If You Doubt President Obama's Lack of Common Courtesy...
Poll
 | 22 votes (66.66%) | ||
| | 11 votes (33.33%) |
33 members have voted
Quote: boymimbo
Socialized medicine is just fine. Every stinking country in the Western World beside the United States has it
And they're almost all going bankrupt because of it.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerAmazingly, you seem to have no problem with government suppression of political speech. BTW, that = un-American and is seditious.
Nah, I still read your posts, so I can't be all that much in favor of suppression.
Quote: boymimboThe economic stimulus and everything thereafter was like lighting a flame to money. But what else was he going to do? Cut trillions of dollars in spending and cut tens of thousands of more jobs so they can go and work at Wendys or collect unemployment. The correct way to bring up a faltering economy is by temporary stimulus. The problem was that the stimulus didn't do anything, because the money went mainly to the wrong places.
Yes, spending should have been cut. The "the only other place to work is Wendy's" argument is getting old. The US Economy is the largest and most diverse in the world. There are even shortages in some skilled jobs like truck driving, welding, etc. The problem here is too many people want to only take a job where they sit in an office and work M-F, 8-5 and all holidays off. Sorry, the world doesn't work like that. And if a government worker has to be laid off? Boo hoo hoo. We don't have the money. Let them find a way to work that produces wealth for a change, then.
Quote:America's in deep trouble. Corporations have done absolutely everything to cut costs that it's farmed out most of its meaningful employment overseas. There is very little manufacturing base left anymore. Your natural resources are slim and there's been no effort to exploit what you have left because damn it, there's regulations against that. So without a manufacturing base and without a plethora of resources, what does America produce? Movies, porn, computer programs, a gigantic service and banking industry, but nothing of substance, and even that's farmed out. Obama's promised this green industry. Well the green industry relies on alot of government subsidies before economies of scales can bring them to meaningful fruition, and nobody wants that. I ask you, when the trillions of dollars get cut from the budget, those are jobs. Where are these people going to go? Cuts in the defence industry? There goes 6,500 educated people of Lockheed. I guess they'll become Caltrans toll booth collectors. Wait, those jobs are being cut too. Maybe they'll become homeless and live on the streets in Portland (because the Bay Area is frickin' too expensive, still).
I disagree that "all meaningful employment has been farmed out overseas." The USA is still the #1 or #2 manufacturing nation depending on how you count things. But the USA doesn't manufacture low-value items well, our plants produce more with less workers. But that is natural. Yes, too many regulations on natural resources, thanks, liberals!
The "green industry" was, is, and always will be a total joke. Producing somenthing to "be green" produces nothing. All this "green job training" is the biggest government theft-and-transfer of wealth in our time. I found it laughable all kinds of people took "green job certification" to learn how to caulk houses and put in insulation. But know who really gets hired for those jobs? Contractors who already know how to do the work!
Quote:Socialized medicine is just fine. Every stinking country in the Western World beside the United States has it because even a simple minded person realizes that it ain't usually your fault for getting sick. People on this forum go on and on about how great US medicine is because (a) they haven't been sick or (b) they've been insured when they get sick. I will say the same thing about your stupid tax system. State tax, city tax, all of which kill business. Get on board with the Value Added Tax, folks.
Socialized medicine is a terrible idea that gives poor results. The reason so many people come to the USA for care is because "every stinking country in the western world has socialized medicine." It is a proven fact that you can get an MRI for your dog faster than yourself in Canada. No thanks. VAT? No thanks, either. I'd get rid of the income tax and its Constitutional Ammendment in favor of a sales tax so the current freeloaders could pay up. A VAT hides the true level of taxes you are paying. I'd rather people *see every time* what taxes cost, that way they don't vote for the guy who promises "free health care."
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
Quote: RonCI think at the end of the day, President Obama will be remembered as one of the biggest failures as a President.
The Presidents who started out with a relatively rosy situation and left office with a dismal one would likely be the bottom.
Quote: rxwineThe Presidents who started out with a relatively rosy situation and left office with a dismal one would likely be the bottom.
That is why I said "one of the" as opposed to "the"...I don't think he'll be at the bottom but it appears that, unless he starts leading instead of campaigning and also has a few things go well for him, he may lose the election (not being re-elected could be considered the sign of a failed administration) and have the same economy that he inherited.
I only buy the "inherited" thing for a bit. You ran for President, you were a part of the Senate...you knew what you were getting into. You said you could do something. It isn't an inherited problem anymore--it is a situation he ran to change and he is failing at this point. Again, are we better off now than we were at the time of the election almost three years ago? Not very much, if any.
Quote: AZDuffmanSocialized medicine is a terrible idea that gives poor results.
Before the GOP flip flopped on ideas like Romney care, there were U.S. citizens that reported their satisfaction levels with TRUE full fledged socialized medicine higher than private medicine. Those U.S. citizens were veterans.
Quote: RonCI only buy the "inherited" thing for a bit. You ran for President, you were a part of the Senate...you knew what you were getting into. You said you could do something. It isn't an inherited problem anymore--it is a situation he ran to change and he is failing at this point. Again, are we better off now than we were at the time of the election almost three years ago? Not very much, if any.
Well, Obama may very well get fired (so to speak)
If Jerry Brown doesn't "fix" California, he'll be the next failed governor. Of course, it would be interesting if Rick Perry's touted record in Texas would have turned California around enough to ensure a reelection during this difficult time period.
edit- if Rick Perry had been a California governor -- just theoretical of course.
I think, all the crying about how bad socialized medicine is is just propaganda. Boymimbo is right - the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have EVERYTHING to lose if the public opinion suddenly changes, and they have hundreds of millions of bucks to spend on the lobbyists and PR stuff.
But think about it .... Just think. How come, almost none of the middle class Americans would not be able to afford their own medical expenses if employer did not buy them insurance, but most hospitals are on the verge of being bankrupt at the same time, and most private practice docs are not exactly billionaires either? Where does all the money go? It's the insurance companies - one of the most profitable industries in US. We pay them billions of bucks every year in exchange for ... what? That when you do need to go to the doc's, they'll take a tiny fraction of that money, and pay the bill for you, that is already inflated at least ten-fold, because the doc knows you won't care because it's not your money, and insurance won't care because its peanuts to them either way.
Now suppose, the government took over the middle man role and created THE medical insurance company. What is it that would be so bad for us about it? Choice? Please ... as if we had any choice now getting insured. For most of us, it's whatever your employer shoves down your throat anyway.
The "government can't do anything well" argument doesn't really work. It would not be perfect, for sure, but it will do the job. Running the insurance business is no rocket science. You just hire a bunch of actuaries, and set the premiums. The big difference with the private insurance would be that the government does not need to turn the profit on it. They just need to break even, which means billions in savings for us.
Quote: AZDuffman
Socialized medicine is a terrible idea that gives poor results. The reason so many people come to the USA for care is because "every stinking country in the western world has socialized medicine."
Oh yeah? And what is the reason people go to France and Switzerland and UK to get treated then?
Quote:It is a proven fact that you can get an MRI for your dog faster than yourself in Canada. No thanks.
Yes, that's bad. But don't tell me it's much different here. I know this first hand. It took me more than three months to get an MRI when I needed it. I can get it scheduled for tomorrow for my dog, if I wanted to.
Quote: weaselman
Yes, that's bad. But don't tell me it's much different here. I know this first hand. It took me more than three months to get an MRI when I needed it. I can get it scheduled for tomorrow for my dog, if I wanted to.
By "here" where do you mean? In any major city in the USA it should not take long at all. Maybe a few days at most. I've known people who got them. In every case it was within a week and part of that is just simple delays of "well, if you prefer the afternoon then we are booked until thursday."
You can keep socialized medicine, I'd rather get the care I need.
Quote: weaselmanYes, that's bad. But don't tell me it's much different here. I know this first hand. It took me more than three months to get an MRI when I needed it. I can get it scheduled for tomorrow for my dog, if I wanted to.
That's one of the blessings of "socialized medicine."
All new technologies start out being very expensive, practically luxury items. But in time with competition and demand, they drop in price. This is as true of LCD HD TVs as it is for MRIs. But when you try to control costs by slashing the demand of new technologies, as is done with MRIs and other high-tech diagnostic tools, you don't let the market work to bring the price down. The result is a shortage.
In Mexico there's "socialized medicine" distributed in a myriad government agencies (federal, state and local) that control costs that way, among other bad moves. And there's private medicine. If you need an MRI, or a sonogram, or an eco-cardiogram, or a camera pill, or an endoscopy or any of one of dozens of different tests, you can get it any time. Most private hospitals have their own, as do some clinical laboratories.
As to insurance, as with everything else there should be a direct relationship between sellers and users. Having government pay for insurance, or having employers pay for it, disconnects the people who provide a service from the people who use it.
The result is that employers are only concerned about controlling costs, while employees are not concerned about it and neither are doctors. So on one hand patients and doctors want to run all tests without regard to cost, while employers want to run as few tests as possible without regard for diagnostic usefulness.
Another part of the problem is that people lose their insurance if they quit or are fired, and their families lose their coverage as well. That's a big part of the "millions of uninsured people"
I've paid my own insurance since I was 21, prior to that my parents took care of it. I've never had my employer pay for it and I never will. I can negotiate rates with my agent, selecting deductibles and co-payments that lower my premiums, among other things like group rates and such.
The remedy is to quit seeing insurance as a fringe benefit and instead make it an expense you must incur if you want to be insured. Look at the market for car insurance and ask yourself why there is no crisis in that sector. Instead have employers pay their employees the money they now give insurers, and let every individual take care of his own insurance.
Oh, before anyone says "pre-existing conditions," let me ask a question: if you were a car insurer, would you sell insurance to someone who just crashed his car and wants it fixed? Why not?
Another problem are government mandates on what insurance must cover. But that is a whole other argument.
Quote: AZDuffmanBy "here" where do you mean? In any major city in the USA it should not take long at all. Maybe a few days at most. I've known people who got them. In every case it was within a week and part of that is just simple delays of "well, if you prefer the afternoon then we are booked until thursday."
Yeah, I know people who've got them too. I got them in the past as well. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't.
My wife has been waiting to get an endocrinologist appointment for almost half a year.
Quote:You can keep socialized medicine, I'd rather get the care I need.
Yeah, me too ... But I just don't think it's an "either or" question.
Quote: boymimboEvery stinking country in the Western World beside the United States has it because even a simple minded person realizes that it ain't usually your fault for getting sick.
That is a really limited view of "the Western World." A whole continent and an adjoining subcontinent without "socialized medicine" come to mind quickly--Latin America.
Generally, the US is still the largest manufacturing base in the world. It requires much less labour than it used to, but for big industrial items, the US is still the place to go.
As for healthcare, my recent readings suggest the two best systems are either self insurance by the consumer OR single provider. The employer pays system creates a lot of waste, especially when it has government intervention in terms of tax breaks.
Quote: NareedThis is as true of LCD HD TVs as it is for MRIs. But when you try to control costs by slashing the demand of new technologies, as is done with MRIs and other high-tech diagnostic tools, you don't let the market work to bring the price down. The result is a shortage.
I don't get what you are saying. "Slashing demand"? What does that mean? How do you "slash demand"? More over, if you do "slash" it, how can it possibly lead to shortage? I mean smaller demand, same supply ... It can't possibly be more shortage than it was before "slashing".
I think, the reason I could not get that MRI or my wife could not get that doctor appointment is rather simple. It's two hour lunches. It's the office hours ending at 4pm. It's the stupid "rounds" the doctor has to make every day, when he basically just drives to the hospital, and walks there from one patient to another, and asks how they are feeling. And then bills each of them for a few hundred bucks.
It's requiring to make an office visit to get a refill on an aspirin prescription.
It has nothing to do with weather the medicine is socialized. It's just the doctors (just like everybody else) don't like to work very much. They'd rather be fishing if they could afford it. And the way things are now, they can.
Quote:
In Mexico there's "socialized medicine" distributed in a myriad government agencies (federal, state and local) that control costs that way, among other bad moves. And there's private medicine. If you need an MRI, or a sonogram, or an eco-cardiogram, or a camera pill, or an endoscopy or any of one of dozens of different tests, you can get it any time. Most private hospitals have their own, as do some clinical laboratories.
Yes, I think, this is actually a great thing. If you have money to pay for a better service, you can go to a private clinic. But if you don't, you still don't get left, figuratively speaking, to die on the street.
I think, this would be ideal for US - a government insurance, covering everybody, as well as private companies, insuring those, who prefer to be pampered. I did not mention it earlier, because, I am sure, someone would immediately say it can never work, because private companies cannot compete with the government. Well, if they cannot compete, then, maybe we don't' really need them as much as we think? :)
Quote:As to insurance, as with everything else there should be a direct relationship between sellers and users. Having government pay for insurance, or having employers pay for it, disconnects the people who provide a service from the people who use it.
Yes. But I am not suggesting that the government pays for insurance. I am talking about the government RUNNING the insurance.
It would be taxes that pay for it. Yes, it's still a disconnect. In this respect, it won't be much better than what we have now, but ONLY in this respect. It would be so much better in others though...
Quote: weaselmanI don't get what you are saying. "Slashing demand"?
There's a practice limiting how many expensive diagnostic machines a given hospital should have. So if there are, say, three hospitals in a neighborhood, one gets an MRi another gets a PET scanner and the third something else. This drives down the potential sales of each machine and keeps costs high. This happens mostly at hospitals subsidized by governments, but it still keeps prices higher than they should be.
Quote:Yes. But I am not suggesting that the government pays for insurance. I am talking about the government RUNNING the insurance.
Great! It can't even run the postal service at anything but a ruinous deficit, but you want to put your life in its hands? Good luck with that.
Quote:It would be taxes that pay for it. Yes, it's still a disconnect. In this respect, it won't be much better than what we have now, but ONLY in this respect. It would be so much better in others though...
It would be exactly the same, or worse. You'd see a rise in useless but cheaper therapies like acupuncture and touchy-feely crap, too. Besides, the easiest way to "control" costs is to simply ration care. So you'd do, say, only 1,500 heart bypass surgeries per year rather than as many as needed, or buy only these many doses of antiviral meds. And if the system runs out, tough.
In Mexico aside from private and "socialized" services there are charitable organizations, too. These offer quality care at very low prices.
Quote: NareedIn Mexico aside from private and "socialized" services there are charitable organizations, too. These offer quality care at very low prices.
Are the majority of these charitable healthcare organizations associated with a religious group? just curious. :P
Quote: ikilledjerryloganAre the majority of these charitable healthcare organizations associated with a religious group? just curious. :P
Not many, actually.
Quote: NareedThere's a practice limiting how many expensive diagnostic machines a given hospital should have.
I see now, you are talking about slashing demand for the machines, and I thought it was about demand for the procedures (they keep "slashing" that too).
Quote:So if there are, say, three hospitals in a neighborhood, one gets an MRi another gets a PET scanner and the third something else. This drives down the potential sales of each machine and keeps costs high. This happens mostly at hospitals subsidized by governments, but it still keeps prices higher than they should be.
Well, on the other hand, if the prices were lower, more hospitals could afford their own machine, so there would be more sales ...
Quote:Great! It can't even run the postal service at anything but a ruinous deficit, but you want to put your life in its hands? Good luck with that.
Oh, come on. It runs postal service just fine. It works, and it is on time, 99.9999% of the time. The deficit can be easily eliminated by raising the postage. A privately run company would do just that, and that's exactly the reason I think medical care should be in the hands of government - then it would not have to be profitable, which means billions dollars saved to consumer every year.
Quote:It would be exactly the same, or worse.
I don't think it would be worse. It probably would not be much better, but it would be much cheaper, and much more accessible.
Quote:You'd see a rise in useless but cheaper therapies like acupuncture and touchy-feely crap, too. Besides, the easiest way to "control" costs is to simply ration care. So you'd do, say, only 1,500 heart bypass surgeries per year rather than as many as needed, or buy only these many doses of antiviral meds. And if the system runs out, tough.
Why don't insurance companies do that now? Don't they want to control costs? The easiest way is not always the best way.
I don't have very much trust in the governments, but I don't think they are plain stupid or just evil either.
Quote:
In Mexico aside from private and "socialized" services there are charitable organizations, too. These offer quality care at very low prices.
That's great. I am not against all the other options. The more options the better. I am simply saying that the government should take care of its people, it is its (only) job, and currently it is miserably failing at it.
Quote: thecesspitAzduffman : VAT is a sales tax. The UK just doesn't put the twenty percent on the goods at the till, but instead hides it in the sticker price.
VAT is a "hidden" sales tax with people paying at all levels and getting refunds on the part they already paid. The hidden part is the problem. Taxes need to be right out there, so you know how much you are paying. Gas pumps sometimes say how much of what you are paying is tax, they still should. Algore got all upset in the 1990s when the phone companies wanted to line-item his "wire the schools" tax. Liberals don't like when taxes are line-itemed or otherwise reminding people how much they are paying.
Quote:As for healthcare, my recent readings suggest the two best systems are either self insurance by the consumer OR single provider. The employer pays system creates a lot of waste, especially when it has government intervention in terms of tax breaks.
I'd love to get employers out of the picture and be able to buy minimal coverage coupled with a Health Savings Account. But for single payer, how is having no choice good?
Quote: weaselmanWell, on the other hand, if the prices were lower, more hospitals could afford their own machine, so there would be more sales ...
Prices for new technologies fall, eventually. But you need to give it time and not get in the way of the market.
Quote:Oh, come on. It runs postal service just fine.
So fine it doesn't allow competition. And so well that people prefer to pay for FedEx when something important needs to be sent.
Quote:It works, and it is on time, 99.9999% of the time. The deficit can be easily eliminated by raising the postage. A privately run company would do just that, and that's exactly the reason I think medical care should be in the hands of government - then it would not have to be profitable, which means billions dollars saved to consumer every year.
That's where you're most wrong. Food, a market largely undisturbed by government, has grown so cheap the problem is there's too much of it. Computers were luxuries 20 years ago and mere commodities now. Cell phones were expensive status symbols 15 years ago, and are displacing land lines now. All that while companies made profits.
Quote:Why don't insurance companies do that now?
Insurance companies have competition. but HMOs do such things now. it would be worse once it's all government owned.
Quote:I don't have very much trust in the governments, but I don't think they are plain stupid or just evil either.
No, but governments work on compulsion and coercion, not on a voluntary basis. Also governments attract people who want to hold and exercise power. It's not a good idea to give them more options to do that.
Quote:That's great. I am not against all the other options. The more options the better.
well, single payer does mean single payer: no options at all.
Quote:I am simply saying that the government should take care of its people, it is its (only) job, and currently it is miserably failing at it.
The government's main job is to secure the rights of the governed, not to take care of them. that's why we delegate to government the sole right to use force and compulsion for anything other than self defense. A secondary hob is to serve as a neutral third party to mediate disputes, and that is not solely left to government. A tertiary job is to provide relief in times of emergency, and again it's not left solely to the government.
The only people government should properly take care of are those incapable, not unwilling, to take care of themselves. Orphaned children, for example, disabled adults without family or other means of support, some among the mentally retarded. Not fit adults who can hold a job and make their own way.
Quote: Nareed
So fine it doesn't allow competition. And so well that people prefer to pay for FedEx when something important needs to be sent.
You contradict yourself. Either it does not allow competition or people pay for Fedex :)
Yes, Fedex provides better services in certain areas, and some people prefer to pay for it even though it is more expensive. So what?
That actually makes exactly my point. Government entering the market does not have to be the end of competition and the end of choice for consumer.
Quote:
That's where you're most wrong. Food, a market largely undisturbed by government, has grown so cheap the problem is there's too much of it. Computers were luxuries 20 years ago and mere commodities now. Cell phones were expensive status symbols 15 years ago, and are displacing land lines now. All that while companies made profits.
So, how does it make me wrong? Did I ever say profits are evil or something like that? :-)
Healthcare is just a vastly different kind of industry. It should not be driven by profitability, because that puts people's lives at risk.
Quote:Insurance companies have competition. but HMOs do such things now. it would be worse once it's all government owned.
So, you are saying that competition does not prevent that from happening? What's the point then?
Competition or not, every company has to control its costs. Private companies are accountable to their investors, government companies are accountable to the people. One way or the other, they have to find balance - control costs to keep the operations going, but not to the extent when it makes the consumer unhappy. Government run insurance would, again, have an advantage here in that it does not have to be profitable thus less need for drastic "cost control" measures.
Quote:
No, but governments work on compulsion and coercion, not on a voluntary basis. Also governments attract people who want to hold and exercise power. It's not a good idea to give them more options to do that.
So do insurance companies. I have compulsion for health care, and they can coerce anything from me to get it.
As for competition, once again, I am not against competition. The private companies can continue to exist and compete with the government, just like Fedex does, that would be great. The government just needs to provide a baseline. If a private company can do better, all the power to them.
Quote:
well, single payer does mean single payer: no options at all.
I am not for single payer then. Not in that definition.
I am saying that everybody should be able to get reasonable level of health care, and, I think, it should be free. I think, it is a basic human right, much more basic then, say, education. I'd much rather the government do away with public schools, but provided public health care in some way.
Beyond that - charity, private insurance, concierge medicine, whatever else, that can provide services to the consumer - I am all for it.
Quote:
The government's main job is to secure the rights of the governed, not to take care of them.
Like I said, I do believe that accessible adequate health care IS the right of the governed. You can be illiterate, and still pretty happy, but it would be much harder, if you got, say, diabetes. How come public schools is not "taking care" of the governed, but saving your life is?
Quote:The only people government should properly take care of are those incapable, not unwilling, to take care of themselves.
Incapable is a vague term. I am, probably, "capable", to buy for my mother the best health insurance there is. I would have to move out of the house then, live, perhaps, in a mobile home, eat once a day, take a second job, forget about vacations, gambling, and sending my kids to college.
But ... I guess, I just don't like that definition of being "capable".
Quote: weaselmanEither it does not allow competition or people pay for Fedex :)
Yes, Fedex provides better services in certain areas, and some people prefer to pay for it even though it is more expensive. So what?
That actually makes exactly my point. Government entering the market does not have to be the end of competition and the end of choice for consumer.
Bad example. And it's backward. It's not "Government entering the market." This specific case is the other way around, and FedEx had to make an airtight legal case to break the postal monopoly. As a matter of fact, the US Postal Service has become so downtrodden that it now contracts with FedEx and UPS for services.
Quote: SanchoPanzaBad example. And it's backward. It's not "Government entering the market." This specific case is the other way around, and FedEx had to make an airtight legal case to break the postal monopoly. As a matter of fact, the US Postal Service has become so downtrodden that it now contracts with FedEx and UPS for services.
It's Nareed's example, not mine, so if it is bad (I don't quite see why), it's not my fault :)
I don't see how it matters who entered first. The bottom line is they can co-exist. And the fact, that USPS contracts with FedEx, I think, makes my point even further.
Quote: weaselmanI don't see how it matters who entered first.
It can matter greatly, and in this case that is even moreso. The government held an ironclad two-century monopoly that FedEx was able to break and flourish.
Quote: weaselmanThe bottom line is they can co-exist. And the fact, that USPS contracts with FedEx, I think, makes my point even further.
Actually, the USPS has said that it will be unable to pay its bills this month. That does sound much like coexistence.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIt can matter greatly, and in this case that is even moreso. The government held an ironclad two-century monopoly that FedEx was able to break and flourish.
Actually, the USPS has said that it will be unable to pay its bills this month. That does *not* sound much like coexistence.
Quote: weaselmanYou contradict yourself. Either it does not allow competition or people pay for Fedex :)
FedEx is a courier service, not a postal one. It cannot operate things like bulk mail and PO boxes or sell postage the way the Postal Service does.
Quote:So, how does it make me wrong? Did I ever say profits are evil or something like that? :-)
You said that removing the profits would drive prices down. That's exactly wrong.
Quote:Healthcare is just a vastly different kind of industry. It should not be driven by profitability, because that puts people's lives at risk.
Quote:So, you are saying that competition does not prevent that from happening? What's the point then?
t does prevent that. HMOs are not the only business model out there. You can be insured in a variety of ways, HMOs being one.
Quote:So do insurance companies. I have compulsion for health care, and they can coerce anything from me to get it.
No, they can't. for one thing no insurer can force you to do business with it. You can freely chose the company that offers you the better deal. for another, you could also invest your money and set it aside in case you need medical attention, using no insurance at all. You can also, for a third option, get together with other people and set up a health savings co-op to spread the risk around. And you can always do nothing and hope for the best. That's NOT compulsion or coercion.
If you choose an insurance plan, though, and refuse to pay, the insurer can petition the government to coerce payment from you. But it can't seize your assets or take your money or throw you in jail on its own.
Quote:I am saying that everybody should be able to get reasonable level of health care, and, I think, it should be free. I think, it is a basic human right, much more basic then, say, education.
You may not realize it, but you are advocating for slavery.
See here, doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies, biochemists, engineers, manufacturers of medical equipment, manufacturers of medical supplies, orderlies and a myriad other people would have to be forced to work for free in order to provide you, and everyone else, with free medical care.
But you probably meant someone else should pay for your medical care, since it doesn't rain down from the heavens. In that case you're advocating theft. Because then government has to take money from some people and give it to others
Which is it?
You do not have a right to the lives, work, labor, wealth or property of other people You cannot have a right to something others need to create or provide. All you have a right to do is exchange your wealth, labor, property etc for their goods and services.
Quote:I'd much rather the government do away with public schools,
So do I.
Quote:Like I said, I do believe that accessible adequate health care IS the right of the governed. You can be illiterate, and still pretty happy, but it would be much harder, if you got, say, diabetes. How come public schools is not "taking care" of the governed, but saving your life is?
Public schools shouldn't exist, either.
Quote:Incapable is a vague term. I am, probably, "capable", to buy for my mother the best health insurance there is. I would have to move out of the house then, live, perhaps, in a mobile home, eat once a day, take a second job, forget about vacations, gambling, and sending my kids to college.
1) What's wrong with your mother that she cannot take care of herself?
2) Do you value vacations and gambling more than your mother?
3) Does it have to be "the best health insurance there is," or just one that covers her needs?
4) Why should I pay for it?
The latest example: A federal workers’ compensation fund could run out of money within three months if the cash-strapped mail carrier skips a $1.2 billion payment due in mid-October, according to the Labor Department.
The department runs the fund under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. Should the Postal Service miss the October “chargeback” for past claims, officials estimate that the program would have no money to pay any benefits during the last four months of fiscal 2012, running from next June through September, according to a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee."--Federal Times
Quote: NareedFedEx is a courier service, not a postal one. It cannot operate things like bulk mail and PO boxes or sell postage the way the Postal Service does.
It has PO boxes (they are not called that, but same difference). As for bulk mail, I'd be better if it did not exist at all :)
As far as consumer is concerned, it provides a choice.
Quote:
You said that removing the profits would drive prices down. That's exactly wrong.
No, your examples showed that not removing profits can sometimes still result in lower prices. That is not counter to any of my points.
Quote:
t does prevent that. HMOs are not the only business model out there. You can be insured in a variety of ways, HMOs being one.
No, I can only be insured in one way - the way my employer likes. I don't have any say.
I have to use HMOs now, if the government has to take over, I'll still have to use them, but it will be cheaper for me. What's the downside?
Quote:
No, they can't. for one thing no insurer can force you to do business with it. You can freely chose the company that offers you the better deal.
No, I can't. Like I said, I have no say in choosing my insurance.
Also, like I said, a government does not have to be the only choice either. I am not advocating it monopolizing the insurance business. If private companies can provide better choices, they will provide better choices.
Quote:for another, you could also invest your money and set it aside in case you need medical attention, using no insurance at all.
Yeah, right. Who does that?
Quote:
And you can always do nothing and hope for the best. That's NOT compulsion or coercion.
Sure it is. Pay up or you will die. That's the definition of coercion.
Quote:
If you choose an insurance plan, though, and refuse to pay, the insurer can petition the government to coerce payment from you. But it can't seize your assets or take your money or throw you in jail on its own.
No, but the government can. And it would still be able to. What's the difference?
Quote:You may not realize it, but you are advocating for slavery.
You are right, I don't realize it :-)
Quote:See here, doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies, biochemists, engineers, manufacturers of medical equipment, manufacturers of medical supplies, orderlies and a myriad other people would have to be forced to work for free in order to provide you, and everyone else, with free medical care.
For free? Why? Do postal workers work for free? Military personnel? School teachers?
Quote:But you probably meant someone else should pay for your medical care, since it doesn't rain down from the heavens. In that case you're advocating theft. Because then government has to take money from some people and give it to others
Yes, it already does that. That's called taxes.
Quote:
1) What's wrong with your mother that she cannot take care of herself?
She is old, sick, and not qualified for a good job with benefits.
Quote:2) Do you value vacations and gambling more than your mother?
Nice way to put it.
No, but I value my family's well-being about as high as hers.
Quote:3) Does it have to be "the best health insurance there is," or just one that covers her needs?
It's more or less the same thing.
Quote:4) Why should I pay for it?
Because I'll pay for your mother (or for yourself) when the time comes.
The way things are now, you are paying for it anyway. You would, if you lived in US, and be insured.
The insurance costs, are higher for everyone because a minority of people require a lot more care, than most of us.
What I am advocating is a way to make you pay LESS for my mother, than what you are paying now, not more, by making sure the cost of health care and insurance becomes more reasonable.
Quote: weaselmanNo, your examples showed that not removing profits can sometimes still result in lower prices. That is not counter to any of my points.
Not sometimes. Always.
But tell me has the price of postage gone down?
Quote:No, I can only be insured in one way - the way my employer likes. I don't have any say.
1) you demand your healthcare be paid for then you complain that it is. You should make up your mind
2) You could ask your employer to stop paying your insurance, instead asking for the money that would have been paid into it, and fiance your coverage yourself. Your employer won't, because laws favor it paying your insurance rather than money.
3) You could switch jobs.
4) you could become self-employed.
Enough?
Quote:For free? Why? Do postal workers work for free? Military personnel? School teachers?
You said healthcare should be free. The mail is not free, the army is not free, the police is not free, the schools are not free. If you want them to be free, how will you accomplish that without forcing people to work and provide materials for free?
Quote:She is old, sick, and not qualified for a good job with benefits.
She should have saved her money while she was young and healthy, as I among millions of other people are doing now.
Quote:Because I'll pay for your mother (or for yourself) when the time comes.
That's called a pyramid scheme.
How about I pay for mine, you pay for yours, and you stop trying to steal other people's money.
Quote:What I am advocating is a way to make you pay LESS for my mother, than what you are paying now, not more, by making sure the cost of health care and insurance becomes more reasonable.
There are two ways to do so in your system: 1) find the magic spell that makes illness go away and 2) by forcibly taking money from other people so you may wind up paying less.
There's also the matter of getting government out of healthcare altogether, aside from the armed forces, and letting the market find solutions. the thing about the market is that it's made up of millions of people, each with a working brain, and each living under circumstances different from everyone else's. So rather than one solution there will be many.
But what you want, since you claim not to advocate for a complete government takeover of healthcare, is a handout.
Quote: NareedNot sometimes. Always.
Nope. Only sometimes. And less so, then in cases when there is no profit. That is, removing profit will drive the price down more than it would have, gone down otherwise.
Quote:But tell me has the price of postage gone down?
Well. It IS down, compared to Fedex prices (that have been steadily rising every year).
Don't compare technology prices with services, these are different beasts.
Quote:
1) you demand your healthcare be paid for then you complain that it is. You should make up your mind
I have. I want it to be paid for me, but I don't want some insurance execs to become rich in the process.
I want it to be paid for me WITHOUT THE MIDDLEMAN.
Quote:2) You could ask your employer to stop paying your insurance, instead asking for the money that would have been paid into it,
I could ask, yeah ... :)
I would not get it though, it does not work that way.
Quote:and fiance your coverage yourself.
Except, it would be like five times as expensive as what the employer pays ...
Quote:3) You could switch jobs.
Yes, I could. But I need my insurance once in a few years, and I have to go to work every day.
Insurance is therefore the last thing I would consider when choosing a job (as long as it exists).
Quote:4) you could become self-employed.
This is the same a as #3 really.
Quote:Enough?
Nope. Those are not choice really. Just an illusion of choices.
1 and 2 are unreal. 3 is the same as 4. And 4 ... well, you'd always have a similar choice, even if the government takes over the insurance business completely. I mean, you can always emigrate. Yes, I consider changing jobs because of an insurance plan as silly as emigrating because of it.
Quote:You said healthcare should be free. The mail is not free, the army is not free, the police is not free, the schools are not free. If you want them to be free, how will you accomplish that without forcing people to work and provide materials for free?
Well, you know what I meant, right?
Quote:She should have saved her money while she was young and healthy, as I among millions of other people are doing now.
Yes, she should have. But she did not, among millions of other people.
Just curious, how much money are you talking about? Do you have any idea how much a DAY in a nursing home costs around here?
How about day in a hospital? A heart bypass surgery?
Quote:That's called a pyramid scheme.
Nope. That's called insurance.
Quote:How about I pay for mine, you pay for yours, and you stop trying to steal other people's money.
Well ... That option isn't even on the table. The only options being seriously considered are either private insurance, or government insurance.
I am just curious what is so special in your mind about medical care as opposed to, say, police or firefighters.
Why are you ok with paying for getting me out of the hands of kidnappers or for saving my house from fire, but not for getting my appendicitis out? What is the principal difference here?
Quote:There's also the matter of getting government out of healthcare altogether, aside from the armed forces, and letting the market find solutions.
Yeah ... We've be doing that for decades. It's not finding them.
Einstein once said - the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.
Quote:But what you want, since you claim not to advocate for a complete government takeover of healthcare, is a handout.
I don't see a connection. And, no I don't want a handout any more than you are asking for a handout when you expect firefighters to run to your rescue when your house is on fire.
Should government assist when you have that kind of situation? I think so.
Other people think, tough luck. Though I think that attitude impacts millions of hard working people (not dead beats), because they don't make high incomes, and tend to buy what they need when they need it.
Thus they are least prepared when something serious happens healthwise.
Quote: rxwineHealth care is going to stay relatively expensive. You can buy a smaller house, or buy a cheaper car, or eat cheaper food but health care can be like being forced to buy a house, car, or food that is far too expensive.
Not at all. We had the example right here a few months back about someone having a choice of a $2,000 test when the doctor was 90%+ sure it was something else but the test was "just to be sure." Many treatments do not have to be the "latest and greatest." Difference is, in health care the person buying it is usually not paying for it. When they are they actually shop.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot at all. We had the example right here a few months back about someone having a choice of a $2,000 test when the doctor was 90%+ sure it was something else but the test was "just to be sure."
Lots of tests are this way, and that is how it is supposed to be. Unlike buying any other merchandise, when you do a medical test, you actually WANT it to be "useless" - i.e., return a negative result. And 90% of time they do. That does not mean, they should not be done.
Would you really rather accept a 10% chance of dying than spend 2000 bucks? That would make your life worth to you less than 20K. Really?
Quote: rxwineHealth care is going to stay relatively expensive.
Funny then that those areas of healthcare not covered by insurance or employer plans, and left mostly alone by government, such as lasik and plastic surgery, have become more affordable.
Quote: weaselmanLots of tests are this way, and that is how it is supposed to be. Unlike buying any other merchandise, when you do a medical test, you actually WANT it to be "useless" - i.e., return a negative result. And 90% of time they do. That does not mean, they should not be done.
Would you really rather accept a 10% chance of dying than spend 2000 bucks? That would make your life worth to you less than 20K. Really?
I might, depending on the disease and how the doctor presented it. If no family history of it and the doc said he was 90% certain, I'd try what he prescribed and if it got better go on with life. If what he prescribed me did not work, then I'd look at taking the test. That is being a smart consumer, which people do when it is their money at stake. Life is based on taking risk and what made the USA great.
Quote: weaselmanI have. I want it to be paid for me, but I don't want some insurance execs to become rich in the process.
I want it to be paid for me WITHOUT THE MIDDLEMAN.
Then you want to pay for healthcare directly, without insurance or government standing between you and your doctor? That's not what you've been saying.
Quote:Just curious, how much money are you talking about? Do you have any idea how much a DAY in a nursing home costs around here?How about day in a hospital? A heart bypass surgery?
My father spend a month in intensive care before he passed away. The bill came to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and his insurance, which he'd been paying out of his pocket for decades, covered all of it.
Quote:I am just curious what is so special in your mind about medical care as opposed to, say, police or firefighters.
For one thing the police are expected to use force and coercion. Firefighters tend to emergencies that affect more people than the property owners of a burning property (fire in your house could spread to mine, fire in a factory sends up clouds of toxic smoke, etc).
Quote:Why are you ok with paying for getting me out of the hands of kidnappers or for saving my house from fire, but not for getting my appendicitis out? What is the principal difference here?
None if you pay for your insurance, I pay for mine, and we both spread the risk around millions of other people. that's insurance. I wouldn't pay for your insurance on top of mine, or ever consider asking someone else to pay for mine. can take care of myself, thank you. There was a time people took pride in being able to do just that. These days it seems too many prefer to revert to their childhood and have others take care of them.
Quote:Yeah ... We've be doing that for decades. It's not finding them.
Einstein once said - the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.
No. For decades there has been more and more government involvement in health care and insurance. You're the one who thinks that doing more of the same will make things better, not I.
Quote:I don't see a connection. And, no I don't want a handout any more than you are asking for a handout when you expect firefighters to run to your rescue when your house is on fire.
then you're blinding yourself. You might as well be standing on the corner saying "Brother, can you spare health insurance?"
As for firefighters and police, I pay taxes meant for such things, just as I pay insurance for healthcare. I don't demand free police and fire and armed forces the way you want free insurance. I don't demand someone else pay my taxes, either.
Quote: NareedFunny then that those areas of healthcare not covered by insurance or employer plans, and left mostly alone by government, such as lasik and plastic surgery, have become more affordable.
Why wouldn't they be more affordable? Most of the market is for elective surgery. Which means the person can simply not do a procedure he or she can't afford. So, in order to do the work they have to price their work for the market.
A sick person is pretty much a captive consumer. The market, even without government doesn't need to be forgiving. They know they're generally going to get the customers in the long run.
Quote: rxwineA sick person is pretty much captive a consumer. The market, even without government doesn't need to be forgiving. They know they're generally going to get the customers in the long run.
A sick person must have treatment, I agree. But not a specific treatment. Most conditions allow for different treatment options. This is even more true regarding diagnostics. But these options are less and less a matter to be decided between doctor and patient, and more and more delegated to third parties with other interests in mind.
And let's not even mention the tort system, which makes many doctors nervous to the point of paranoia. This has driven up the amount of unnecessary tests performed looking for very long shots.
Although, if you're willing to gamble with your health, it's easier to find someone on the cheap.
Quote: AZDuffmanI might, depending on the disease and how the doctor presented it. If no family history of it and the doc said he was 90% certain, I'd try what he prescribed and if it got better go on with life. If what he prescribed me did not work, then I'd look at taking the test. That is being a smart consumer, which people do when it is their money at stake. Life is based on taking risk and what made the USA great.
Cheap consumer is not the same thing as smart consumer. If the doctor says "I am 90% sure, but I recommend that you take the test", just take the damn test. When what he prescribes does not work, it may be too late.
Quote: NareedThen you want to pay for healthcare directly, without insurance or government standing between you and your doctor? That's not what you've been saying.
You are not paying attention. I said I wanted it to be paid for me, not "by me". :)
Quote:
For one thing the police are expected to use force and coercion. Firefighters tend to emergencies that affect more people than the property owners of a burning property (fire in your house could spread to mine, fire in a factory sends up clouds of toxic smoke, etc).
How about pulling a home owner out of fire? Surely, they don't have to do that then?
Moreover, are you saying that you do not expect firefighters to actually fight the fire, just to watch it no to spread on other houses?
Quote:None if you pay for your insurance, I pay for mine, and we both spread the risk around millions of other people.that's insurance.
Right. That's exactly what I am suggesting.
Quote:No. For decades there has been more and more government involvement in health care and insurance. You're the one who thinks that doing more of the same will make things better, not I.
What government involvement?
Quote:As for firefighters and police, I pay taxes meant for such things,
That's the point. You arbitrarily decided that your taxes are meant for police and firefighters ... and schools, and transportation, and postal services ... etc, but not meant for keeping the people healthy. I can't see any logic in such position.
Quote:I don't demand free police and fire and armed forces the way you want free insurance. I don't demand someone else pay my taxes, either.
Oh, come on, this is cheap. We have already established that I misspoke, haven't we? When I said "free healthcare" I meant "free" in the same way the police or firefighters are "free".
Quote: weaselmanCheap consumer is not the same thing as smart consumer. If the doctor says "I am 90% sure, but I recommend that you take the test", just take the damn test. When what he prescribes does not work, it may be too late.
It isn't about being "cheap" it is about a consumer decision. Doctor says, "I'm 90% sure this will go away" then I will take the chance and see if the condition improves. Would you spend $2,000 for that last 10% of assurance? How about $20,000? What is your (not your insurance) limit on what you will spend for that last 10%?
Quote: weaselmanYou are not paying attention. I said I wanted it to be paid for me, not "by me". :)
Quote:Oh, come on, this is cheap. We have already established that I misspoke, haven't we? When I said "free healthcare" I meant "free" in the same way the police or firefighters are "free".
So all you want is a handout.
Quote: AZDuffman
It isn't about being "cheap" it is about a consumer decision. Doctor says, "I'm 90% sure this will go away" then I will take the chance and see if the condition improves. Would you spend $2,000 for that last 10% of assurance? How about $20,000? What is your (not your insurance) limit on what you will spend for that last 10%?
The percentages are meaningless. How did he come up with the number? The point is you should trust your doctor's opinion as a whole, not pick the parts you like. If he feels you should take the test, you should take it.
As for your question about the limits, that's an unanswerable question. I could just as well ask you for you limit for the doctor's certainty. If he was only 10% sure, would you take the test then? Would you spend $20,000? What is your limit?
This is precisely why we need insurance - to avoid asking ourselves these kinds of questions, that cannot really be answered.
Quote: Nareed
So all you want is a handout.
You are not paying attention again. I said that I did not want a handout any more than you get one by using police protection.
Quote: weaselmanYou are not paying attention again. I said that I did not want a handout any more than you get one by using police protection.
You agree police are paid for by taxes, but that you want someone to pay for your healthcare. That's a handout. if it will be paid for by your taxes, then why don't cut out the middle man and pay for it yourself? Because what you want is for your healthcare to be paid for by other people's taxes. To that I'll say two things: you want a handout, 2) keep in mind other people will want to take your wealth to pay for their needs as well.
them. 10% have small problems. 10% have major
problems. The 90% with nothing or almost nothing
wrong are going to pay for the 10% who do. Thats
how socialized medicine works.
Quote: NareedYou agree police are paid for by taxes, but that you want someone to pay for your healthcare.
I said that I wanted "free" health care in the same sense the police are "free".
Quote:if it will be paid for by your taxes, then why don't cut out the middle man and pay for it yourself?
Same reason you don't want to pay for police and firefighters yourself. Think about it. Your house is on fire, the firetruck comes. Do you have the firefighting subscription? No? Well, too bad then. We'll just stand here and watch that the fire does not spread to your neighbor's house.
Quote:Because what you want is for your healthcare to be paid for by other people's taxes.
Wrong again. Unless something catastrophic happens, it is actually going to be me paying for other people's healthcare with my taxes. But if it (something catastrophic) does happen, then yes, I want to be sure that my family isn't left to die on the street. I don't need a handout, I need confidence and social responsibility.
Quote:keep in mind other people will want to take your wealth to pay for their needs as well.
Oh, they are already doing that. They take my wealth to pay for their firefighters and their public schools. I am just saying that this cause is more worthy than most others.
Quote: EvenBob80% of the population have nothing wrong with
them. 10% have small problems. 10% have major
problems. The 90% with nothing or almost nothing
wrong are going to pay for the 10% who do. Thats
how socialized medicine works.
That is already happening right now. That's how insurance works, nothing to do with medicine, socialized or not.
The "good" thing about medicine is that most of those 90%, who do not currently have much wrong with them, sooner or later will, and then it will be their turn to become "free loaders". It does not completely even out of course (some people are just really sick for decades, and some are pretty healthy, and then just die), but a lot more so, then, say, auto insurance.
