Is health care a right.

Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Is health care a right.

The US health care system will never be fixed without first answering this question, because the answer will dictate what the next step would be. 

I say yes, without a doubt, it is a right.

Firstly we have Article 25 of the UDHR, which classifies health care as a right.

Secondly I would argue that health care is a public good, on the same grounds that we have a public fire service and a public police service. 

I remember read or hearing centuries ago England used to have a fire insurance, and if you didn't have a plaque placed on your house confirming that you had insurance the fire brigade wouldn't drive right by(!), consequently this lead to fire spreading to the properties of people who DID have fire insurance. (I cannot remember where I heard this, by for some reason Tony Ben comes to mind.) Clearly it is in every ones best interest for fire service to be a public service.

Likewise, it is in everyones best interest to have a public police service. If someone house is being burgled, or someone is being harmed, it is the entire neighborhoods best interest for the police to act without confirming insurance details since the criminal may turn to them or their home.

Similarly, it is in everyones best interest to ensure all people have the ability to get health care, regardless of their financial situation. In addition, those providing insurance should not be acting for-profit, which can (and does) cause them to deny treatment, or even deny insurance altogether. A sick person cannot work, and when we get to the issue of contagious illness/diseases, I think it is quite clear that they should be treated.

I have two questions:

1. Is health care a right?

2. What do the Americans here think about government involvement in health care. Whenever I've discussed this with Americans I either get one of two responses... (a) universal/single-payer/socialised health care is no good (something which is completely refuted by the health care systems in other countries) or (b) they just seem to think the US government is incapable of running anything successfully.

 

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I don't want a


EXC wrote:
I don't want a system that rewards failure.

AT risk of sounding like a broken record, can I just say one more time. It's not a reward, its a standard.

We're talking about a system where the people democratically decide to set their basic bottom level standard of individual well being high because it is in the interests of everyone that no part of the environment and/or community that sustains it, trades with it, provides services for it, and lives with it falls into a state of dereliction.

If you don't want a system that sets high standards for the development of the civilised world, fine. But call it what it is, please.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I never encountered such a

I never encountered such a dual standard as that I witnessed amongst Americans and their attitude to a comprehensively applied national health system. Few would admit its necessity, until of course their own personal circumstances woke them to the reality that the existing system failed to provide them with adequate care when that care entailed expense above what their insurance could provide. This is why people who feel confident in their health cover and their own personal requirement for treatment can so glibly classify such treatment as a "reward" for their industry. But they are the only ones who use such stupid language, and are not as numerous as those whose circumstances have forced them to face the reality of the situation.

 

What disgusted me was the proliferance of sharks on the periphery of the system who exploited that weakness and the vulnerability of sick people caught out by it. All completely rational of course from a purely capitalist perspective, but evidence of an accepted institutionalised brutality which really should not exist in a so-called wealthy country which purports to have laws based on "inalienable" rights of its inhabitants. Health care is not, obviously, such a right in the USA. It is simply a commodity and if one can't afford it - tough.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I proposed a

EXC wrote:
I proposed a system I believe could work without bankrupting the government. No one would die without treatment, they just would not have access to anything expensive if they decide they don't want to live a life that requires them to work their ass off to pay for expensive doctors, drugs and hospitals. It's thier choice to live without insurance.

Please stop with the flawed assumptions. It has already been explained to you that not having health care or not having enough coverage does NOT mean that person it lazy; it does NOT mean the person hasn't tried; it does NOT mean they have made the choice to be in that situation; it doesn't even mean they don't have a job!

Do you not realise this? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?! Can you explain why you are continuing to make your ridiculous assertions.

 

EXC wrote:
The vast majority of people are healthy without any expensive medical treatments. And if society is functioning correctly, everyone would have a good job. And if the government didn't take too much in taxes they could pay for their own medical services and insurance.

FOR THE 100th TIME... having a job does not guarantee you insurance or complete coverage, but you will continue to blame the individual for this.

Secondly, not everyone has a good job or any job, yet again, you're just going to continue to say that such people are lazy nobodies who choose to be in that situation.

It must be nice to live in your world, where political theory pays no attention whatsoever to the realities of the world.

 

EXC wrote:
Yes, but if all we got to do is make it a Human right and it will be, so why not do it?

Please just stop! Simply declaring being rich a natural right doesn't make it so, moreover, it would not therefore mean a functioning society needed everyone to be rich.

 

EXC wrote:
It works kind of like prayer, just wish really hard for it and it will magically happen. Who cares about the mechanics and details of how it all is paid for and the secondary effects of the high taxes. Just like health care, we don't need to make it conditional on being able to pay for it according to your logic.

I take it back. You clearly are a FUCKING MORON! I've never met someone so clearly inept that they are incapable of comprehending anything. Do you really think universal health care does not take into account the means of payment? Do you really think the government doesn't care how it is funded? Do you really think universal health care entails everyone must get anything that they insist they receive? You are making strawmen argument about what universal health care entails, how it is paid, and what the ramifications of this is for society. Do youself a favour and just educate yourself on the universal health care system around the world, otherwise you will continue to demonstrate just how much of a complete retard you actually are.

 

Assuming this is the correct analysis of the bill, and leaving aside that the system may not be running at 100% efficiency on day one but will likely reduce costs over time, all this proves is that this particular bill will raise costs, not that socialised medicine or universal heath care necessarily leads to higher costs, which seems to be your particular argument. Is that right? I do hope not, given that socialised medicine/universal health care can, and is, run in other countries at HALF the cost of the current US health care system, so clearly that view is wrong.

 

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Poor little

ClockCat wrote:

 

Poor little GOP. They just can't garner enough support. Things aren't like they used to be! There just aren't enough bigots and religious nuts (and I do mean nuts. The people that protest funerals with GOD HATES YOU kind of signs) out there to form a conservative base Sad

Laughing out loud

I also love how the 18-29 age range is almost entirely made of progressive liberals. This is why your opinion does not matter EXC. All I have to do is wait, and you become more and more a minority as everyone else develops society and...progresses.

Universal Health Care will happen. If it doesn't happen now, it will happen later. You can't stop it no matter how much pointless raging you do, or ignoring of the world around you.

At least we can thank Bush for one thing: he killed off the Republican party/Neocon movement. 

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Universal healthcare pretty

Universal healthcare pretty much pays for itself in the same way roads do. It leads to more productivity from the workers/drones and generally outside the US most of big business is very happy about it as they basically make more profits.In fact in a lot of the Western world private care is universal care as they supply a lot of the care to the state.

Sure you are going to get the individual who gets more out of it than he pays in but you could say the same about the military

 

Changes of an Islamic terrorist group killing me or taking over the country about 1 million to 1

Changes of cancer killing me 1 in 4

 

Both are shared threats I think I know where I want resources to go


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
 From:

 From: http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

 

ABSTRACT

 

BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened.

 

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

 

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. [b]Most medical debtors debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance.[b] Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.

 

CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies.

 

Oh look! Not the lazy uneducated unemployed folk who choose to live in poverty, as EXC would have us believe... no, as we have been saying in very other post, well educated, wealthy and medically insured people also suffer in this health system too, because the insurance companies don't give a shit about their customers and only care about their profit margins. Unfortunately for you, your health care is their loss. Yet despite this, EXC maintains the delusion that if you're having health care related problems it is obviously due to a lack of education, a lack of employment and merely a choice to be in that situation.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
That is really stuffed

That is really stuffed up,three quaters had insurance and still went bankrupt. Basically they paid the company for nothing.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Tapey wrote:

That is really stuffed up,three quaters had insurance and still went bankrupt. Basically they paid the company for nothing.

 

That is what we call record profits.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Maybe EXC is in the

Maybe EXC is in the insurance industry. It would explain his ignoring of evidence as having a vested interest in deluding people so he can line his own pockets.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I haven't had time to read

 I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread yet, but I just want to throw in something separate of the argument over the details of any government health plan. Health care is not a right. And to claim it is a right is the equivalent of saying that medical professionals are slaves.

A "right" is something that you can claim that no one can say no to because it is yours. It is something that others ought not attempt to stop you from doing and ought not use government power to stop you from doing. For example, I have a right to speech. As a human I can speak my crazy ass mind and say what I want. It is wrong for anyone to stop me from speaking. Exercising this right does not require anyone to do anything for me. You don't even have to listen or read what I have to say if you don't want to. 

Healthcare is not something you "do" it is a product provided by medical professionals. Saying you have a right to health care is saying that those medical professionals must treat you even if they don't want to. You are claiming a "right" to the time and efforts of those professionals. If a medical professional doesn't want to treat you for any reason (maybe you won't pay enough money or they simply don't have time) to force them to treat you anyway is slavery. No one has a "right" to the product of anyone elses labor. If you want the product that medical professionals have then you can trade them for it with the product of your own labor (which in todays world is generally money) at a rate you both agree on, unless the Dr. you are seeing agrees to donate their time and expertise. 

Suppose I were to proclaim a "right" to whatever product your labors produce? How would you like it if I decided that I was going to give you substantially less for your product then you normally get and demanded you give it to me anyway because it is mine. Thats what we did to slaves in America for years and now we all concede that it was wrong to disrespect the right of all of those people to the fruits of their own labor yet still today we seem to expect people to give us something for nothing. It's disgusting.

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Tell the Chinese and North

Tell the Chinese and North Koreans they have a right to free speech. That is not a valid argument.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Thats what we did to

Quote:

Thats what we did to slaves in America for years and now we all concede that it was wrong to disrespect the right of all of those people to the fruits of their own labor yet still today we seem to expect people to give us something for nothing. It's disgusting.

 

Whoa! For a person whose motto is "So quit taking it so damn seriously" you're losing the run of yourself a little here!

 

In law, the principle of what constitutes a "right" is based on the following basic and reasonable definitions:

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.

In the broad sense therefore it is quite reasonable to classify the expectation that a citizen might have regarding access to health care as a right, in that all citizens should at least have a right to expect it. The medical professionals you champion so vociferously have equally a right to service that right by providing their labour, just as they have the right under law to choose not to do so and go off and play golf if they want.

Of course if they all hit the golf course at the same time then the government, whose job it is to serve the people and service the right the people have to expect health care, is the body which takes responsibility, but I doubt it would ever come to the point that the poor doctors and nurses would be rounded up, cast in irons, and made to pick cotton all day. Most of that profession fortunately shares the view of the general population that access to basic health care is indeed an entitlement which comes with citizenship, and while comparative wealth of individuals will always mean comparative grades of access and service, an individual's poverty should not remove all access and all service. In that sense, it's a right.

 

Right?

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread yet, but I just want to throw in something separate of the argument over the details of any government health plan. Health care is not a right. And to claim it is a right is the equivalent of saying that medical professionals are slaves.

A "right" is something that you can claim that no one can say no to because it is yours. It is something that others ought not attempt to stop you from doing and ought not use government power to stop you from doing. For example, I have a right to speech. As a human I can speak my crazy ass mind and say what I want. It is wrong for anyone to stop me from speaking. Exercising this right does not require anyone to do anything for me. You don't even have to listen or read what I have to say if you don't want to. 

Healthcare is not something you "do" it is a product provided by medical professionals. Saying you have a right to health care is saying that those medical professionals must treat you even if they don't want to. You are claiming a "right" to the time and efforts of those professionals. If a medical professional doesn't want to treat you for any reason (maybe you won't pay enough money or they simply don't have time) to force them to treat you anyway is slavery. No one has a "right" to the product of anyone elses labor. If you want the product that medical professionals have then you can trade them for it with the product of your own labor (which in todays world is generally money) at a rate you both agree on, unless the Dr. you are seeing agrees to donate their time and expertise. 

Suppose I were to proclaim a "right" to whatever product your labors produce? How would you like it if I decided that I was going to give you substantially less for your product then you normally get and demanded you give it to me anyway because it is mine. Thats what we did to slaves in America for years and now we all concede that it was wrong to disrespect the right of all of those people to the fruits of their own labor yet still today we seem to expect people to give us something for nothing. It's disgusting.

Omg you said slavery you win....

 

Say you are injured, do you have a right to be treated even if you don't have enough money?  Anything less than a yes is just pathetic, if you have the skills to heal someone who is hurt and you don't I think you are pathetic, not to mention it is morally discusting (barring something stoping you e.g. money, your boss stoping you etc.), I wouldn't want to live in a society where that isn't the case. Do docters etc have a right to be paid for there serves? well yes obviously. These are to conflicting rights as I see it. This problem goes away with the government paying. That is the point. It is a question of the minimum standards you want people to live at in your country, obviously you have to be realistic.

 

Let me put you in a situation, you have medical skills. You are walking done the road and someone is injured, has a bad cut or something. there is no hospital for miles around and you have what you need to treat him right there but he has no money. What do you do? heal him or walk away? That should tell you what is the right thing to do. If you heal him, then is ok for someone else not to heal if you don't no about it. Not me not my problem?


 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm coming late into this

I'm coming late into this discussion... but I thought I'd put a link to this bbc article.  It's in defense of the pharmaceutical commpanies and does a little to explain how medicines are costed in Britain.

 

The system works EXC.  Nationalised healthcare works in Britain, and we also have a private system.  What fucked the system in the 80's (that we're still recovering from) was the governments attempts to try and get rid of national health.  By privatising the hospitals and putting them in the hands of "quangos" they became profit making machines with bad management and it almost crippled our system.

Thankfully the didn't succeed.  Yes the government has to put lots of money into it, but I make a small national insurance contribution every time I get paid and I, along with all the rich who chose it and the poor who need it, will receive all the medical treatment I need until the day I die.  I wouldn't have it any other way.

By the way, the NHS has been running for 61 years now and we're not bankrupt yet.  Funny that.

 

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Beyond Saving

Tapey wrote:

Omg you said slavery you win....

 

Say you are injured, do you have a right to be treated even if you don't have enough money?  Anything less than a yes is just pathetic, if you have the skills to heal someone who is hurt and you don't I think you are pathetic, not to mention it is morally discusting (barring something stoping you e.g. money, your boss stoping you etc.), I wouldn't want to live in a society where that isn't the case. Do docters etc have a right to be paid for there serves? well yes obviously. These are to conflicting rights as I see it. This problem goes away with the government paying. That is the point. It is a question of the minimum standards you want people to live at in your country, obviously you have to be realistic.

 

Let me put you in a situation, you have medical skills. You are walking done the road and someone is injured, has a bad cut or something. there is no hospital for miles around and you have what you need to treat him right there but he has no money. What do you do? heal him or walk away? That should tell you what is the right thing to do. If you heal him, then is ok for someone else not to heal if you don't no about it. Not me not my problem?

 

 

I guess I am pathetic because if I am injured and a Dr. chooses not to treat me for any reason I am not going to use force or expect someone else to use force to make him/her help me. Now in reality most Dr's would probably help me without pay at the moment and I would do my best to pay that person back for their help in whatever way I could. If the Dr doesn't treat me I might call him an jerk but I am a big supporter of allowing people to be jerks. Either way I respect the Dr's right to choose if they want to help me. 

 

Also, in the real world, many in the medical field provide their services for free on a regular basis. Some do, some don't it is their choice and we should respect that. If I am totally dead ass broke, I can find a Dr who is willing to treat me without pay. My only point is that it is wrong for us to expect that anyone is going to treat us without getting paid. If you get medical care and can't pay for it at the moment you should make an effort to pay for it in the future instead of whining and moaning and expecting the rest of us to pay for it. Because honestly, I don't care about your health problems, thats why I'm not a Dr.

My mention of slavery was not meant to imply that all government health programs are the equivalent of slavery. I can envision several possible programs that are not. The idea that you have a RIGHT to the product of another persons labor, ie the results of that labor belong to you without compensation because it is inherently yours, is the same idea of slavery. Slavery is forcing someone to produce products for you without choice. If you have a "right" to healthcare then the logical consequence is a Dr. must treat the person in your example or face punishment. Which means the Dr. is forced to work or will be punished. Forced to work without choice = slavery. 

To Nordmann:

 

Yeah I like to run a little bit but it is all in good fun. I like to throw a burning rag in the hornets nest occasionally. Exercising the brain is good.

I would argue under your definition of "rights" that there are no rights. There is absolutely nothing that is due to you just because you exist. The government can only provide things for you by taking something away from you or someone else. How can you have a "right" to something that was taken at the threat of considerable force from someone else? Why doesn't the person who had it in the first place have a right to keep it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I guess

Beyond Saving wrote:

I guess I am pathetic because if I am injured and a Dr. chooses not to treat me for any reason I am not going to use force or expect someone else to use force to make him/her help me. Now in reality most Dr's would probably help me without pay at the moment and I would do my best to pay that person back for their help in whatever way I could. If the Dr doesn't treat me I might call him an jerk but I am a big supporter of allowing people to be jerks. Either way I respect the Dr's right to choose if they want to help me.

Hey I have no problem with people being jerks as long as peoples lives are not on the line. Let me clarfy, I don't think people have the right to be treated for things that are not going to kill or seriously affect them over the long term. But say you get a life threating condition, I do think you have the right to be treated, I don't like the idea of letting people die because they don't have money.

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Also, in the real world, many in the medical field provide their services for free on a regular basis. Some do, some don't it is their choice and we should respect that. If I am totally dead ass broke, I can find a Dr who is willing to treat me without pay. My only point is that it is wrong for us to expect that anyone is going to treat us without getting paid. If you get medical care and can't pay for it at the moment you should make an effort to pay for it in the future instead of whining and moaning and expecting the rest of us to pay for it. Because honestly, I don't care about your health problems, thats why I'm not a Dr.

yeah that could work oh wait it doesn't because there there is a reason people cannot pay... they have no money, and likely will never have much of the stuff. Btw who is whining and moaning? As I see it it is a better solution to what is currently on offer. If you think pushing for a solution to a problem is whining then well something is wrong.  Think of it as a replacment to what you pay as insurance but everyone gets covered by it not just you. I can only assume that not caring attitude comes from not having to see people suffer from health problems, it really isn't a cool thing. I come from the country with the highest Aids rate in the world (i think), that isn't a cool feeling. And it shows here what happens to a country that has an unhealthy work force. A healthy work force is more productive, you should care, even if don't on an indiviual level.

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

My mention of slavery was not meant to imply that all government health programs are the equivalent of slavery. I can envision several possible programs that are not. The idea that you have a RIGHT to the product of another persons labor, ie the results of that labor belong to you without compensation because it is inherently yours, is the same idea of slavery. Slavery is forcing someone to produce products for you without choice. If you have a "right" to healthcare then the logical consequence is a Dr. must treat the person in your example or face punishment. Which means the Dr. is forced to work or will be punished. Forced to work without choice = slavery. 

the important differance is no one is forcing them to be docters, so they can leave so not slavery. Yes leaving would be stupid but it still remians. And if there is universal health care they do get paid so once again not slavery. When you go to work does your boss force you to work? OMG slavery!

 

But personally I don't care if its a right or not (but i do think it should be if it isn't), it is just a better system.

 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:yeah that could

Tapey wrote:

yeah that could work oh wait it doesn't because there there is a reason people cannot pay... they have no money, and likely will never have much of the stuff. Btw who is whining and moaning? As I see it it is a better solution to what is currently on offer. If you think pushing for a solution to a problem is whining then well something is wrong.  Think of it as a replacment to what you pay as insurance but everyone gets covered by it not just you. I can only assume that not caring attitude comes from not having to see people suffer from health problems, it really isn't a cool thing. I come from the country with the highest Aids rate in the world (i think), that isn't a cool feeling. And it shows here what happens to a country that has an unhealthy work force. A healthy work force is more productive, you should care, even if don't on an indiviual level.

 

Here in America there are lots of people whining and moaning. I used to work selling health insurance and would often encounter people who didn't buy it because they thought it was too expensive. At the same time they had a much nice tv, pay hundreds of dollars each month for their cable and cell phone bill owned two or three cars (not junky ones) and whine that $300-$400 a month was too much money. We are a very wealthy country. Our poor suffer nothing like the poor in most countries and are better off then all but the extremely wealthy in many countries. I don't know the numbers but I would wager that a good portion of the "uninsured" own i-phones. People make bad choices it is their problem. 

Also in the good old US everyone who needs life saving care DOES get it. We don't have people dieing in the streets. If you have no money you can get care that is being given by medical staff and hospitals voluntarily. Some of our greatest research and cancer care hospitals are charity hospitals such as St. Judes, Shriners, Blankenship Childrens Hospital etc. They survive solely on donations and never charge but still provide some of the best cancer survival rates in the world. I was once at the bottom with no money and a severe case of pneumonia. I was hospitalized for almost a week in one of the best hospitals in the country with no insurance, no job and no money. They took good care of me and I eventually paid them every penny I owed. (Medical bill collectors are much easier to work with then any other kind of bill collector) 

 Our system might not be perfect but it works well. If you need care you can get it, if you can't afford it you still get it. If you get a lifelong disease that causes you to have medical expenses you could never afford you still get care. You might have to declare bankruptcy but you can survive that. If you care about bankruptcy buy quality health insurance. Even in a state of bankruptcy you can live a very comfortable life in the US. Especially when you compare it to the life you would have in other countries. A lot more Americans need to travel the world a little to really appreciate how comfortable we are. 

I don't see a need to get the government involved. My Dr. drives a Porche, owns a million dollar mansion. If thats what motivates him to take good care of me I will keep paying him. How is the government getting involved going to make it better? I don't want them telling him he has to treat x number of patients or will only get x dollars. He tells me his charge and I can say yes or no. My choice, his choice. Under any universal healthcare system the government will decide what a Dr. gets paid and all will get the same amount based on what they treat or how many people they treat etc. I have a problem with that. If a Dr. wants to charge $1000000 a patient and only treat one patient a year that is their choice if they can find a patient. (And some do) 

 

P.S. My boss is well aware that he does not force me to work. I have left several companies that didn't treat me the way I wanted. I work voluntarily and he pays me what I ask or he is welcome to find someone else. I don't want the government telling me how much I can be paid either. 

  

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:To Nordmann: Yeah I

Quote:

To Nordmann:

 

Yeah I like to run a little bit but it is all in good fun. I like to throw a burning rag in the hornets nest occasionally. Exercising the brain is good.

I would argue under your definition of "rights" that there are no rights. There is absolutely nothing that is due to you just because you exist. The government can only provide things for you by taking something away from you or someone else. How can you have a "right" to something that was taken at the threat of considerable force from someone else? Why doesn't the person who had it in the first place have a right to keep it?

 

By George, I think he's got it! Well, almost ...

 

Absolutely right. No one has any rights, except those which by tradition have been deemed meet to hold on to in the social contract by which we live collectively. At any moment, and for almost any reason, such rights can be withdrawn (and are, in societies all around the globe even as we speak). Some are even voluntarily abandoned through ignorance or duress. Some are restricted to those outside cotton plantations, concentration camps, female physiology - you name it.

 

This thing about the government "providing things by taking them away from someone else" is exactly what a social contract is, whether it needs a government to administer it or not. In a society of mutual back-scratching we curtail our short-sighted selfish instinct and exercise a more long-sighted version in which the pay-off for contributing something we'd probably have preferred not to at the time, is that someone else's contribution provided on the same basis is to our benefit. It's so fucking obvious that it's not even a political system, it's the very basis of communal living in all its forms.

 

When general good health of all citizens is deemed a worthwhile thing for a society to maintain then you end up with a health system reflecting this adduced "right". If profit motive is deemed more important than general health then you end up with something else entirely, and no "right" expressed in the process at all.

 

As a person who can see the benefit in having as healthy a community as possible around me I favour the former. As a person who cannot predict either my state of finances or my state of health for the rest of my duration I also favour the former. As a person who has empathy with others less fortunate than me I favour the former. Who in all fuckwad could favour the alternative?

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Nordmann wrote:

[Who in all fuckwad could favour the alternative?

 

 

DEATH PANELS DEATH PANELS FEAR FORCED ABORTIONS GOVERNMENT CONTROL ANTI WHITE ANTI CHRISTIAN GAY AGENDA DESTROYED MARRIAGE WAITING LINES UNTIL YOU DIE LIES LIES THEY ARE OUT TO GET YOU NOWHERE IS SAFE WATCH FOX NEWS VOTE REPUBLICAN

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving, you're

Beyond Saving, you're completely ignoring the under paid foundational workforce, for which society requires to function. From fast food workers to security officers to cleaners to waiters and waitresses to "insert random mall franchise employee here". All of which depend on minimum wage jobs with few benefits. The upper class has an interest in seeing the lower class stay low. I can see the logic in their position even though I know there's a better way. But to deny the working class necessary health care is completely illogical. It ends up costing everyone more in the end when people are going bankrupt and your tax dollars are shifted to welfare and other government problems anyway. Coupled with the obvious fact that a healthier society is a more productive and wealthy society with a higher standard of living, and add the many times over in this thread proven fact that you'll end up spending about half as much overall on health care per person as you currently do, I fail to see any logic at all in

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
opposing a comprehensive

opposing a comprehensive health system for all. Yes, taxes will go up a bit, but in the end noone will need insurance to get care, so your insurance rates will actually go DOWN in order for the insurance companies to compete with free care. You'll also probably see more benefits for your dollar. There's simply no logical reason to be against it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Rights are merely the

Rights are merely the minimum standard of living that all citizens must have in a country due to be a citizen. They arent absolute and do change but in most countries include free speech, freedom of worship (and from) healthcare , enough to eat and live . UK local government is required by law to ensure everyone is homed, of course we have homeless and it doesnt always work but the principle is sound.

 

As for a doctor being forced to give care in some countries it is a crime for an individual even if not doctor  to aid an individual in an accident. The good samaritan laws are hard to enforce in France but the principle is a good one. Being part of society is not option


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Here

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Here in America there are lots of people whining and moaning. I used to work selling health insurance and would often encounter people who didn't buy it because they thought it was too expensive. At the same time they had a much nice tv, pay hundreds of dollars each month for their cable and cell phone bill owned two or three cars (not junky ones) and whine that $300-$400 a month was too much money. We are a very wealthy country. Our poor suffer nothing like the poor in most countries and are better off then all but the extremely wealthy in many countries. I don't know the numbers but I would wager that a good portion of the "uninsured" own i-phones. People make bad choices it is their problem. 

WTF $300 - 400$ that is insane, at least if you use a direct exchange, A decent slarary here is 10000 rand a month. You can live quite well with that, you are not going to have all the luxeries you want but you are not going to b struggling either, $400 is R4000 . Please tell me it works out better in america. god for 1 months insurance I could go to a prvate hospital and get anything short of surgury done and have some change left over. I have never even had a medical bill that is R4000. Over charge much.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Also in the good old US everyone who needs life saving care DOES get it. We don't have people dieing in the streets. If you have no money you can get care that is being given by medical staff and hospitals voluntarily. Some of our greatest research and cancer care hospitals are charity hospitals such as St. Judes, Shriners, Blankenship Childrens Hospital etc. They survive solely on donations and never charge but still provide some of the best cancer survival rates in the world. I was once at the bottom with no money and a severe case of pneumonia. I was hospitalized for almost a week in one of the best hospitals in the country with no insurance, no job and no money. They took good care of me and I eventually paid them every penny I owed. (Medical bill collectors are much easier to work with then any other kind of bill collector)

Well good for you, but surely you can see how much better it could of been?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Our system might not be perfect but it works well. If you need care you can get it, if you can't afford it you still get it. If you get a lifelong disease that causes you to have medical expenses you could never afford you still get care. You might have to declare bankruptcy but you can survive that. If you care about bankruptcy buy quality health insurance. Even in a state of bankruptcy you can live a very comfortable life in the US. Especially when you compare it to the life you would have in other countries. A lot more Americans need to travel the world a little to really appreciate how comfortable we are.

Living comfatably when bankrupt, what do they live on credit? Now i understand the financial crisis. If you have no money here, this is where you live

 

 

10km away from my house there is a settlement like this, health care has to be "free" or it is these people that suffer. Yes some people just don't get insurance and yes it is stupid on there part but do you punish the poor with the stupid?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't see a need to get the government involved. My Dr. drives a Porche, owns a million dollar mansion. If thats what motivates him to take good care of me I will keep paying him. How is the government getting involved going to make it better? I don't want them telling him he has to treat x number of patients or will only get x dollars. He tells me his charge and I can say yes or no. My choice, his choice. Under any universal healthcare system the government will decide what a Dr. gets paid and all will get the same amount based on what they treat or how many people they treat etc. I have a problem with that. If a Dr. wants to charge $1000000 a patient and only treat one patient a year that is their choice if they can find a patient. (And some do) 

And i say healthcare is an essential service to society and must be avalible to all, no matter the income group. It shouldn't matter where you go it should be avalible to you, you shouldn't have to find somewhere that will treat you for free. Health just ins't somethig that should be for sale.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

P.S. My boss is well aware that he does not force me to work. I have left several companies that didn't treat me the way I wanted. I work voluntarily and he pays me what I ask or he is welcome to find someone else. I don't want the government telling me how much I can be paid either.

 

ooh you are one of those types that doesn't need money? then again if you lose your job where I live you are likely jobless for months maybe longer. Or you could take a waiter job or whatever while looking. I don't know how long it takes there.

 

but look I don't know the situation in America, I don't live there, I can only argue from the situation that I have, and from here I can say it is a right

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 To Nordmann: I guess I am

 To Nordmann: I guess I am a fukwad because I would much rather have freedom and risk then to be protected by a government. Again I will point out, no one in America is dieing in the streets because they don't get care with the exception of folks with severe mental disorders. Our care for people who are mentally unable to function and have not been fortunate enough to have good families to take care of them is an embarassment. And we can certainly do a lot better helping those folks. But your average American family gets some of the best healthcare available to mankind. Why trash the whole system to fix a few small problems?

 

To Vastet: Even when I worked for near minimum wage I could easily afford my health insurance. Most people who work at McDonalds own very nice cell phones and blow a lot of money at the bars. People who truly could not afford health insurance are few and far between. Especially considering that most of the minimum wage workforce is very young and therefore their health insurance is cheap. For those few who truly cannot afford it why don't we consider a program similar to food stamps to subsidise them? I have a few issues with that but it makes more sense then destroying the private insurance industry putting people out of work and making most Dr's essentially government employees against their will. There are tons of alternatives to tweak our current system and make it better instead of the universal healthcare route.

 

To Tapey: Again you can't compare the situation in the US to South Africa. We are a much wealthier country. Your 10000 Rand using your conversion figures would be $1000 a month. One person working 40 hours a week at minumum wage would earn $1256 month which by American standards would put you at the very bottom level of poverty. (If you live in an area where you can find a minimum wage job, where I live you couldn't find one if you wanted it even with the way our economy is tanking) Yeah, if you are at poverty level you might need some form of assistance but the average family is perfectly capable of finding the money for health insurance with a little effort. 

I don't know what your countries bankruptcy laws are but here even if you go bankrupt they can't touch your house if you own one or your transportation to work. If you are jobless there are several options to help you get through that time including collecting unemployment or welfare. If you are really hard up we have section 8 housing which really sucks but its a roof over your head and the rent can be paid with welfare and is a hell of alot nicer then housing I have seen in other countries. I can't see the picture you put up but I would be willing to wager that public housing in all but the crappiest ghettos in America. Again, most Americans don't appreciate how lucky we are because even the most unfortunate of us live at a much higher standard then a large portion of the world. You might be uncomfortable but you are not going to starve to death, you can find a shelter and there are places you can go to get emergency medical care.

 

Again, my main issue with any universal healthcare system is that the government will be determining how much a Dr. gets paid. The Dr. will not have any real recourse. A few might be able to have private practices and have wealthy clientele that pay in cash but most Americans will be on the public plan. Therefore the Dr will have to take whatever the government decides to give him/her or find a new profession. I don't believe it is the governments place to determine how much anyone is paid unless they are a direct employee of the government. How much my Dr. is paid is between me and my Dr. and my insurance company if I decide to use one. No one in the US would imagine universal food where you would walk into a grocery store and grab whatever you need then walk out and expect the government to cover the tab. What if I want lobster every night? But in most cases you could live a lot longer without medical care then you could with food. Lets help those who truly need it and leave those of us who are capable of takiing care of ourselves the freedom and opportunity to do it. If you can afford insurance but opt not to buy it then have $100000 in medical bills you deserve to go bankrupt. Maybe you will learn from your mistake. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:To

Beyond Saving wrote:

To Tapey: Again you can't compare the situation in the US to South Africa. We are a much wealthier country. Your 10000 Rand using your conversion figures would be $1000 a month. One person working 40 hours a week at minumum wage would earn $1256 month which by American standards would put you at the very bottom level of poverty. (If you live in an area where you can find a minimum wage job, where I live you couldn't find one if you wanted it even with the way our economy is tanking) Yeah, if you are at poverty level you might need some form of assistance but the average family is perfectly capable of finding the money for health insurance with a little effort.

 

Hey your right the situation is differant, freedom of speech shouldn't be a right in south africa!  Btw there is unemployment in America.. these people? Maybe where you live everyone is rich but i can garentee you not everyone in america cannot afforded it. Location and average income shouldn't play a role in what is a right.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't know what your countries bankruptcy laws are but here even if you go bankrupt they can't touch your house if you own one or your transportation to work. If you are jobless there are several options to help you get through that time including collecting unemployment or welfare. If you are really hard up we have section 8 housing which really sucks but its a roof over your head and the rent can be paid with welfare and is a hell of alot nicer then housing I have seen in other countries. I can't see the picture you put up but I would be willing to wager that public housing in all but the crappiest ghettos in America. Again, most Americans don't appreciate how lucky we are because even the most unfortunate of us live at a much higher standard then a large portion of the world. You might be uncomfortable but you are not going to starve to death, you can find a shelter and there are places you can go to get emergency medical care.

The picture It isn't public housing, it was shacks, made from corrigated iron made by the homeless, tecnically the ones i live by are made from mud and corigated iron. Im not sure if they can take your house if it is payed for, but you will have no lights and water, and if you rent like most people here you will be kicked out. 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Again, my main issue with any universal healthcare system is that the government will be determining how much a Dr. gets paid. The Dr. will not have any real recourse. A few might be able to have private practices and have wealthy clientele that pay in cash but most Americans will be on the public plan. Therefore the Dr will have to take whatever the government decides to give him/her or find a new profession. I don't believe it is the governments place to determine how much anyone is paid unless they are a direct employee of the government. How much my Dr. is paid is between me and my Dr. and my insurance company if I decide to use one. No one in the US would imagine universal food where you would walk into a grocery store and grab whatever you need then walk out and expect the government to cover the tab. What if I want lobster every night? But in most cases you could live a lot longer without medical care then you could with food. Lets help those who truly need it and leave those of us who are capable of takiing care of ourselves the freedom and opportunity to do it. If you can afford insurance but opt not to buy it then have $100000 in medical bills you deserve to go bankrupt. Maybe you will learn from your mistake. 

Your docoters will have to be like anyone else? There bosses will determine how much they get payed.. the horror, wait don't there hospitals already determine how much they get payed? Btw unversal food... what do you think welfare is all about? Its not about having the best but rather the minimum standard you wish people to live at. So no lobsters.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
As a foreigner living in the

As a foreigner living in the USA, I must admit that I am quite amazed at the level of discourse about the proposed health case reform. The sheer volume of misinformation is staggering. People seem to have replaced easily obtainable facts with statements of ideology. Big guv'mint this and Obama wants your grandma to die that. Media talking heads say such idiotic and plain false things about both the current American system and comparisons to other systems (Brits, you feel me?) that it wouldn't surprise me if the insurance companies have them all on retainer. But when your average American repeat what they say, I start to think that maybe the insurance companies don't need to pay anyone. The level of critical thinking is so low and ideological platitudes are so frequent that misinformation would generate itself.

 

Seriously, it's like watching creationists trying to discuss the finer points of natural selection. Or, watching goats try to talk about quantum mechanics. Regardless of what side you take in this issue, you have to wonder how in the hell the level of discourse among people got so damn pathetic.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Your response proves you

Your response proves you haven't read the part where all these minimum wage workers are DENIED THEIR CLAIMS. So they spent money for nothing.
The rest is you making unwarranted and unsupported claims. The cell phone bit is probably the most ridiculous part. Cell phones are very nearly a requirement in this day and age, or maybe you miissed the fact that payphones are almost extinct? Used to see one every block, now they are bloody rare. Not to mention that the cell phones themselves can be gotten for free, just sign up for a 5 year plan.
I'm the only person I know who still hasn't ever had a cell phone.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
And another link - this time

And another link - this time from the Daily Mash - that sums the whole thing up rather nicely I thought.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
 So, here's the deal. If

 So, here's the deal.

 

If everyone has equal rights then this means that no right can interfere with someone elses right. That is to say, freedom of speech is a right because, no matter what someone says it can not interfere with your right to freely say things back.

 

So, this begs a question. Is health care a right? That is, if I get health care, can it interfere with someone else getting health care? Not necessarily, but is it a possibility? If the answer is yes then it can't be a right. If I have the ability to be denied health care for any reason then it can not be a right.

 

I'm not talking about morality, or Utopias or anything like that. I'm talking about reality. And, sadly, the reality is that health rationing is something that already happens in the U.S. in services like Medicare and Medicaid.

 

So, is health care a right? Yes, as long as it does not interfere with someones ability to get health care of any kind. If rationing is a reality, which it already is, then no, health care can not be a right.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: So,

CrimsonEdge wrote:

 So, here's the deal.

 

If everyone has equal rights then this means that no right can interfere with someone elses right. That is to say, freedom of speech is a right because, no matter what someone says it can not interfere with your right to freely say things back.

 

So, this begs a question. Is health care a right? That is, if I get health care, can it interfere with someone else getting health care? Not necessarily, but is it a possibility? If the answer is yes then it can't be a right. If I have the ability to be denied health care for any reason then it can not be a right.

 

I'm not talking about morality, or Utopias or anything like that. I'm talking about reality. And, sadly, the reality is that health rationing is something that already happens in the U.S. in services like Medicare and Medicaid.

 

So, is health care a right? Yes, as long as it does not interfere with someones ability to get health care of any kind. If rationing is a reality, which it already is, then no, health care can not be a right.

Then you don't believe in intellectual property or civil rights. Intellectual property in digital format is unlimited so it's non-exclusive. You can have as much of it as you want without preventing another person from having it, but it's not a right if you believe in the concept of intellectual property. A public water fountain on the other hand is exclusive. If you use it another person cannot, yet you can't be denied equal access for that fact if you believe in civil rights.

What you're saying might help decide if people have a right to "use" a street lamp, but it doesn't help to determine if people should have equal access to things like education, housing, or health care, or a public health care option.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:opposing a

Vastet wrote:
opposing a comprehensive health system for all. Yes, taxes will go up a bit, [\quote]

Let's raise taxes up to 100% rate. According to socialists there is not such thing as diminishing returns when it comes to taxes. Does the Laffer Curve ever kick in or does this never apply, if you are such an expert on economics?

 

Vastet wrote:

but in the end noone will need insurance to get care, so your insurance rates will actually go DOWN in order for the insurance companies to compete with free care.

I'm not so sure all the trees that have to be cut down in Canada to pay for your "free" medical services would feel that it is so 'free'.

So Canada can export it's natural resources for money to buy medical technology from capitalist pigs for it's 'free' medical services. What can the USA sell to capitalist pigs to be able to use their medical technology and pharmaceuticals once we socialize our economy?

 

Vastet wrote:
You'll also probably see more benefits for your dollar. There's simply no logical reason to be against it.

Let's make everything free. Then I can stop working. You're right I'm all for it.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC, everyone is laughing at you.

 

 

 

 

The ones that aren't are facepalming.

 

 

 

 

Thought I'd let you know.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:EXC, everyone

ClockCat wrote:

EXC, everyone is laughing at you.

 

 

 

 

The ones that aren't are facepalming.

 

 

 

 

Thought I'd let you know.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Way to dodge explaining your socialist theory of taxation. Is there ever any secondary and unintended consequences from taxation and 'free' entitlements? Does the laffer curve ever apply, if so at what rate do we start to see diminishing returns? You're laughing because you don't want to give a rational explaination of your theories about how the economy actually works.

You live in fantasy world about rich people and private businesses being willing to be everyone's sugar daddy and pay 90% income tax. Enjoy your common delusional fantasy.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You get to accuse others of

You get to accuse others of dodging when you stop it yourself. Until then you're simply contributing to your self ownage by declaring yourself a hypocrite.

Also, it's hard enough understanding the complete lack of intellect in your posts when they are formatted properly. I'm not going to bother with that mess of illogic and poor formatting above unless it is fixed and legible.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You get to

Vastet wrote:
You get to accuse others of dodging when you stop it yourself. Until then you're simply contributing to your self ownage by declaring yourself a hypocrite. Also, it's hard enough understanding the complete lack of intellect in your posts when they are formatted properly. I'm not going to bother with that mess of illogic and poor formatting above unless it is fixed and legible.

Great Dodge as well. You want to live in a fantasy economics world were taxes, entitlement and minimum wages can be continually raised with no ill effects. I can't bring Christians out of the fantasy they love so much, neither can a rationally minded person bring you out of yours. All you can do is make me the devil.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:You want to live

EXC wrote:

You want to live in a fantasy economics world were taxes, entitlement and minimum wages can be continually raised with no ill effects.

Not unlike the capitalist fantasy where profit margins, share prices and target markets can continually be levered upward in number without ill effect either.

Now *think* about your response before you make it EXC. Does it sound at all, uncannily, like something someone else has been telling you?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Not unlike the

Eloise wrote:

Not unlike the capitalist fantasy where profit margins, share prices and target markets can continually be levered upward in number without ill effect either.

OK then. If the health insurance companies are making obsene profits and easy money, why don't you come to America and start your own health insurance company? If your theory is correct, you'd be a billionare is a short period of time, then you could you use all this easy money to provide health coverage for those that don't have it. You'd still be filthy rich and a great humanitarian if your theory is correct.

In a free market if someone is making huge profits while offering lousy service, then a competitor can come in and offer better service/lower price, right? These ill effects can't happen as long as competitors are able to enter the market.

In a government run monopoly, if I think the service suck and I'm paying too much tax, there will be nothing I can do about it. The fact that it must be forced on people shows that it is irrational and unsustainable. People must recieve a benefit in proportion to the taxes they pay.

And I'm not a strict captialist. Capitalism breaks down when competitors are not allowed to enter the market. That's why I don't believe in allow individuals or coorporations to monopolize natural resourses. I also believe the government has a role to play in making sure we don't have shortages of food, housing or health care. The government should make sure citizens are trained to perform the jobs in demand in the free market.

But these socialist values like punishing sucess and rewarding failure are irrational and unsustainable.

 

Eloise wrote:

Now *think* about your response before you make it EXC. Does it sound at all, uncannily, like something someone else has been telling you?

 

I've thought it through. Socialism is not all that unlike religion. Most humans are insecure and needy so they invent a magical entity that can give them security. Religionists believe their magical entity can defy the laws of nature to provide them with good health and life. Socialist believe their magical entity(big government) can provide their health security by defying the laws of economics. If you read the posts of the socialist here, they somehow believe the laws of economics are magically different for health care than for other commodities.

 

What's different about health care is that it is often a matter of life and death. So this produces an emotional response in people causing them to be irrational. But the same laws of economics still apply to health care as do other commodities and services.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:You

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You get to accuse others of dodging when you stop it yourself. Until then you're simply contributing to your self ownage by declaring yourself a hypocrite. Also, it's hard enough understanding the complete lack of intellect in your posts when they are formatted properly. I'm not going to bother with that mess of illogic and poor formatting above unless it is fixed and legible.

Great Dodge as well. You want to live in a fantasy economics world were taxes, entitlement and minimum wages can be continually raised with no ill effects. I can't bring Christians out of the fantasy they love so much, neither can a rationally minded person bring you out of yours. All you can do is make me the devil.

 

Yet another dodge, yet another strawman. All you can do with your argument in ruins.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise wrote:Not

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Not unlike the capitalist fantasy where profit margins, share prices and target markets can continually be levered upward in number without ill effect either.

OK then. If the health insurance companies are making obsene profits and easy money, why don't you come to America and start your own health insurance company? If your theory is correct, you'd be a billionare is a short period of time, then you could you use all this easy money to provide health coverage for those that don't have it. You'd still be filthy rich and a great humanitarian if your theory is correct.

What the..? If my theory is correct? I didn't offer any theories on this issue today, what are you talking about?

I have previously put to you that insurance companies make obscene profits, and only by denying health care coverage, never by actually providing it. It is expensive and brings no short term capital return to actually provide health care. I've said twice already, humanitarian health care is not attractive to capitalism, capitalist principles dictate minimalising spending and that's all there is to it.

If any form of theory on this issue could be attributed to me it would be this, and theres no way in hell it suggests that I believe I could come to the US, get rich selling honest health insurance and come out with humanitarian integrity in tact. I'm saying the opposite, quite literally.

 

EXC wrote:

These ill effects can't happen as long as competitors are able to enter the market.

There's the capitalist fantasy, in a nutshell. It's all cut and dried under this equation isn't it?

EXC wrote:

In a free market if someone is making huge profits while offering lousy service, then a competitor can come in and offer better service/lower price, right?

Again. There isn't a market for health care. There is only a market for health care Insurance. If there was a legitimate market for health care then insurance wouldn't exist, now would it? With me so far?

Competitors can enter the market for health care insurance, which means they sell insurance, not health care. In the bare bones, the sale and provision of insurance can and does have absolutely NO influence over the price or administration of actual health care. Health care is administered and costed under a distinct, and almost completely alien to the insurance game, regime. 

Competition in the insurance market cannot exert a direct influence over the availability of health care via strict economics. The only thing an insurance company exerts direct influence over is the availability of coverage (funds), and this is the only thing competition in the insurance market can affect. Competition cannot influence the demand for health care and it cannot affect the cost of meeting that demand through any means of traditional economics (non-traditional means such as humanitarian sponsorship notwithstanding since they are dismally underdeveloped anyway). An insurance market can merely and only regulate whether making the funds, already in demand, available is economically rational, and they can only make it more economically rational by lowering profit and market share.

Basically - Plug zero into your sparkly magic equation for capitalist self regulation and you will have modelled completely non-socialised health care exactly.

EXC wrote:

In a government run monopoly, if I think the service suck and I'm paying too much tax, there will be nothing I can do about it.

And when capitalism has the monopoly on the funds available for health care you can think the service doesn't exist, and there will be "nothing" you can do about it.

But, that aside, please drop this straw man, no-one's actually talking about a socialist monopoly here. For a start all the countries with socialised health care have private doctors and/or use private systems to some extent or another. And besides it doesn't matter if they do or don't because health care (basically and essentially) does not engage in any market and is not a market, so it cannot be monopolised.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:What the..? If

Eloise wrote:

What the..? If my theory is correct? I didn't offer any theories on this issue today, what are you talking about?

"Not unlike the capitalist fantasy where profit margins, share prices and target markets can continually be levered upward in number without ill effect either."

From your statement, I assumed your theory that capitalist enterprises can continually increase their profit margins? This can't happen in a free market because competitors will enter the market when the profits become excessive, right?

What is your economic theory then? Where do the savings come from under government run health care? The other socialist here believe that insurance companies make obscene profits and the saving would come from eliminating these profits.

I'm confused, I also get the story that insurance companies can't provide good coverage because they would loose so much money, so our government should rack up huge deficits providing coverage instead.

Eloise wrote:

I have previously put to you that insurance companies make obscene profits, and only by denying health care coverage, never by actually providing it.

They sign a contract so they are legally obliged to provide the coverage they customer paid for. Are you claiming they break the law? What's your business? Do you provide services to people that don't pay you? So how are you any different than an insurance company?

And a government run health care could only operate in the black by "denying health care coverage, never by actually providing it", so whats the difference?

Eloise wrote:

It is expensive and brings no short term capital return to actually provide health care.

What are you talking about, they signed a contract to provide X. If they don't provide X, they pay a fine and go to jail for insurance fraud. You want them to provide Y when the customer didn't pay for Y? Are you claiming they are breaking the law by not fulfilling the terms of their contract?

When I order and pay for coke at McDonald's are they obliged to give me a Big Mac as well even if I don't pay for it? Maybe they shouldn't give the anything after I pay, then they'd make lot's more money.

Eloise wrote:

I've said twice already, humanitarian health care is not attractive to capitalism, capitalist principles dictate minimizing spending and that's all there is to it.

 

Oh, but the government has tons of money to spend. They can just print money if health care is gets too expensive. Great solution.

Eloise wrote:

If any form of theory on this issue could be attributed to me it would be this, and theres no way in hell it suggests that I believe I could come to the US, get rich selling honest health insurance and come out with humanitarian integrity in tact. I'm saying the opposite, quite literally.

But your a compassionate socialist. So you'd give your obscene profits to the poor to help them get through our "humanitarian crisis". Just sell policies to rich capitalists, then break the insurance contract and deny them coverage when they need it most. This way our evil capitalists would die off faster.

Or you could start a non-profit. You'd have no problems getting clients since our current system is so horrible, right?

Eloise wrote:

There's the capitalist fantasy, in a nutshell. It's all cut and dried under this equation isn't it?

Who's stopping you? You can get filthy rich as well.

 

Eloise wrote:

In the bare bones, the sale and provision of insurance can and does have absolutely NO influence over the price or administration of actual health care.

They sign contracts with both the customers and the health care provider, they are essentially middlemen. The government has a role to play in making sure that no fraud is taking place in the execution of these contracts. Under socialized medicine, the government becomes the middleman, right? Except you can't fire this middleman and not pay him if you don't like what your getting.

Eloise wrote:

Health care is administered and costed under a distinct, and almost completely alien to the insurance game, regime. 

The insurance companies negotiate with health care providers for the best price/quality they can find to offer their customers. They don't have any negociating leverage if there is an undersupply. So fix the supply problem. Socialism can't fix this problem.

Eloise wrote:

Competition in the insurance market cannot exert a direct influence over the availability of health care via strict economics.

Why not? Wal-mart exerts pressure on it's suppliers to keep prices down. Why can't an insurance company do the same with a health care provider?

Eloise wrote:

Competition cannot influence the demand for health care and it cannot affect the cost of meeting that demand through any means of traditional economics (non-traditional means such as humanitarian sponsorship notwithstanding since they are dismally underdeveloped anyway).

I agree with this, but the same is true for other essential commodities like food, water and and housing.

Since health care is an essential commodity. It's price vs. under-supply curve is similar to commodities like food and water. If there is an under-supply, the prices will spike up since the customer is willing to pay any price for good health. So if this is the case, what should the government's role be? To make sure we don't have under-supplies of these commodities, right. If we have food shortages, it becomes an humanitarian and economic disaster. So this has been the justification for the government getting involved in farming and water supply projects.

Now in health care, a big part of the crisis is the under-supply of doctors, nurses and facilities. This is what is spiking up prices. So if the government has a role to play in health care, why not do what it does with food and water. Try to make sure we don't have under-supplies. This would mean educating more doctors and nurses, making sure enough facilities are built, etc... If we have an oversupply, just like with food, anyone with a job should be able to afford it.

But your solution of the government taking over the health insurance industry would be akin to a government takeover of all grocery stores and restaurants. You are not addressing supply and demand issues of health care. You make the under-supply problem worse. So we'll have rationing, and stressed out health care providers.

We have a huge problem with nurse shortages with an aging population. Socialized medicine would limit nurse pay. Then you tell students you get free medical care no matter what you do with your life. So why bother to study to  be a nurse? You don't get any better medical service or pay by being one. You punish success and reward failure. You do nothing to fix the fundamental supply problems. So your solutions are doomed to fail.

Eloise wrote:

An insurance market can merely and only regulate whether making the funds, already in demand, available is economically rational, and they can only make it more economically rational by lowering profit and market share.

So you want the government to run health care at a loss, then run up huge deficits and taxes to pay for it? The insurance companies can negotiate with supplies when their is an oversupply.

Eloise wrote:

And when capitalism has the monopoly on the funds available for health care you can think the service doesn't exist, and there will be "nothing" you can do about it.

What are you talking about? I'm in favor of YOU have control over the funds YOU pay for your own health insurance and services. Not a government bureaucrat. If you don't like the service a capitalist offers you, find someone else.

Eloise wrote:

But, that aside, please drop this straw man, no-one's actually talking about a socialist monopoly here. For a start all the countries with socialised health care have private doctors and/or use private systems to some extent or another. And besides it doesn't matter if they do or don't because health care (basically and essentially) does not engage in any market and is not a market, so it cannot be monopolised.

If the government picks up the tab for anyone that can't or won't pay, why would anyone ever buy insurance?

The government will subsidize the socialized medicine with tax payer money. This will give them an unfair advantage and drive the private companies out of business. But then the deficits will eventually bankrupt the government(ours already is on the verge of bankruptcy for Medicaid).

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:But these

EXC wrote:
But these socialist values like punishing sucess and rewarding failure are irrational and unsustainable.

I've already explained to you why this argument fails.

 

 

EXC wrote:
If you read the posts of the socialist here, they somehow believe the laws of economics are magically different for health care than for other commodities.

Health care is not a commodity!


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Topher

So insurance companies don't want to pay expensive claims. So you have a insurance commission decide if they companies are required to fulfill their contract. This is a change I think would work, to not allow insurance companies to decide when they should pay out, but rather an independent insurance agency. Same thing happens with socialized medicine a government bureaucrat decides what you get.

 So what makes you think taxpayers are going to be so much more anxious than insurance companies to pay whatever costs the medical industry decides it can charge? High costs are driven by the fact that the medical industry can get someone to buy whatever expensive product or service they can produce.

You'd like to declare that medical services are not a commodity. Unfortunately, labor markets can not work this way unless we go back to indentured servitude. People decide to become to become doctors, nurses, biomedical engineers in large part based on the promise of a high paying job. Construction companies are only going to build hospitals when they can make a profit. So we can't mandate their wages without expecting this to result in shortages and rationed care.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:From your

EXC wrote:

From your statement, I assumed your theory that capitalist enterprises can continually increase their profit margins? This can't happen in a free market because competitors will enter the market when the profits become excessive, right?

Even though I was snide about it earlier, of course I do see the logic of a self regulating free market. But it does happen in the US free market, and it happens regularly. So reiterating that it shouldn't as per some evidently sound economic theory serves no purpose at all. 

EXC wrote:

What is your economic theory then? Where do the savings come from under government run health care?

Well the people don't need to make a profit from providing themselves a healthcare service so there's a saving right there, Socialised health care can run at cost. Secondly it can run without the administration spend of business arms as well, like sales and market research, that about makes up the bulk of your saving without even breaking a sweat.

EXC wrote:

The other socialist here believe that insurance companies make obscene profits and the saving would come from eliminating these profits.

I'm confused, I also get the story that insurance companies can't provide good coverage because they would loose so much money, so our government should rack up huge deficits providing coverage instead.

Insurance companies can provide 100% good coverage without losing money, but it requires them to be relatively small and operate on tight profits. It's a living for an entrepreneur, but its hardly an attractive one, and it's certainly not gonna get you the dream of being filthy royally rich. It's not a suicide business EXC, it's just a totally ordinary payer and nobody really wants that, is all.

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

I have previously put to you that insurance companies make obscene profits, and only by denying health care coverage, never by actually providing it.

They sign a contract so they are legally obliged to provide the coverage they customer paid for.

Yeah EXC, it's just a fair and decent agreement made between two honest joes from a level playing field. Be real.  Corporations spend millions on big legal, and social research to ensure that their contracts are drafted within a tiny preset tolerance limit of actual paying for actual statistically possible health care needs. Do you have the same resources to examine the contract with and know what you're paying for and whether you're going to need it?

EXC wrote:

Are you claiming they break the law?

No I'm pointing out that it is well within the means of a large corporate entity servicing a big market to flout the fringes of law to their advantage. An insurance company doesn't have to cover sick people to stay legitimate. You said so yourself. They just have to stick to their contract or thereabouts. This leaves pounds of room for exploiting the ignorance and trust of your market, a market which generally only does hard and serious business with you when they're physically at their weakest, phwoar! Bonus!

EXC wrote:

What's your business?

I'm a student ATM.

EXC wrote:

Do you provide services to people that don't pay you?

Every day, no bull.

EXC wrote:

 

And a government run health care could only operate in the black by "denying health care coverage, never by actually providing it", so whats the difference?

I already addressed this point, but I'll say it again, so you don't miss it. I never said they only operate in the black by denying coverage, I said obscene profit can only be made by denying coverage. It's possible for a health insurer to run clear while providing full and appropriate coverage, it's just a really unattractive modest and meagre return. 

 

EXC wrote:

When I order and pay for coke at McDonald's are they obliged to give me a Big Mac

EXC, if you, for example, order a Big Mac, they don't have to provide you with a great Big Mac, it doesn't have to be on time, fresh and hot or served nicely. Sure you can expect these things, and you can complain if you don't get them but the "contract" is to provide you with two-all-beef-patties-special-sauce-lettuce-cheese-pickles-onions-on-a-sesame-seed-bun. Where in that contract does it state, served hot and fresh in a timely and respectful manner by someone with a smile you'll love? Contracts are not foolproof EXC, don't delude yourself with modern mythology.

 

EXC wrote:

But your a compassionate socialist. So you'd give your obscene profits to the poor to help them get through our "humanitarian crisis". Just sell policies to rich capitalists, then break the insurance contract and deny them coverage when they need it most. This way our evil capitalists would die off faster.

Yeah... I just don't have it in me to join em.

 

 

 

EXC wrote:

 Except you can't fire this middleman and not pay him if you don't like what your getting.

No no no, EXC, you can fire the middleman, that's what votes are for. Democracy rose from the ashes of Imperialism before, it can do it again.

 

EXC wrote:

The insurance companies negotiate with health care providers for the best price/quality they can find to offer their customers.

The cost of health care is the cost of health care EXC, there's virtually no wiggle room to reduce the running cost of a suite of surgeries and scanning machines. Negotiations of this nature are for the most doomed to fruitlessness from the start, it costs what it costs and that's what it costs. It's alien economics.

EXC wrote:

They don't have any negociating leverage if there is an undersupply. So fix the supply problem. Socialism can't fix this problem.

They don't have negotiating leverage because a medical equipment is super fine quality, expensive and comprised of thousands of complex components. You can't negotiate the cost of everything with every manufacturing supplier of health care short of covering the earth with omniscient, omnipotent representatives. It's Mt impossible, and you don't climb Mt impossible, that's not smart economics, you build a barricade at the end of Demand street, thats smart economics.

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Competition in the insurance market cannot exert a direct influence over the availability of health care via strict economics.

Why not? Wal-mart exerts pressure on it's suppliers to keep prices down. Why can't an insurance company do the same with a health care provider?

Because it's not the health care provider that sets the prices, EXC. The cost is set by need and by the hippocratic oath, which sets the standard for meeting that need.

 

EXC wrote:

 

I'm in favor of YOU have control over the funds YOU pay for your own health insurance and services.

Well then you're against private health insurance, because definitionally, in a private coverage system, YOU don't have control over the funds you pay for your Health services, the Insurer does. You sign over your discretion over your own funds to the insurance company when you sign the contract. It's no longer yours. In exchange you get a promise of discretionary use of someone elses money to fund your health services in the future, where in this case the discretion belongs solely to the Insurance company not to you.

Buying insurance is relinquishing your control over what money you might have to fund your own health services.

And make no mistake this is not a free choice. It is guaranteed, if you kept the money instead, you won't have enough to fund yourself. The choice is made under threat.

EXC wrote:

Not a government bureaucrat. If you don't like the service a capitalist offers you, find someone else.

Oh yeah, that's realistic. Except you don't experience the service until it's too late to jump ship EXC. Health coverage is a ludicrously exploitable market, how can you not see it?

 

EXC wrote:

If the government picks up the tab for anyone that can't or won't pay, why would anyone ever buy insurance?

For cosmetic or enhancement services. For extended therapies. For the choice to access premium drug delivery methods or cutting edge diagnostics. There are literally loads of reasons, EXC.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
EXCWe often hear people

EXC

We often hear people criticse socialised health care on the grounds that people shouldn't have to pay for someone else's health care. Can you tell me what the difference is between that and private insurance companies? With private insurance companies you may a monthly premium, but if you get really ill it's unlikely that all the money you have paid to the insurance company will cover your medical costs, so as a result your medical bills are funded not only from your premiums, but also (mostly) from the premiums of other people - that basically how insurance works. Not everyone has to make a medical claim, so the healthy people pay for the sick people.

How is this fundamentally ANY different from socialised health care? Socialised health care is based on the same principle. You pool your money together (like an insurance company) and any medical bills are partly funded by your contribution to that pool, but mostly funded by other peoples money (also like an insurance company). The benefit of socialised health care is that it removes the need for profit, meaning much more of the pool of money can go towards providing actual health care.

As Eloise pointed out, by your own words (e.g. you controlling you own medical funds) you don't appear to support private insurance companies; you appear to support keeping your own money, making your own choices and paying medical costs whenever they arise. Unfortunately as Krugman noted in that link of gave you, the cost of medicine is such that for most people it simply cannot be paid for like bread and milk, indeed, realistically it can only be funded by some kind of insurance system, which necessitates that you relinquish some control of the decision making.

EXC wrote:

So insurance companies don't want to pay expensive claims. So you have a insurance commission decide if they companies are required to fulfill their contract. This is a change I think would work, to not allow insurance companies to decide when they should pay out, but rather an independent insurance agency. Same thing happens with socialized medicine a government bureaucrat decides what you get.

 So what makes you think taxpayers are going to be so much more anxious than insurance companies to pay whatever costs the medical industry decides it can charge? High costs are driven by the fact that the medical industry can get someone to buy whatever expensive product or service they can produce.

You'd like to declare that medical services are not a commodity. Unfortunately, labor markets can not work this way unless we go back to indentured servitude. People decide to become to become doctors, nurses, biomedical engineers in large part based on the promise of a high paying job. Construction companies are only going to build hospitals when they can make a profit. So we can't mandate their wages without expecting this to result in shortages and rationed care.

But they don't breach their contracts. Contracts are drafted in such a way that it gives maximum benefit to the insurance company… this means they can deny coverage within the parameters of the contract, things like a treatment being excluded due to there being pre-existing signs or determining a treatment to not be "medically necessary" and so refuse payment on those grounds. No ordinary person is going to have the knowledge or ability to scrutinise a legal contract.

Then there's the fact that insurance companies will deny you insurance altogether if you have a pre-existing condition (obviously due to the fact they will more likely have to spend money on you). Obviously here there is no breech of contract.

Eloise wrote:
Oh yeah, that's realistic. Except you don't experience the service until it's too late to jump ship EXC. Health coverage is a ludicrously exploitable market, how can you not see it?

Because he is treating health care like coffee or a television or a shop… if the product isn't good, or is too expensive, or the customer service is poor then just switch. Nevermind the fact that, as you say, when you're most in need of health care the last thing you want to deal with switching insurance or providers.

The only way someone can make a case for market-based health care is if they stick to theory and avoid the realities of the world.


"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:EXCWe often

Topher wrote:

EXC

We often hear people criticse socialised health care on the grounds that people shouldn't have to pay for someone else's health care. Can you tell me what the difference is between that and private insurance companies? With private insurance companies you may a monthly premium, but if you get really ill it's unlikely that all the money you have paid to the insurance company will cover your medical costs, so as a result your medical bills are funded not only from your premiums, but also (mostly) from the premiums of other people - that basically how insurance works. Not everyone has to make a medical claim, so the healthy people pay for the sick people.

If you are talking about health care is a right, this means universal coverage, right? So everyone is treated the same even if they can't or won't pay for insurance. The government picks up the tab.

So for one, it is mandatory. The government collects taxes by force from people that have it. This means income and business profit tax. In other words punish their success. If a business is run well and makes a profit, they pay more than their share, while the poorly run company that just breaks even pays nothing. So over time this punishment of success will eventually destroy the economy and bankrupt the government.

If you don't pay into the system, you still get covered. So some people will decide to work less and not work in a difficult profession because you get medical coverage no matter what you do. If someone else is paying your bills, this will change how people behave. These are the negative secondary effects of socialism. This will reduce the taxes the government collects and lead to labor shortages in the fields we need most. Then because of the reduced tax revenue, the government decides to raise taxes on the rich even more, making the problem even worse. So the whole thing becomes a death cycle.

What makes sense for health care it co-op. Essentially the clients own the insurance company which is non-profit. If you pay your premiums, you get coverage and you get a vote in how the co-op is run. They started this is some places but it looks like this is what the reform bill is going to do. A majority of Americans don't want socialism. We don't want wealth redistribution.

 

 

 

Topher wrote:

How is this fundamentally ANY different from socialised health care? Socialised health care is based on the same principle.

The proponents of socialized health care are trying to use this as a tool for wealth redistribution. They want the rich to pay for the health care of the poor. I'm in favor of doing things to help the poor get out of poverty, and perhaps this may mean short term benefits like health care. Guaranteed entitlements are not going to work.

 If you've ever studied control theory you know what I'm talking about. You are setting up a positive control loop with a guarantee that the rich will pay for the poor. Over time you get more and more people needing the rich to pay for them and fewer and fewer rich willing or able to pay the high taxes. The economy and the government budget goes into a death spiral.

Suppose you had a restaurant that you gave women a free lunch, but then charged extra for the men else that came in to make up for this loss. What would happen? You'll only get women showing up at your restaurant asking for a free lunch. This is the kind of control loop you are creating with entitlements.

 

Topher wrote:

As Eloise pointed out, by your own words (e.g. you controlling you own medical funds) you don't appear to support private insurance companies; you appear to support keeping your own money, making your own choices and paying medical costs whenever they arise.

 

Personally, I think most people get too many minor things covered by insurance. It is better just to pay out of pocket. You only need insurance for the catastrophic event. Some people can pay more than others, some people are willing to take the risk with their life and save money. I don't like telling other people what to do with their lives.

Topher wrote:

Unfortunately as Krugman noted in that link of gave you, the cost of medicine is such that for most people it simply cannot be paid for like bread and milk, indeed, realistically it can only be funded by some kind of insurance system, which necessitates that you relinquish some control of the decision making.

A big part of the problem is that employers buy the insurance. So the individual can't decide what exactly he wants, it's often crappy insurance. I actually think employers should stop doing this and just pay cash to the employees instead.

We need to reform the insurance oversight so they are not allowed to market deceptive policies. Also, a 3rd party should decide immediately if a claim is valid whenever their is a dispute. These are reforms everyone would support.

Topher wrote:

But they don't breach their contracts. Contracts are drafted in such a way that it gives maximum benefit to the insurance company… this means they can deny coverage within the parameters of the contract, things like a treatment being excluded due to there being pre-existing signs or determining a treatment to not be "medically necessary" and so refuse payment on those grounds. No ordinary person is going to have the knowledge or ability to scrutinise a legal contract.

These deceptive contracts need to be made illegal. The customer must know what he is buying. That's why we need better regulation. I also think in the age of the internet companies can't get away with rip-offs for very long. If you sold deceptive policies and "let people die" you'd lose a ton of customers in a hurry.

But under socialized medicine, if a bueracrat "let's some die" by refusing coverage. What can you do? It's hard to fire government employees and recall politicians. You can't just decide to stop paying your taxes for crappy service.

Topher wrote:

Because he is treating health care like coffee or a television or a shop… if the product isn't good, or is too expensive, or the customer service is poor then just switch. Nevermind the fact that, as you say, when you're most in need of health care the last thing you want to deal with switching insurance or providers.

That's why we need co-ops and insurance reform. I think a majority would support this. But not socialism that punishes success.

Topher wrote:

The only way someone can make a case for market-based health care is if they stick to theory and avoid the realities of the world.

The same can be said for a system that punishes success and rewards failure. It is doomed to fail because it "avoids the realities of the world."

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So for one, it is

EXC wrote:

So for one, it is mandatory. The government collects taxes by force from people that have it. This means income and business profit tax. In other words punish their success.

If success = ridiculously, outrageously and disproprtionately rich, then redistribution is not a punishment - it's what intelligent people will do for the "successful" to rescue them from their own bloody-minded ignorance.

Gouging the heart from one's own community for the "numbers" wealth incessantly propounded by increasingly insular, detached from reality, capitalist ideology is ultimately doing yourself and everyone a disservice; re-distribution is all the compassionate can do to not punish this brand of narrow-minded idiocy, seriously.

 

 

 

EXC wrote:

Topher wrote:

How is this fundamentally ANY different from socialised health care? Socialised health care is based on the same principle.

The proponents of socialized health care are trying to use this as a tool for wealth redistribution. They want the rich to pay for the health care of the poor.

And obssessive compulsive capitalists, all the more blinded by spectacular mathematical handwavery, try to use it as a tool for self aggrandisation. They want the poor to live only to pay for other peoples yachts and private man made islands, then just die, as long as the delusion persists that they were nothing more than jealous losers anyway it's mission accomplished.

EXC wrote:


Suppose you had a restaurant that you gave women a free lunch, but then charged extra for the men else that came in to make up for this loss. What would happen? You'll only get women showing up at your restaurant asking for a free lunch.

Oh, I don't think so.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004084452_webstarbucks20m.html

See what we mean about obsessive compulsive capitalist ideology increasingly getting out of touch with reality?

 

EXC wrote:

We need to reform the insurance oversight so they are not allowed to market deceptive policies. Also, a 3rd party should decide immediately if a claim is valid whenever their is a dispute. These are reforms everyone would support.

No. These are not reforms everybody will support. No insurer would support this or anything of the sort that cuts so deep into their ability to extract a maximum profit within the law.

 

EXC wrote:


These deceptive contracts need to be made illegal.

Yeah, I'm all for that. Go right ahead and see if you can get it done. Insurers will lobby hard against it ever happening, but if they lose the fight it's all good, they'll close up shop and you'll get socialised health care anyway.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:If success =

Eloise wrote:

If success = ridiculously, outrageously and disproprtionately rich, then redistribution is not a punishment - it's what intelligent people will do for the "successful" to rescue them from their own bloody-minded ignorance.

How does new technology get developed if we don't have a class of wealthy people? Take for instance MRI or cell phones. First someone has a crazy idea that this technology would work. They go to investors that must be wealth and willing to take a big risk because technology start-ups usually fail. They will only take the risk if their is a potential big payoff(with high taxes). Then if you need some wealthy customers(early adopters) that would be able to pay high prices so the investors could recoup their investment. Only years later can the technology be perfected and marketed to the great unwashed masses.

How does all this happen if we take all the wealth away and punish risky investments with high taxes? How would MRI technology ever have been developed in a world of socialized medicine? How are new treatments ever going to be funded without the wealthy?

Another reason why free market capitalism is better is the jobs it creates. I know most of the salary I've had has been paid paid for by venture capital. So the USA spends 16% of our GDP on medicine, but a lot of this going to fund medical research and development. Since Canada only spends 8%, they can't allow people to access experimental or expensive new treatments, but they are going to be missing out on the jobs that risky capital enterprises create as well.

Eloise wrote:

Gouging the heart from one's own community for the "numbers" wealth incessantly propounded by increasingly insular, detached from reality, capitalist ideology is ultimately doing yourself and everyone a disservice; re-distribution is all the compassionate can do to not punish this brand of narrow-minded idiocy, seriously.

Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. It depends on what the rich do with their money. If they create monopolies and buy up limited natural resources this is bad and needs to be discouraged. But they can create jobs and spread the wealth around. If they buy a yacht, why is that so bad for the blue collar worker that builds yachats? Who else is going to give him a job?

 

Yes but it didn't last more than the Christmas season in one store. There's no free lunch. We're all basically selfish bastards.

Eloise wrote:

See what we mean about obsessive compulsive capitalist ideology increasingly getting out of touch with reality?

I think you have to accept the fact that humans are selfish and self interested 100% of the time. We can play games of cooperation and people can get a feeling that helping those in need is a good thing. But humans have a drive to acquire wealth, so you will always have this drive toward capitalism. The profit motive is the only way things will get done.

If you accept this reality, then maybe you could support some rational solutions to control it's excesses and monopolization of markets. But you seem like you're angry that people are this way and that life has winners and losers. So you want to pass laws that have no rational way of working given that humans are driven by this need to accumulate wealth.

If you tax the shit out of the rich, you won't have any rich, but then you won't have this tax revenue either.

Eloise wrote:

No. These are not reforms everybody will support. No insurer would support this or anything of the sort that cuts so deep into their ability to extract a maximum profit within the law. 

And they're going to support being put out of business altogether with socialized medicine?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There's some sort of brick

There's some sort of brick wall in your head that has an auto-response of socialism causing bankruptcy as a nation whenever a socialist theme is introduced. It is similar to brainwashed evangelicals who literally don't LISTEN to their opponents. Evidence has been provided that a socialist system of healthcare will NOT result in bankruptcy for anyone. All you have ever done is assert that it will. You do not provide evidence, you do not even argue the point. Your brain considers it an axiom. It is not. Every time you fail to explain why a socialist health system will go bankrupt, you fail to defend the system that exists. You've made some seemingly reasonable suggestions here and there, but forcing insurance companies to pay out is only half the battle. The inevitable result is drastically increased costs for customers so the companies can retain high profits for share holders. That will further reduce the number of people who have healthcare, and lower wages to compensate companies providing for employees.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Obviously the concept of a public option is TERRIBLE. 

 

I mean, education is more important than health care. We have a public option in education. Health care though...that is a commodity. Like bread. And milk. But extremely expensive, so it would bankrupt many people when they need it if they can afford it. The people that can't afford it will just have to go to the emergency room like they do now, and make huge lines for people needing help there instead of having it taken care of before it becomes an emergency. 

 

Oh right, and a lot of people don't pay the ER bills because they can't afford them...which means the hospital has to charge more in the ER to everyone.

 

 

 

Funny how that works out. Where did the insurance companies HELP anywhere in this system? Oh, they didn't. They are leeching off it.

 

People that HAVE insurance, end up going to the insurance companies for approval on everything. Of course the companies will deny as much as possible, as it will make a profit. If you require them by law to cover people, rather than deny claims and look for ways to drop them...they will either look for more ways to deny coverage, or raise their rates. They will do anything possible to keep from losing profits. No matter how many people they kill.

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Vastet: The Republican view of health care is based on the idea that the overwhelming majority of people in this country have never worked a day in their lives and live on some sort of perpetual source of welfare, thanks to the 1 or 2 billionaires who are hounded into paying taxes. Of course the hundreds of millions of lazy good-for-nothing citizens who have never paid a dime of any kind of tax in their lives, every one of whom lays at home and does nothing but collect food stamps, welfare, and free medical care are a problem as well. Don't forget the hundreds of millions of illegal aliens who live like billionaires.

 

 

Peasants live at the pleasure of the few billionaires to service them, and when they drops scraps your way you accept the trickle down gleefully. This is "true" america, not like the "fake" america that hates "true" america.

 

 

 

Welcome to the GOP mindset.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.