's core, marxism/communism/socialism is all about redistribution from those with means to those with needs. Is there a place in society for marxist-style safety nets? IMO, yes, but to a very small degree and only temporary in nature (preferably with a tab to be paid back by those who use them).

I think that too general and fits many thinkers and doesn't fit Hal.

Kalkin
09-19-2017, 02:31 PM
I think that too general and fits many thinkers and doesn't fit Hal.

Fair enough. I haven't read enough of Hal's posts to form an informed opinion. If he's a constant proponent of government-enforced redistribution, I will consider him as marxist as the rest of the modern left, though.

MisterVeritis
09-19-2017, 02:34 PM
I think that too general and fits many thinkers and doesn't fit Hal.
Has Hal backed away from his Marxist statements? No. he simply claims that his Marxist statements are not Marxist. As do you. Do the two of you support slavery, then? Must one toil so another may benefit?

Chris
09-19-2017, 02:53 PM
Has Hal backed away from his Marxist statements? No. he simply claims that his Marxist statements are not Marxist. As do you. Do the two of you support slavery, then? Must one toil so another may benefit?

He hasn't made any to back away from.

Hal Jordan
09-19-2017, 02:57 PM
My litmus test for a marxist is whether or not one believes those with means should be forced to subsidize those with needs.

For the record, I have not been talking about forcing anything. I want the government power reduced greatly, as a matter of fact.

MisterVeritis
09-19-2017, 03:07 PM
He hasn't made any to back away from.
I do not share your opinion. See message 150.

Hal Jordan
09-19-2017, 03:08 PM
Fair enough. I haven't read enough of Hal's posts to form an informed opinion. If he's a constant proponent of government-enforced redistribution, I will consider him as marxist as the rest of the modern left, though.

Quite the contrary. It's another way the government seizes power and control.

Here, I've been talking about a system which is, for the most part, a charity that has the purpose of saving lives. By my pointing out that it's a charity that typically has a lot of funds, someone decided that made me Marxist.

MisterVeritis
09-19-2017, 03:10 PM
Quite the contrary. It's another way the government seizes power and control.
Here, I've been talking about a system which is, for the most part, a charity that has the purpose of saving lives. By my pointing out that it's a charity that typically has a lot of funds, someone decided that made me Marxist.
You are dodging. See message 150.

Don't lie. It makes it worse.

Hal Jordan
09-19-2017, 03:26 PM
You are dodging. See message 150.

Don't lie. It makes it worse.

I said I was done because of your constant lying about what I have been saying.
You want to argue your deliberate misrepresentations? Do it with someone else.

Kalkin
09-19-2017, 03:28 PM
The relevant questions:
1. If a person requires medical treatment, should they receive it without paying or being billed?
2. If said person has no money or dodges said bill, who should cover it?
3. Should a business (hospital) be required to give away its product without being reimbursed (EMTALA)?
4. Should people who have health insurance be required to pay higher rates and get unneeded coverage so those who don't have insurance can be subsidized to one degree or another?
5. Are adults responsible for their own healthcare costs?

Dr. Who
09-19-2017, 04:24 PM
They share board members. That's a far cry from colluding to fix prices. Still waiting....


If you read up on the history of monopoly you will find the government prosecuting for things like this, consistently failing to find evidence of it, but finding instead that such collusion is possible, it could be done, therefore you break up such companies, you fine them and penalize them, all for what they might do.
You cannot break up a company not headquartered in your country. They are effectively a foreign business.

Chris
09-19-2017, 04:26 PM
You cannot break up a company not headquartered in your country. They are effectively a foreign business.

There must be some point you can win an argument about, Who, but you're forgetting the forest for the trees.

MisterVeritis
09-19-2017, 04:27 PM
I said I was done because of your constant lying about what I have been saying.
You want to argue your deliberate misrepresentations? Do it with someone else.
If those were not your words who posted them in your name?

See message 150.

Kalkin
09-19-2017, 06:47 PM
The relevant questions:
1. If a person requires medical treatment, should they receive it without paying or being billed?
2. If said person has no money or dodges said bill, who should cover it?
3. Should a business (hospital) be required to give away its product without being reimbursed (EMTALA)?
4. Should people who have health insurance be required to pay higher rates and get unneeded coverage so those who don't have insurance can be subsidized to one degree or another?
5. Are adults responsible for their own healthcare costs?

Why do lefties always avoid these logical questions?

Perianne
09-19-2017, 07:01 PM
Why do lefties always avoid these logical questions? Kalkin, you and I would be great friends in real life.

Kalkin
09-19-2017, 07:11 PM
@Kalkin (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=683), you and I would be great friends in real life.
I concur.