Libertarianism - Page 8

Yup, things are awesome*. How about you?











*Until I read today about the 700,000 annual bankruptcies related to medical debt that Americans undergo. Now I feel sad.

I'm well. Thanks for asking.

I agree that it is sad when people file for bankruptcy.

Whoosh goes the point over the head.

It's not nearly as sad that people file for bankruptcy as it is that we have a system that forces people into bankruptcy. A system that conservatives either don't think needs fixing ("The best Medical System in the World!") or needs fixing by forcing poor people to spend more money to reduce the costs for rich people... that's what's sad.

And I repeat. The US is the only modern nation that doesn't have a proper health care system provided by the State.

How many medical related bankruptcies were there in the UK last year? Canada? Australia? It's so sad that you think the US has a better system than those countries do. Really sad.

Sometimes in life people have no choice but do this.

What about Obama Care?What is the reason the U.S. does not a good health care system in your opinion?

Obama Care forces everything to go through the insurance companies, complete with guarantees of profitability for the insurance companies. It's idiotic.

We need single payer. We need a public option that omits the middle man.

Obama's solution is no better than Romney's solution (in fact it's pretty much the same thing except being a Federal instead of a State system), which is not much better than the status quo. Insurance costs will go up, most poor people will still be screwed, and people will still go bankrupt.

There's nothing wrong with the quality of medical care in the US, as long as you're treated by someone not tied to HMOs and profitability. American trained doctors are the best trained and the brightest in the world. But where the US is great in quality, it's disastrous in terms of affordability. This is what makes it worse than other systems -- systems that are equally available to everyone.

If you need an operation, you can buy a round trip ticket to Hong Kong and get treated by excellent doctors, receive the best treatments and medicines, stay in private hospitals with the best facilities, and still end up paying half as much (including the airfare) as you would being treated in your home town in the US if you're not fortunate enough to have a great job that offers full insurance.

More like I simply didn't take the bait.



Well, given that BR simply threw out an estimated number from an article that provided no backing for said number, I'd say there's no real point in discussing it. To paraphrase another person...when someone throws out a number like that should ask some questions like:

- How did you arrive at that number?
- In what way were all of these alleged (actually estimated) bankruptcies attributable to medical expenses given that money is a fungible resource?
- Were there other factors contributing to these (estimated) bankruptcies?

And there are probably more.



Well I've never said it doesn't need fixing. Of course it needs fixing (though it does have many good qualities that folks on the left seem to ignore). I just don't believe or expect your proposed "solutions" to fix it.



So what? This is an irrelevant argument as to whether it should. This is the equivalent of junior high school kids telling there parents "But all the other kids are doing it!" :roll eyes:



I have no idea.



I've told you before that our conversations will go better when you stop telling me what I think or believe.

I do believe the healthcare market in the US is broken though not completely and not for the reasons you think. I believe there are some solid ways to fix it but these approaches are unlikely to ever be considered. I believe I've outlined them (multiple times) before here.

Most involve getting the government to stop distorting the market.

A few simple things right off the bat:

- Equalize the tax treatment of health insurance premiums bought outside of an employer vs. through an employer.
- Invoke the interstate commerce clause to allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines.
- Eliminate all coverage mandates and premium price controls on medical insurance.
- Find some way to eliminate or privatize medicare/medicaid.

These are a start. You probably need to work on the supply side as well:

- Do some things to reduce the cost of getting medical products and services approved and available. Probably reduced and streamlined approvals.
- Do some things to help increase the supply of healthcare providers by getting out of the way and relaxing or eliminating licensing requirements.

Finally, the federal government can stop doing things that indirectly lead to a number of health problems across the population:

- Stop subsidizing corn crops would be a big one.

Well, as MJ1970 said, now you are are the one wanting perfection/guarantees that just doesn't exist in the human sphere. I could just as easily say of your system, "How do you guarantee the polluter next door won't lobby politicians for exemption from regulation?" and you will also get nothing.

Neither of us is arguing for no government in this situation, we are arguing over which branch of government should handle it. Neither branch is perfect but I think the judicial system strives for/takes pride in evenhandedness and objectivity more than the legislative, and you are more likely to get a fair hearing from them.

Never said it was perfect. I only contend that my imperfect solution is better than yours.

Double post

Please explain how the poor get treatment under your system, assuming that not everyone, and not every type of treatment for every type of ailment is going to be covered by voluntary charity.

It is quite pathetic that a rich country like the U.S. can't provide everyone with health insurance with out all the gimmicks involved.I did not know Hong Kong is like that with health insurance.

Why don't you ask him what Hong Kong is like about immigration?

I agree...forcing people to buy insurance=bad.


Disagree. Our government is the worst of all middle men.


It's much worse than Romney's plan. First, it's unconstitutional. The distinction between federal and state is huge under the law. Secondly, it's far more bloated than Romney's plan. The only real area where they are similar is the individual mandate.


The problem is that you think government-provided healthcare is a right. It's not...at least not in our system.


Fortunate enough? That pretty much sums up your view. It's all about luck to you. I'm LUCKY to have a job with great benefits. Never mind that great benefits and less pay is part of the choice I made when deciding my profession. Never mind that people have upward mobility in this country. And why should habitual, seasonally unemployed Joe Blow get the same healthcare I have?

Hong Kong has universal health care, and it also has a vibrant and affordable private health care industry, as well as an affordable and profitable insurance industry. What's not to like?

Uh, the fact that healthcare is not a right? How about that?

Yeah, fuck those people who just want to live and not go bankrupt. Selfish assholes.

Few* of questions:

1. Who or what are "the poor" in the scenario you describe?
2. How many are there?
3. Do you assume these poor would not have insurance of any kind?
4. What ailments are included in your scenario of "every type of ailment"?
5. Why should we assume what you ask to assume?

*BR correctly pointed out that it was not just "a couple" of questions. That distraction taken care of, I hope the discussion can continue along relevant lines.

If you can't respond seriously, then don't. I'm asking why everyone is entitled to the same healthcare I pay for. Do you believe it's a right? And if so, why do I have to pay for it while others do not?

A couple? Wow. This is quite typical of you. You ask so many questions and steer the conversation further and further away from the initial point, never getting back to answering the initial question yourself. How about you, for once, directly address the question while listing the reasonable assumptions you make.

"I believe that the poor (the X number of people who make under Y) will get treatment because..."

Hi BR! How are you doing? I'm sorry that I mis-stated when I said "a couple". I should have said a few. I'm sorry that you feel these questions are irrelevant to the question tonton asked. Feel free to ignore them.

So... if it's fiscally possible to provide healthcare universally, regardless of whether it's "a right" or not, you would choose not to? On principle? Because you're richer, so you damn well deserve better than those poor bastards?

Take your argument to the logical conclusion. Are you saying people who cannot afford to pay what you do should not receive medical treatment? You would have people die from lack of treatment because you're angry you have to pay and they don't?

Or just fill in a few reasonable assumptions yourself, acknowledge them, and just answer the question. That would really streamline the whole process and show you actually care about having a conversation.

I'm not the one proposing the scenario and making the assumptions. Nor do I have any reason to believe, at this point, that these are valid assumptions. The burden is on the proposer to state and justify these assumptions.

What is your healthcare plan then so that we are not assuming that we know what it does and doesn't cover? Please fill us in so we stop making these assumptions. We are clearly asserting that poor people will not get treatment because we cannot understand how your plan works. Please tell us how it works--that's really the root of the issue.

People who can't afford private care or insurance.

Enough to make it a problem that needs to be taken care of.

Yes. They're poor. There are unemployed. There are homeless. There are people who work at Walmart as part time employees who have zero or near zero coverage.

Um... every type of ailment, maybe?

Why should I assume you're incapable of acknowledging that there are people that are too poor to afford insurance of any kind? Why should I assume that you're incapable of acknowledging that there are illnesses and other medical problems that aren't "popular" with the general public? Why should I assume you're so lacking in empathy that you don't think that these people need to be covered? I don't assume any of those things, and you do seem intelligent, so I do assume that you know what I'm talking about. Should I?

My healthcare plan would be to allow the market, unobstructed by government distortions, to provide health care products, services and insurance.

I believe this would result in many more higher quality products, services, service providers, insurance options at lower prices.

When there are people who are unable those who are unable to afford the necessary even though less expensive products and services (and who are not benefiting from generosity of pro bono services) I expect those who care about these folks like you, me, tonton, et al. to respond with generosity when required to help the few people who would encounter this situation.

If you're not really going to put any effort into constructing your scenario, then I'm not going to put much effort into answering it.




So you assume that health care insurance would remain un-affordable for everyone?



So every sniffle, cough and scratch? Everything? There's nothing that's not to be covered? For free?



You shouldn't because I'm not. I'm asking you to support justify the assumption you're asking me to make.



You shouldn't because I'm not. But now you seem to be changing the scenario. This is one of the reasons clarification of your hypothetical situation would be helpful.



You shouldn't because I'm not. I am also not the one assuming they would not be covered. I've asked you to justify why I should assume they would not be. So far you've failed to do so.

This is what I thought. You honestly think the goodness of people's hearts will help everyone in need, for all of their needs.

Actually, yes. I also think there will be fewer in need, so that helps.

I think you might be drawing a false dichotomy between "people working together through the state," and "every man for himself." There is a third option: "people working together without the state." And historically that is what the US had.

Here is a recent Forbes article describing the ways people used to look after each other before the Entitlement State, such as Mutual Aid Societies.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/01...ron-brook.html

How many people went bankrupt in countries where government intervention into the health care system had not caused massive inflation of prices?

Bingo! Again. Nice ascii.



Thanks for sharing. There's actually another, older, book that touches on the same subject: "The Tragedy of American Compassion" It too outlines the plethora of options that were available to help people in a variety of circumstances. It also goes on to outline the problems that have occurred as the state has become more and more the epicenter of this "help."

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that people who don't pay or pay much less for whatever reason shouldn't be entitled to the same LEVEL of healthcare. I chose a profession, employer and plan that pays for almost everything. I work not just for salary, but for benefits as well. Why should someone that chose differently get the same benefits? By your logic, everyone should get summers off, too.

While I think everyone should be entitled to 6 weeks off a year and that there is absolutely NOTHING noble about working 3 jobs to make ends meet (that's a rather sad commentary on our societal structure as opposed to an uplifting story), that is completely beside the point.

You are conflating two issues--this "level of care" and the idea that everyone should have access to healthcare at all. Let's deal with the latter, first. Do you believe that everyone who is sick is not necessarily entitled to be treated, regardless of insurance status?

Historically, the US was a horrible place for the poor. We need it to be better. Name one decade that was great in your opinion.

Other than comfort level, yes, they damn well should! You get a private ward and a nice meal of that's what you pay for. You can even fly to another state to get the best doctors and pay those doctors extra for priority service. I'm not a proponent of the Canadian system, but I think the Hong Kong system is fucking awesome and the British system is pretty damn good.

Are you kidding? Seriously? The US system has inflated prices more than anywhere else in the world, by a longshot. If you want to go by price alone, we're far better off when there's a single payer option because it causes competition.