or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 53

post #2081 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Hmm, this is basic American history, not imagination. I think you're a teacher, so let me turn the tables on you and give you a test:

1. When the Constitution was written, did the Bill of Rights apply to the states? For example, did the First Amendment prevent states from abridging the freedom of speech, or just the federal government?

2. Under what legal doctrine was the Bill of Rights eventually applied to the states, and upon which Amendment is that doctrine based?

2a. Bonus question! What was the latest of the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states?

3. In what era and under what conditions was that Amendment passed?


Answer 1. It applied only to the states. For example, the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law" Therefore, states could make a state religion or abridge the freedom of speech. Only the federal govt was prevented from such actions.

Answer 2. It's called the Doctrine of Incorporation, and it's based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Answer 2a. The Second Amendment, just a year ago. Despite years of gun rights people claiming that the Constitution protects their right to bear arms, it was only a year ago that was really true.

Answer 3. The 14th Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments, passed after the Civil War. That was the turning point in the relationship between the states and the federal govt in American history. After so many years of the states refusing to protect people's rights, we gave teeth to the federal govt to enforce people's rights.


Awesome...a test with the answers!

Seriously, I appreciate the in-depth reply. I agree completely with answers 1 and 2. 2a is debatable. I think what you mean to say is the right was only clarified a year ago. The interpretation up until then was that the right clearly applied to individuals. But no need to mince words there.

Answer 3 is another matter. While I agree with your characterization of the federal government having the power to protect rights under the 14th Amendment, I disagree with the extrapolation that this fundamentally changed the nature of limited government itself. If anything, it had the effect of protecting people from overreaching state and local governments. I suppose you could characterize this as the federal government "stronger." But, I wouldn't make that a generalization and try to apply it to the entire notion and role of the federal government itself. In essence, the 14th Amendment merely clarifies that states cannot do that which violates the Bill of Rights just because the verbiage says "Congress" instead of "Congress nor the states."

Your overall conclusion is that we realized we needed a bigger, stronger federal government" and that the country doesn't resemble what the founders intended. That's where we disagree. The entire idea was protect the rights of the people. According to your logic, prior to 1890 a state could violate the 3rd Amendment by allowing troops to reside at your house w/o consent, in time of peace. Correct?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2082 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Sure, but the fact that it was in the constitution proves that neither the constitution nor the founders were some perfect fountain of wisdom and truth, which is what MJ seems to be saying. In some things, they were dead wrong.

The point is they gave us the means to remedy any shortcomings and we do that via the amendment process, not via the "Constituion is a living document and I think speech really means money and thus free speech means free money" type of nonsensical reasoning.

Quote:
Probably.

InfidelPsychologist would have been best of course.

Quote:
As far as I know, the exemptions in Obamacare work the same way as the exemptions in Social Security. You can completely opt out in certain conditions.

The courts have been reviewing that as well. I was looking over some of the Supreme Court transcripts last night (I got about 10 pages in out of probably 500 page generated across two days.) There is a lot of discussion about the ability of the states to refuse the federal governments offer as well (the prior model) in discussing the Medicare reforms. Their choices appear to be basically agree to take on a whole slew of new responsibilities and people or lose disproportionate money compared to what they had before. Some members of the court have been asking about this coercion and Scalia specifically called it "an offer you can't refuse" noting the mafia type reasoning within it. Much of how it is bundled together is being discussed with the hearing on severability as well. I find it pretty interesting that the court has had to appoint lawyers to address several third way options. Got any thoughts on that?

It really looks like if this goes down in flames it won't be because the Supreme Court didn't want to be helpful in terms of rulings. It will be because the profoundly partisan Democratic Congress and President tied it into such a tight knot that it became an all or nothing deal combined with an offer you can't refuse and the Supreme Court will have had to refuse due to that crazy Constitution thing.

Quote:
These aren't exceptions. These are the primary conservative proposals to the most important domestic policies in the country. The individual mandate to purchase private benefits is quintessential conservative policy, in contrast to liberal government-provided benefits.

What you are saying is true at the state level but we have branches of government and levels of government for a reason. Democrats in a zest for victory at any cost are increasingly harming their own agenda.

Quote:
First of all most people would not be effected by this mandate, because most people have employer-based insurance or medicaid or medicare or veteran's. Second, I don't think the mandate has any relation to funding Medicare. The requirement to buy insurance is a requirement to give money to insurance companies, not to the government.

You are talking about day one, but we have to consider beyond that and so must the courts. Clearly those who have no money to give must be covered as well. 10 million people are supposed to be added via expanded Medicare coverage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Wow. He called it the war of northern aggression. Wow. That puts some things into perspective. Combine that with the "evolution is a hoax" rhetoric and we have a living, breathing stereotype.

Yes but we aren't discussing you right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If you don't want to be treated like a caricature, don't be a caricature.

I agree so stop acting like one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Answer 1. It applied only to the states. For example, the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law" Therefore, states could make a state religion or abridge the freedom of speech. Only the federal govt was prevented from such actions.

Answer 2. It's called the Doctrine of Incorporation, and it's based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Answer 2a. The Second Amendment, just a year ago. Despite years of gun rights people claiming that the Constitution protects their right to bear arms, it was only a year ago that was really true.

Answer 3. The 14th Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments, passed after the Civil War. That was the turning point in the relationship between the states and the federal govt in American history. After so many years of the states refusing to protect people's rights, we gave teeth to the federal govt to enforce people's rights.

When you say things like "really true" what you mean is that courts affirmed what was challenged in perhaps the most final manner. You again cite an amendment but seem to keep avoiding the point that an amendment is not a court ruling or a mere bill passed by Congress. In instances where the ideas or understandings that we had from the founders required modification, we amended the Constitution. We did not pass a bill and then let Congress just alter the entire nature of our relationship with our government by being able to compel us to enter a marketplace. If people feel the government ought to be able to do that after this is ruled against, the amendment process it the best way to do that.

You've heard me argue this both with the right to privacy, gay marriage and so on. A court decision that alters the true understanding of words basically requires the courts and future judges continue to buy the lie. That is why people are still terrified of Roe v Wade being overturned 40 years later. Meanwhile no one is worried about a Supreme Court overturning the right of women to vote or of African-Americans or anyone else returning to slave status. An amendment has a purpose and if we were willing to consider them more often instead of running to the courts, we might be in a better position.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2083 of 2360
Originally posted by I used to be brussell

Quote:
First of all most people would not be effected [sic] by this mandate, because most people have employer-based insurance or medicaid or medicare or veteran's. Second, I don't think the mandate has any relation to funding Medicare. The requirement to buy insurance is a requirement to give money to insurance companies, not to the government.


Anyone on private insurance would be affected within a few years not because of the mandate, but because of the blanket pre-existing conditions language. Insurance companies will be required to cover all people. This includes not just people switching insurance companies (currently insured) but those who chose not to buy health insurance, paying the fine instead. As I've been posting, this means someone could not buy insurance until he gets a terrible (and expensive to treat) disease. How many people that get cancer while uninsured do you think it's going to take to convince companies to get out of the medical insurance business? More importantly, how long do you think these companies are going to keep shelling out 10 or even 100 times a customer's monthly premium each month for treatment? Obamacare will end private insurance. Period.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2084 of 2360
If that's true, it couldn't happen to a nicer industry. Unfortunately I doubt it is true.
post #2085 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

If that's true, it couldn't happen to a nicer industry. Unfortunately I doubt it is true.

If you really want to punish the insurance industry...open it up to competition. Businesses hate competition. That's why they cleverly create government-sponsored cartels.

First, the federal government would actually have a legitimate case for applying the commerce clause to breakdown barriers to insurance sales across state lines. That would probably be enough to shake up the industry.

The other thing you could do is change the tax treatment of employer-provided medical insurance such that the equation changes that discourages employers from providing it and encourages individuals to buy themselves directly. Now insurance companies would find themselves having to tailor and sell their products to end consumers rather than wining and dining a relative handful of companies to get all of their customers.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2086 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

If you really want to punish the insurance industry...open it up to competition. Businesses hate competition. That's why they cleverly create government-sponsored cartels.

First, the federal government would actually have a legitimate case for applying the commerce clause to breakdown barriers to insurance sales across state lines. That would probably be enough to shake up the industry.

The other thing you could do is change the tax treatment of employer-provided medical insurance such that the equation changes that discourages employers from providing it and encourages individuals to buy themselves directly. Now insurance companies would find themselves having to tailor and sell their products to end consumers rather than wining and dining a relative handful of companies to get all of their customers.

Don't bore us with your logic and thought out arguments.

Health insurankkke industry is the devil!!!11
post #2087 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The point is they gave us the means to remedy any shortcomings and we do that via the amendment process, not via the "Constituion is a living document and I think speech really means money and thus free speech means free money" type of nonsensical reasoning.

We also do this through the validation and interpretation process, which is ultimately entrusted to the USSC. Interpretation can change according to political climate and the makeup of the Supreme Court at the time, so in a very large sense, the constitution is in fact a living
Document.
post #2088 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

If you really want to punish the insurance industry...open it up to competition. Businesses hate competition. That's why they cleverly create government-sponsored cartels.

First, the federal government would actually have a legitimate case for applying the commerce clause to breakdown barriers to insurance sales across state lines. That would probably be enough to shake up the industry.

The other thing you could do is change the tax treatment of employer-provided medical insurance such that the equation changes that discourages employers from providing it and encourages individuals to buy themselves directly. Now insurance companies would find themselves having to tailor and sell their products to end consumers rather than wining and dining a relative handful of companies to get all of their customers.

I'd just like to see one example in the world where that works. There's perfect empirical evidence right now that the more private health insurance companies are used, the worse the heatlth insurance system in that country. In the countries with the weakest private health insurance industry, they have the most people covered, the most cost-effective systems, and the best health outcomes for its people.

It seems to me this is true of every conservative/libertarian policy: "I know there are no examples anywhere in the world of this actually working, and the opposite is what actually works most everywhere in the modern world, but some Austrian said it 100 years ago so I believe it!"
post #2089 of 2360
[QUOTE=BRussell;2084584]There's perfect empirical evidence right now that the more private health insurance companies are used, the worse the heatlth insurance system in that country. In the countries with the weakest private health insurance industry, they have the most people covered, the most cost-effective systems, and the best health outcomes for its people./QUOTE]

Links for this empirical evidence please.

We'd like to examine your claims.

It would also be helpful if there was some objective specificity to your claims about "worse", "weakest", "most cost-effective", "best", etc.

Then we could better discuss these claims in an objective manner.

Undoubtedly there are other factors involved that you may be ignoring.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2090 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It seems to me this is true of every conservative/libertarian policy: "I know there are no examples anywhere in the world of this actually working, and the opposite is what actually works most everywhere in the modern world, but some Austrian said it 100 years ago so I believe it!"

+1

They don't get it.
post #2091 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It would also be helpful if there was some objective specificity to your claims about "worse", "weakest", "most cost-effective", "best", etc.

Worst in this case means most expensive and least available. Try to counter that.
post #2092 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Worst in this case means most expensive and least available. Try to counter that.

Are speaking of health/medical insurance or of health and medical care products and services?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2093 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Are speaking of health/medical insurance or of health and medical care products and services?

Pick one.
post #2094 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Pick one.

You're the ones making the claims. I'm simply trying to clarify the claims in a more specific way. You tell me what you're claiming.

Additionally, by "cost" are you speaking only in terms of dollar/monetary costs?

Finally, what is mean by "less available?"

Thanks. Specifics in your claims will help the discussion. It will also help you when providing actually evidence in support of your claims.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2095 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

If that's true, it couldn't happen to a nicer industry. Unfortunately I doubt it is true.

Do you have any logic behind that? Look, my wife works in the insurance industry (not health insurance). My father worked in the hospital income/supplemental insurance industry for a time. These companies are absolutely not going to stay in the business if they have to accept everyone. How long do you think your car insurance company would stay in business if it had to accept you no matter what your driving record? Can you buy collision coverage only when you need it? Of course not.

I'd love to see you support an argument where health insurance companies suck it up and stay in the business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

If you really want to punish the insurance industry...open it up to competition. Businesses hate competition. That's why they cleverly create government-sponsored cartels.

Exactly. That is what should have happened to begin with. Open it up across state lines. Offer incentives for getting insurance if needed. Even provide assistance for those who cannot afford it. Hell, you could even have some version of a pre-existing conditions solution (for example, if you're currently insured you can't be turned down).

But no. We had a President who took a back door to socialized medicine. That's all it is.

Quote:

First, the federal government would actually have a legitimate case for applying the commerce clause to breakdown barriers to insurance sales across state lines. That would probably be enough to shake up the industry.

Dead on.

Quote:

The other thing you could do is change the tax treatment of employer-provided medical insurance such that the equation changes that discourages employers from providing it and encourages individuals to buy themselves directly. Now insurance companies would find themselves having to tailor and sell their products to end consumers rather than wining and dining a relative handful of companies to get all of their customers.

I'm with you on the concept. You could encourage companies to pay more in salary and less in benefits so consumers could actually make a choice.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Don't bore us with your logic and thought out arguments.

Health insurankkke industry is the devil!!!11



Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We also do this through the validation and interpretation process, which is ultimately entrusted to the USSC. Interpretation can change according to political climate and the makeup of the Supreme Court at the time, so in a very large sense, the constitution is in fact a living
Document.


In that sense, yes. But that's not the sense people tend to mean when they refer to it as such.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2096 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You're the ones making the claims. I'm simply trying to clarify the claims in a more specific way. You tell me what you're claiming.

Generally how much it costs to get regular and emergency medical treatment, whether or not you pay with insurance. It's the total amount the patient is out of pocket. Let's assume it's a poor patient who is under the income tax threshold, so you can't claim taxes as costs.

Quote:
Additionally, by "cost" are you speaking only in terms of dollar/monetary costs?

Yes.

Quote:
Finally, what is mean by "less available?"

It means a smaller percentage of the population has reasonable access to reasonable quality services.
Quote:
Thanks. Specifics in your claims will help the discussion. It will also help you when providing actually evidence in support of your claims.

First, more expensive:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf
FAR MORE EXPENSIVE.
post #2097 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Worst in this case means most expensive and least available. Try to counter that.

citation needed
post #2098 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Generally how much it costs to get regular and emergency medical treatment, whether or not you pay with insurance. It's the total amount the patient is out of pocket. Let's assume it's a poor patient who is under the income tax threshold, so you can't claim taxes as costs.


Yes.


It means a smaller percentage of the population has reasonable access to reasonable quality services.

First, more expensive:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf
FAR MORE EXPENSIVE.

Sorry. Still far too many weasel words.

Additionally, while it is fine for you to claim only monetary costs, this will be a line of attack on your overall argument simply because monetary costs are not the only costs.

In then, I seriously doubt your going to be able to provide any evidence where there actually has been a free market in health care and health insurance to measure against the socialist systems you advocate. So the claims will be unprovable and we'll be left with two things: 1) deductive reasoning with regard to how markets work generally and, 2) the ample evidence of how well markets with with everything else when allowed to.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2099 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

citation needed

He can't even get to specific claims. Keeps throwing in lots of squishy weasel words that prevent the claims from even being verified in any remotely objective way.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2100 of 2360
IRS wants 4,000 new agents, $300 million budget to enforce Obamacare

Quote:
More than quadrupling an estimate it put forth last year for new agents (http://dailycaller.com), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) now says that it will need more than 4,000 new agents to enforce the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2101 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Sorry. Still far too many weasel words.

Additionally, while it is fine for you to claim only monetary costs, this will be a line of attack on your overall argument simply because monetary costs are not the only costs.

In then, I seriously doubt your going to be able to provide any evidence where there actually has been a free market in health care and health insurance to measure against the socialist systems you advocate. So the claims will be unprovable and we'll be left with two things: 1) deductive reasoning with regard to how markets work generally and, 2) the ample evidence of how well markets with with everything else when allowed to.

How convenient. You have a theory and we can't "disprove" it because no country in the world is stupid enough to just sit and let people die.
post #2102 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How convenient. You have a theory and we can't "disprove" it because no country in the world is stupid enough to just sit and let people die.

Your non sequiturs aside, no. We have a theory that you and others claim has actually been tried and failed but have no evidence to support this claim while there is ample reasoning and evidence (from other market sectors) that it does work.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2103 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

He can't even get to specific claims. Keeps throwing in lots of squishy weasel words that prevent the claims from even being verified in any remotely objective way.

But his health care is "free" in HK.
post #2104 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

But his health care is "free" in HK.

So I'm told.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2105 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

citation needed

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf

2009 numbers from a 2011 study.

"The United States spent 7,960 USD on health per capita in 2009, two-and-a-half times more than the OECD average of 3,223 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity). Following the United States were Norway and Switzerland which spent over 5,000 USD per capita. Americans spent more than twice as much as relatively rich European countries such as France, Belgium and the United Kingdom."

And it gets better.

"In most countries, health spending is largely financed out of taxes or social security contributions, with private insurance or ‘out-of-pocket’ payments playing a significant but secondary role. This is not the case in the United States which, together with Mexico and Chile, is the only OECD country where the government plays the smallest role in financing health spending. The public share of health expenditure in the United States was 47.7% in 2009, much lower than the OECD average of 71.7%.

However, the level of health spending in the United States is so high that public (i.e. government) spending on health per capita is greater than in all other OECD countries, except Norway and the Netherlands."


YOU NEED MORE FUCKING SPECIFIC THAN THAT?
post #2106 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


Links for this empirical evidence please.

We'd like to examine your claims.

It would also be helpful if there was some objective specificity to your claims about "worse", "weakest", "most cost-effective", "best", etc.

Then we could better discuss these claims in an objective manner.

Undoubtedly there are other factors involved that you may be ignoring.

Just to be clear, I had asked you for empirical evidence for your argument. But I know you can't find it, because no countries do what you suggest, except that the US is closest to your ideal. On the other hand, every single major study of international health care shows what I'm arguing: That the US spends most but has poor health outcomes. I just did a google search on "international health statistics" or something like that and found this site with nice linkable graphs. But you can pick different statistics or different countries or different kinds of comparisons, and they all turn out the same.

1. The US spends (by far) the most on health care.


2. But we compare only to poor countries in the number of people without insurance.


3. And we compare only to poor countries in our health outcomes such as infant mortality.
post #2107 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So I'm told.

I guess it's costing so much for the government to provide it that our taxes are astronomical and no businesses want to invest here.

Oh, wait.

It must be causing added employer expense so much that employees are being paid below the poverty line and unemployment levels must be absurd!

Oh, wait.
post #2108 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Just to be clear, I had asked you for empirical evidence for your argument.

Actually you didn't. You simply declared it has never worked when tried.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

But I know you can't find it, because no countries do what you suggest, except that the US is closest to your ideal.

Incorrect. The US isn't anywhere near my ideal. You're not paying attention.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

On the other hand, every single major study of international health care shows what I'm arguing: That the US spends most but has poor health outcomes.

But that's the wrong comparison. You're not paying attention.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

1. The US spends (by far) the most on health care.


2. But we compare only to poor countries in the number of people without insurance.


3. And we compare only to poor countries in our health outcomes such as infant mortality.

These factors have been discussed and countered here several times before. Frankly I tire of repeating the points.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2109 of 2360
Don't worry TAFKABR, cue the "there are other factors involved" comments in 5...4...3...2...

edit/Haha... I was too late
post #2110 of 2360
There's an easy explanation for the astronomical costs of health care in the US. The system has been specifically designed (through the impact of the lobbying system) to provide excessive profit for the insurance companies, pharmaceutical and health care providers, compared to other countries (not to other industries).

In my strong opinion, the lobbying system is the worst part of the US system of government by far, without any comparison.
post #2111 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There's an easy explanation for the astronomical costs of health care in the US. The system has been specifically designed to provide excessive profit for the insurance companies, pharmaceutical and health care providers, compared to other countries (not to other industries).

Bingo. It is NOT a free-market system!

Actually, the comparison to other industries is also relevant because the industries and market sectors where we see none (or much less) of this, we see the market competing to provide more product, more services at more prices, with more features to more customers.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2112 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Bingo. It is NOT a free-market system!

Actually, the comparison to other industries is also relevant.

No, it's not. From a humanist perspective, the most effective and affordable health care system would be a system that is just enough above break even that it provides enough incentive for professional development.

Of course, the doctors, pharma, hospitals, clinics, etc. are really hurting in the US! They can barely keep their heads afloat. It's so easy to get into medical school because no one wants to be a doctor because there's no money in it...
post #2113 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually you didn't. You simply declared it has never worked when tried.

I posted this in response to you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I'd just like to see one example in the world where that works.

That's an invitation to you to provide some evidence, or even just an example, in case it wasn't clear enough.

Quote:
Incorrect. The US isn't anywhere near my ideal. You're not paying attention.

Then I repeat: Give me one example. The only ones I'm aware of are developing countries - I hear Somalia is a pretty libertarian country right now, free of big government intervention. How is their health care system?

In the meantime, the US has by far the most free-market health care system in the developed world, but spends the most, by far, and has among the highest number of uninsured people and among the worst health outcomes.

The evidence to date is looking pretty good for a socialized health care system, and pretty bad for a free-market one. But I'm willing to see new evidence.
post #2114 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

I posted this: That's an invitation to you to provide some evidence, or even just an example, in case it wasn't clear enough.

Fair enough. But if I cannot provide an example is not proof that it won't work. That's a fallacy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Then I repeat: Give me one example. The only ones I'm aware of are developing countries - I hear Somalia is a pretty libertarian country right now, free of big government intervention. How is their health care system?

From what I've read...improving from its previous conditions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

In the meantime, the US has by far the most free-market health care system in the developed world,

It absolutely does not! On one factor alone the governments of the US spend at least HALF the money in the healthcare market. That says nothing of the mandates, subsidies, tax distortions, competitive constraints, etc. The US is not a free-market.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2115 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It absolutely does not!

What country has the most free market system in the developed world?
post #2116 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What country has the most free market system in the developed world?

I don't know off the top of my head. His Somalia example is probably one.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2117 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

I posted this in response to you: That's an invitation to you to provide some evidence, or even just an example, in case it wasn't clear enough.

Then I repeat: Give me one example. The only ones I'm aware of are developing countries - I hear Somalia is a pretty libertarian country right now, free of big government intervention. How is their health care system?

In the meantime, the US has by far the most free-market health care system in the developed world, but spends the most, by far, and has among the highest number of uninsured people and among the worst health outcomes.

The evidence to date is looking pretty good for a socialized health care system, and pretty bad for a free-market one. But I'm willing to see new evidence.

Good points. Right now, the right in the US seems pre-occupied with being anti-abortion, claiming the sanctity of life, to the extent that they will willingly cause stress and or harm to women. Then they wish to limit healthcare access after birth. Add education.

If life is so precious, why not support the entirety of it? Then it would make some sense, maybe.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #2118 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Just to be clear, I had asked you for empirical evidence for your argument. But I know you can't find it, because no countries do what you suggest, except that the US is closest to your ideal. On the other hand, every single major study of international health care shows what I'm arguing: That the US spends most but has poor health outcomes. I just did a google search on "international health statistics" or something like that and found this site with nice linkable graphs. But you can pick different statistics or different countries or different kinds of comparisons, and they all turn out the same.

A major point to remember in all of these reports are that the countries often self-report and thus their measures may not be uniform.

Quote:
1. The US spends (by far) the most on health care.

I've often said that the blind-spot that leftists have for government severely undermine their own solution because they refuse to criticize or reform them. As an example you are right that the U.S. spends far more, but most of that additional spending is PRIVATE. In terms of government spending, the U.S is right in the middle of the mix. Yet most of these others countries manage to cover almost their entire population with that government spending. In our case not only does the government spending not get us almost universal health care, instead it is clear that there is cost shifting related to the complete government inefficiency.

Quote:
2. But we compare only to poor countries in the number of people without insurance.

If we have massive numbers of people spending far higher than the rest of world in per capita PRIVATELY then the real question to ask is why the government when spending as much as the U.K and Japanese governments as a percentage of GDP cannot provide what they provide?

Quote:
3. And we compare only to poor countries in our health outcomes such as infant mortality.

Health outcomes and health delivery are not the same. If people flock to the U.S. from other countries, if they make poor health choices in their personal lives, then there is only so much that can be done to mitigate that.

Basically the same points have been brought to you repeatedly that the segments of the economy that the government radically influences or outright controls have costs that continually rise above the rate of inflation. Likewise many of those countries that you call "rich" or "poor" are those like the PIIGS of Europe (and likely the U.S.) that are actually broke debtors.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2119 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

...the US has by far the most free-market health care system in the developed world...

You cannot have "freedom by degrees". Either the market is free, or it is not. And we most certainly do not have a free-market health care system in the United States if the government is providing 60-65% of the health insurance through programs like Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Veterans Health Administration.

source

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2120 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You cannot have "freedom by degrees".

I would say a prisoner who has grounds privileges has more freedom than a prisoner who is in a solitary confinement cell, would you not?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality