Poll

22 votes (66.66%)
11 votes (33.33%)

33 members have voted

weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 8:32:40 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

How long is "for some period." Again, if it is less than a year where is the big deal?


I think, it is still a big deal, but that's not the point. I am just saying that that 50 million estimate did not include these temporarily uninsured people.

Quote:

When you consider all people have to go thru to survive in this world,



I don't want to compare myself to people who have to survive in the world. I hope, USA can do better than Congo, thank you very much. I am not saying it is not already doing better, just that setting the benchmark this low seems kinda insulting to the Americans.


Quote:

Where is "well-being" a right? It's not. You need to get to well-being on your own.



Right or not, well-being of the people is the goal the government is supposed to serve. I don't need the government to survive, and neither did the Founding Fathers.


Quote:

The opportunity is still there no matter where you go to school.


This is not true. Surely you understand that MIT provides its graduates with a lot more opportunities than your local community college.
Quote:

Now you are saying people have a "right" to go to the best school?



No, I am not saying that. I am saying that if we can do something in order to not deprive them from that opportunity, then it is in our best interest to do that.
And remember, I am not talking about us paying for the school, just making them attend a high school sports program, at the cost of a few insurance execs not getting overly rich by skimming off their health care money.



Quote:

What is "funny" is that you point to government-runb corporations as an example of why the government "can" run a health-insurance socialist company.


No, not at all. I pointed to that example to refute your point that it is not government's job to run companies. You may think it isn't, but the fact of life is, it is being done all the time.

Quote:

Then you say I sound "silly" for saying it is not the government's job to run such things. You seem to imply, "it will be different this time."


No. Your point was not that the government usually runs companies badly, you said it just wasn't their job. I don't know where you got that idea, but apparently, it is their job. They may be bad at it, but it is the job they are doing. And, if we talk about "a government" as opposed to "the American Government", I am sure you know, there are tons more examples. Surely, USA is the best country in the world, but it did not get there buy arrogantly ignoring everything anyone else is doing just because it is not American, it is actually exactly opposite to that.

As for weather "it will be different this time", I don't know about that. Probably, it will not be very much different. It will be pretty bad. But it will still be much better than what we have now. It will be an improvement. And from there, if/when a private enterprise finds a way to improve it further, we'll keep moving in that direction. At least, it won't be a stalemate as it is now.





Quote:

Uh, government-run operation is the very definition of socialism.



No. The definition of socialism is government monopoly over the ownership of means of production. Get it? Monopoly. Ownership. And not on some means of production, but all, or, at least, most of them.
One government-run operation has nothing to do with it.



Quote:

If I am smart I have my HSA and carasthropic plan to cover it,


No, you won't. We were discussing the merits of a decision to go completely without insurance.

Quote:

It is just that under socialized medicine as you advocate the government gets to decide on when you might die based on the cost of the care you need.



No, what I I advocate, you can still buy your catastrophic plan, if for some reason you trust the insurance magnat running the company more than the government for some reason, and prefer that he makes a decision for you to die when you become too expensive.


Quote:

The problem here is too many people want to trade "freedom" for "free health care."



Not me though. I don't want less "freedom", I want more "freedom".
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 8:36:35 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

When you retire, you will still be using the roads, and the police force, and firefighter protection, and (possibly) government-run health care providers, and lots of other stuff, paid for by taxes ... but you will not be paying any taxes then. What a shame!


Maybe you know more about taxation in Mexico than I do, but in the U.S. your sure as shooting do pay taxes on most retirement income. And that is a lot more than the often-cited taxes that illegal immigrants supposedly pay.
Quote:

Oh, and what will you do if the bank that holds your account goes bankrupt? I assume you have something like FDIC setup in in Mexico? If so, who do you think pays for that?


Taxes do not pay for the FDIC in the U.S.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 8:40:44 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

It would not be good for everybody, or even most people. There are no merits to socialism.


Seeing as how half the U.S. population are already "takers" and that the "givers" are quickly becoming the minority, the "most people" statement will not be able to stand.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 8:49:38 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Yes there is. Neither should be a government activity, but at least highways are necessary for millions of people in any country. Ideally these should also be privately owned, with exceptions for military needs and remote areas which would otherwise be cut off.


You elevate highways above healthcare in the "basic human necessity" department?
Quote:

That's incredibly stupid. There has to be one, and only one, agent capable of using force to keep the peace. if you divide the power among different agents, you are asking for chaos and anarchy. It's very simple to prove, too, particularly when force becomes necessary in civil matters like foreclosure or repossession.


Lack of government leads to chaos and anarchy in many ways, not just if there is no state-run militia. The U.S. mortgage collapse is a direct result of lack of government regulation of the banking industry.

I understand that you detest politicians, and I understand that leads to your general distaste of government. Perhaps the politicians you've known in your life have been corrupt or nefarious. I just had my local congressman resign in the wake of a sex scandal, so I'm right there with you. Where we differ, I think, is the general premise that the government should or should not be involved in the betterment of society. Your position seems to mirror the big-L Libertarian party that "The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government." That premise runs counter to the Framers, who very clearly envisioned a government that promotes the common Welfare. There may reasonably be a debate as to the level of "promotion" the Framers intended, but there cannot be an interpretation that says "just kidding, we shouldn't have a government at all: we'll have an Army but otherwise it's everyone for themselves."
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 8:51:53 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

It's not socialism, it's just one government run operation


Health care is 16 percent of the economy. Combine that with all the other government enterprises (and include GSE's like Amtrak, USPS and Fannie and Freddie) and that is well down the road to socialism.
Quote:

Much more useful that lots others it is running anyways.


Care to specify?
Quote:

What happens if you get really sick, and can't pay for it? When you need to cough up hundreds of thousands of dollars every week, AND cannot work, who is going to pay for that?


That is what Medicaid does right now.
Quote:

One guy I knew had appendicitis attack, and spent hours in ambulance driving from one hospital to another that refused to take him. Eventually, they found one that agreed, but it was too late. He died, but the money was still spent on that ambulance driving around, and on that last hospital trying desperately to save him.
Another lady had extreme dementia, and should have been hospitalized but could not because nobody could pay for it, so she stayed at home. She kept wondering off and getting lost, and police would find her on the street, and call an ambulance (bill), that would take her into a hospital (another bill), where she would get assessed and examined all over (bill, bill, bill), and one day she got lost, and got hit by a car. She died, but only after a few hundred thousand bucks was spent on "heroic measures" to save her, which could all have been avoided if only her family could afford hiring someone to care for her.


Nowhere is it inscribed in the foundation of this nation that it is the government's obligation to provide a cradle-to-the-grave handholding support system for each and every citizen.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 8:52:22 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

It's not socialism, it's just one government run operation


Health care is 16 percent of the economy. Combine that with all the other government enterprises (and include GSE's like Amtrak, USPS and Fannie and Freddie) and that is well down the road to socialism.
Quote:

Much more useful that lots others it is running anyways.


Care to specify?
Quote:

What happens if you get really sick, and can't pay for it? When you need to cough up hundreds of thousands of dollars every week, AND cannot work, who is going to pay for that?


That is what Medicaid does right now.
Quote:

One guy I knew had appendicitis attack, and spent hours in ambulance driving from one hospital to another that refused to take him. Eventually, they found one that agreed, but it was too late. He died, but the money was still spent on that ambulance driving around, and on that last hospital trying desperately to save him.
Another lady had extreme dementia, and should have been hospitalized but could not because nobody could pay for it, so she stayed at home. She kept wondering off and getting lost, and police would find her on the street, and call an ambulance (bill), that would take her into a hospital (another bill), where she would get assessed and examined all over (bill, bill, bill), and one day she got lost, and got hit by a car. She died, but only after a few hundred thousand bucks was spent on "heroic measures" to save her, which could all have been avoided if only her family could afford hiring someone to care for her.


Nowhere is it inscribed in the foundation of this nation that it is the government's task to provide a cradle-to-the-grave handholding support system for each and every citizen.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 8:57:03 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

You elevate highways above healthcare in the "basic human necessity" department?


Actually highways are now being turned over to private enterprise. It will be interesting to whether that also occurs with services like police and fire. After all, we already have that to varying degrees with functions like jails, prisons and many postal services.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 9:13:51 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

How would a newborn pay for their own health insurance? I guess you do not accept that is the responsibility of the parents?

What do roads, sheriffs, armies, and the navy have to do with health insurance?

Oh, I see, you realize you are losing the discussion so are changing the subject! Don't forget to call myself, EvenBob, and even Nareed (who sadly will not see this post) nazis, KKK members, and general racists before the end of the day.



I guess if you're poor or unemployed you shouldn't have a baby as it'll bankrupt you if you do.

I'm not losing the argument. I'm giving up on it as there's no point in wasting my time. So go ahead without socialized medicine, or worst yet, ObamaCare. Your health care system covers 7/8ths of the population and is by far the most expensive health care system in the world. You don't believe in equitable care for everyone while I do. My belief is that we have the moral responsibility to give everyone an equal footing when it comes to health care. My belief is that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed and shouldn't be thwarted because they are sick or injured.

I'm quite happy here in utopia.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 9:15:57 AM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Actually highways are now being turned over to private enterprise. It will be interesting to whether that also occurs with services like police and fire. After all, we already have that to varying degrees with functions like jails, prisons and many postal services.


Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of a private enterprise stepping in when government cannot efficiently provide services. My problem with the question of government vis-a-vis healthcare is that private enterprise is not providing services at all in some cases. Denial of health insurance due to pre-existing medical conditions has led to conversations like this:

"You had trouble having birth 4 years ago. Your application is denied."
"But I'm not having any more kids!"
"We've heard that before. We require you to get tubal ligation before we'll insure you."

Left to their own devices, insurers would deny anyone they feel they may take a loss on. That might be fine for the shareholders, but it's not in the best interests of society. When private enterprise cannot or will not fill the need, who else will if government won't?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 9:19:15 AM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Actually highways are now being turned over to private enterprise. It will be interesting to whether that also occurs with services like police and fire. After all, we already have that to varying degrees with functions like jails, prisons and many postal services.



Yes here in Canada we have a private highway (leased for 99 years at a cost of 3.1 billion), the 407 with electronic tolls (no toll booth). It costs $.34/mile to drive on it. 360,000 cars a day take it. It's a cash cow for the company that owns it (obviously).
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 9:19:18 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

You elevate highways above healthcare in the "basic human necessity" department?



What good will it do you if someone a thousand miles away has the cure for every known and unkown disease if they can't get it to you some way? and while not everyone gets sick every day, everyone does require food and energy every day. How do you get food, coal, oil and gas from where theya re produced to where theya re processed, to where they are sold, to where they are used, without transportation?

So, yes, highways, railroads, ships and, to a lesser extent, aircraft are far more improtant for your survival than healthcare.

Quote:

Lack of government leads to chaos and anarchy in many ways, not just if there is no state-run militia. The U.S. mortgage collapse is a direct result of lack of government regulation of the banking industry.



That would be funny if oonly it were funny, if you know what I mean. i don't know all the ins and outs of the mortgage disaster, but the blame lays mostly on governmetn regulatiosn adn programs. Look up the writings of Thomas Sowell on the subject, I'm sure he xplains everything. I'll just mention one: if the banks know they will be bailed out by government when they get in trouble, what need is ther for them to restrain the risk they incurr for sufficient money? None. they can take any risk, and if they go broke they don't even worry about it. And that's a BIG effect of eltting governmetn meddle in the market.

Quote:

Your position seems to mirror the big-L Libertarian party that "The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government." That premise runs counter to the Framers, who very clearly envisioned a government that promotes the common Welfare.



Will you stop fixating on a tiny part of the Consitution and read the whole document. At least the whole sentence?

One, The Declaration states Man has certain unaliennable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit og happiness, and that governments are instituted to secure thse rights. That's the overarching premise of the Founders, the idea for which they went to war with the largest, most powerful military of their time.

Two, the preamble of the Constitution states "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Read it. Take your time. Read the whole sentence.

Done?

Ok. We see the following: the Founders wanted to establish justice, insure peace within the USA, establish and fund a means for the common defense of all the states, secure the freedom they'd won from England and to insure such freedom would be available to their children, granchildren, great-granchildren, etc. And to PROMOTE, read that word carefully, PROMOTE, the general welfare. Not to insure it, not to work towards it, not to take moeny from some and give it to favored constituents, but to promote it.

We can discuss what promote means, but it certainly is neither the primary purpose nor the whole reason for the existence of the US Government.

Now, "promote" usually emans two things: publicize, and insure conditions that allow that which you want to promote. We can dismiss the first. The second is, again, open to debate. But given the few powers given to the government by the Constitution, the reasonable conclussion is that the Founders meant keeping the country peaceful and the commerce open so that people could freely engage in business and find their way to prosper. Not that government shall be father and mother to all citizens and provide for their needs.


Quote:

There may reasonably a debate as to the level of "promotion" the Framers intended, but there cannot be an interpretation that says "just kidding, we shouldn't have a government at all: we'll have an Army but otherwise it's everyone for themselves."



The Foudning Fathers would have given the Government more powers if they had intended it to have them. the fact that they carefully circumscribed such powers should tell you something. The fact that politicians have used just two parts of the Constitution to corrupt it, the "welfare clause" and the "interstate commerce clause" should tell yous something, too.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 9:30:36 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

That's really, really, really (and I mean really) wrong. The Declaration lists only the three most important rigths: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Note Jefferson was very careful to say "the pursuit of happiness" rather than "happiness." you don't have a right to be happy per se, but raterh a right to find your own way of being happy.



I paraphrased from this ::

", it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So, I'm not really, really wrong. The preamble indeed does give the three rights. I also agree that the -right- to the pursuit of happiness is an important differentiation.

Quote:


Hence it's clearly not. The job of the government, as stated in the Declaration, is to secure man's rights. That's trhe reason governments are instituted. What this means is the government exists to protect your rights. To that end we delegate to government the right to sue force. This means the government can,a nd should, maintain the police, the courts, the penal system and the armed forces. To provide the conditions under which you're free, you can live your life, you can seek your joy, etc (there are many more unalienable rights).

It does not mean "I'll take from Peter, make Paul's life difficult, in order to make Mary happy."



Never said it did. As I stated, you just have to agree what those things that make for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to effect the Safety and Happiness of the People. How you do that, which may include redistribution of wealth (sadly or happily depending on your political stripe) is of the essence of this debate. How you protect the rights for all without making Peter pay in some cases and restrict Paul.. and still ensure Mary is safe and has her rights protected, well that's economics and politics all rolled into one, and we'll be here till the crack of doomsday.

I agree with a previous statement that individual coverage in the US has to be much more widely available. I think Obamacare's mandatory purchase rules aren't the way forward. I think single payer (socialized medicine if you will) works fine to give a good widespread level of care for all. I don't necessarily think it's the only choice, or even the right choice for the US (*), but I will argue against those who state it's somehow "bad", given my own experiences, and the facts I see in other countries.

The biggest problem the US has with health care is the massive percentage of GDP that goes to pay for coverage. It's so much higher than other countries, with (for some percentage of people) a small increase in quality; while other's go wanting. That's a huge problem.

I have no problem with the state providing services, and see health care (along with education, the judicary and law enforcement) as key areas that state should provide. To me it's a common good. I'm a Liberal (capital L) based on previous party affliations in the UK. The word Liberal doesn't mean what you guys think it means outside the US. I am aware I might as well piss in the wind than try and convince other people here to make any change in their political views.

(*) I don't live there, I don't care how you pay for your medical expenses as long as it doesn't involved invading anywhere I live...
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 9:32:32 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

I think, it is still a big deal, but that's not the point. I am just saying that that 50 million estimate did not include these temporarily uninsured people.



Kind of hard to beleive. You said 86 million were without insurance "for some time" and now 50 million supposedly did not have it at all. That is 136 million. Estimate 250 million people in the USA not yet seniors on medicare and we are well over half the population. Really, really hard to believe.


Quote:

I don't want to compare myself to people who have to survive in the world. I hope, USA can do better than Congo, thank you very much. I am not saying it is not already doing better, just that setting the benchmark this low seems kinda insulting to the Americans.



What is more insulting is insinuating that you cannot survive in the USA without health insurance for even a short period of time. What is most insulting is demanding the government subsidize it and "force" you to buy health insurance coverage because they know better than you.


Quote:

This is not true. Surely you understand that MIT provides its graduates with a lot more opportunities than your local community college.



MIT Graduates are genreally just more intelligent than the local community college student. That probably has a great deal to do with it.


Quote:

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that if we can do something in order to not deprive them from that opportunity, then it is in our best interest to do that.
And remember, I am not talking about us paying for the school, just making them attend a high school sports program, at the cost of a few insurance execs not getting overly rich by skimming off their health care money.




Making them attend a sports program? Boy, you sure are big on forcing people to do things. I suppose you are among the people who want the military draft back as well, maybe?

And enough about "execs getting rich." People running multibillion dollar, 10s of 1,000s of employee organizations will be paid high, as that kind of responsibility warrants it. You are quite a greedy person to want your insurance "at cost" yet complain because somebody gets paid for giving the shareholders who hired them a proft.

And BTW, how much profit a company makes is none of your business or concern unless you are a shareholder. If you feel the cost of the insurance is too high, don't buy it. Just don't ask the government to get into the business.







Quote:

As for weather "it will be different this time", I don't know about that. Probably, it will not be very much different. It will be pretty bad. But it will still be much better than what we have now. It will be an improvement. And from there, if/when a private enterprise finds a way to improve it further, we'll keep moving in that direction. At least, it won't be a stalemate as it is now.



Why do you assume it will be "better?" The USPS is not better than UPS and FedEx. AMTRAK is terrible.



Quote:

No. The definition of socialism is government monopoly over the ownership of means of production. Get it? Monopoly. Ownership. And not on some means of production, but all, or, at least, most of them.
One government-run operation has nothing to do with it.



From dictionary.com:

•Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Says nothing about a monopoly. It talks about the government owning and planning means of producing and distributing goods. In this case the "good" is health insurance and care. You want the government owning and running the insurance company. You want socialism. Why not just admit it?



Quote:

what I I advocate, you can still buy your catastrophic plan, if for some reason you trust the insurance magnat running the company more than the government for some reason, and prefer that he makes a decision for you to die when you become too expensive.



So you trust the government bureacrat with no incentive for customer service than the private company? I'll take the private company any day of the week. You seem to live in some fantasyland where the government works efficiently and is oh-so fair. Here is a news flash: private companies don't want to "let you die" as if they do they will tend to sell less insurance because nobody is going to keep buying from a company that "lets people die." Government workers, OTOH, are far more likely to just take a bureacrat attitude and say, "sorry, regulations say you don't get the treatment."


Quote:

Not me though. I don't want less "freedom", I want more "freedom".



Except the freedom to make one's own health care choices, of course.......................
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 9:39:47 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Never said it did. As I stated, you just have to agree what those things that make for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to effect the Safety and Happiness of the People. How you do that, which may include redistribution of wealth (sadly or happily depending on your political stripe) is of the essence of this debate.



It amy not. How do you redistribute wealth without forcibly taking it from its rightful owner? That violates his rights, and that's the complete opposite of what governments are created to do.


Quote:

I agree with a previous statement that individual coverage in the US has to be much more widely available. I think Obamacare's mandatory purchase rules aren't the way forward.



It's the pragmatists only way to make the rest work. If you deny insurance the right to free association (ie the right to exclude coverage for those who are already ill), and you set up a "free" option, who the hell in their right mind would pay insurance unless they got sick? No one, naturally. So everyone would flood the government for "free" coverage, which would bankrupt the governemtn in short order. Therefore you must order people to get insurance, whether they want to or not.

That's how you end up with conditions palced on your continued existence and liberty. That's not just wrong, it's abominable.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 9:44:10 AM permalink
Quote:

Why do you assume it will be "better?" The USPS is not better than UPS and FedEx. AMTRAK is terrible.



USPS is worse than FedEx? Wow... FedEx is a terrible organization for the process of, you know, delivering stuff to my door securely.

One of Amtrak's biggest problems used to be it's a third class citizen on the rail lines it uses, after freight and maintenance. I don't know if that's still true, but I suspect long distance passenger rail in the US is dead until pushing tin boxes through the air gets too expensive (I assume the FAA is self sustaining and doesn't require government money).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 10:02:59 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

USPS is worse than FedEx? Wow... FedEx is a terrible organization for the process of, you know, delivering stuff to my door securely.



Huh? FedEx offers a wide choice of delivery options. And if I want I can send it "signature required" for extra security. Sunny how the USPS doesn't even do its own parcels anymore.

Quote:

One of Amtrak's biggest problems used to be it's a third class citizen on the rail lines it uses, after freight and maintenance. I don't know if that's still true, but I suspect long distance passenger rail in the US is dead until pushing tin boxes through the air gets too expensive (I assume the FAA is self sustaining and doesn't require government money).



That is one problem. Another is you can fly better, faster, and cheaper for long-haul. Trains make sense in the northeast and should be privatized there. The rest should die.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 10:20:54 AM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Maybe you know more about taxation in Mexico than I do, but in the U.S. your sure as shooting do pay taxes on most retirement income.


Not on Roth IRA. And not on income low enough to fall below the exemption.

Quote:

Taxes do not pay for the FDIC in the U.S.


It's a federal program. What difference does it make which pocket exactly the money comes from to pay for it?
In the end of the day, it is your and mine money. Maybe, it's not taxes, maybe the banks pay for it directly, by raising prices for their services, so what?
Suppose, the hospitals (or banks, or employers) had to pay for universal healthcare instead of taxes. Would that make it ok with you?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 10:23:25 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

If you deny insurance the right to free association (ie the right to exclude coverage for those who are already ill),


Your position is amply clear. You view the right of an insurance corporation to operate without regulation as a greater societal good than ensuring that all citizens in that society are covered by basic medical insurance, so their lives aren't ruined if they get unlucky. You place more faith in the corporate form than the government, even though recent history has shown that corporate greed and malfeasance is of greater impact than governmental greed and malfeasance.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me"
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 10:29:07 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Huh? FedEx offers a wide choice of delivery options. And if I want I can send it "signature required" for extra security. Sunny how the USPS doesn't even do its own parcels anymore.



Oh, indeed, I'm not saying USPS is good or bad. I wouldn't know. FedEx is awful here and in the the UK though. I've paid for a signature required, they still left parcels and letter son doorsteps, and then claimed they'd "lost" the evidence for the signature. I'd put that to a one off issue, if it hadn't happened twice more to two different

Business to Business they seem to do very well, so I'm sure they run well there.

Quote:


That is one problem. Another is you can fly better, faster, and cheaper for long-haul. Trains make sense in the northeast and should be privatized there. The rest should die.



-Passenger trains- should die... freight is pretty important in the US...

Can't argue with that, though I'm happy that the US tax payer will subsidize my tourist rail travel.

I see the FAA is subsidized/budgetted as well to the tune of 15 billion a year (15 times Amtrak's). I had assumed it wasn't paid for with government money. I assume that subsidy should also be removed and the cost passed to the consumer. That works out at about a 2c per passenger mile subsidy, so it'd only be a few dollars for the short haul flights.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 10:32:09 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Just don't ask the government to get into the business.



If you're hung up on government employees, I'm fine with ALL healthcare coming from the private sector.

On the caveat that's it's affordable.

I think you'll object, because I still want the private sector to meet the same needs as that old socialism, which probably means we'd have to supplement them with taxes.

But it's all the same to me if it's privatized doctors that do it.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 10:42:26 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

If you're hung up on government employees, I'm fine with ALL healthcare coming from the private sector.

On the caveat that's it's affordable.



What on earth does "affordable" mean? Usually it means people want a doctor's visit for $10 and be able to buy $200 of prescription drugs for $100 in premium.

Here is the problem--insurance is not used as insurance, it is use as a kind of "club" where you try to "get your money's worth" like a keg party where you pay $3 (in my day) to get in the door.

Quote:

I think you'll object, because I still want the private sector to meet the same needs as that old socialism, which probably means we'd have to supplement them with taxes.

But it's all the same to me if it's privatized doctors that do it.



So you still want your neighbors to pay for your health care. Do you want them to subsidize your car and grocery store as well?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 10:44:28 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Your position is amply clear. You view the right of an insurance corporation to operate without regulation as a greater societal good than ensuring that all citizens in that society are covered by basic medical insurance, so their lives aren't ruined if they get unlucky.



You should stop trying to tell me what my position is. I know my posotion and don't need to be told. You don't know my position. if you want to know, ask.

My position is that the government has no power under the Constitution to regulate any industry, and that si the right of all businesses to operate free of arbitrary restraints. Not free of restraints, mind you, but only of arbitrary ones. This means no business can engage in fraud, for example, since fraud is properly against the law.

Given tehre are regulations and that we won't do away with them for a long time, if ever, then I do see it wrong to impose counterproductive regulations on business. If you force insurers to cover everyone with pre-existing conditions, then you may as well just tell them to shut down. they won't last a minute anyway.

Look at it this way: if you're going to cover all my medical expenses once I get sick, and you cannot deny me coverage, than why should I pay for insurance unless I get sick or have an accident? I woudl derive no benefit from insuring myself prior to faling ill, would it?

Insurance is a means to hedge against risk by spreading the risk among a large population over a period of time. Insurers can and do invest some of the money they take in as premiums to hedge their risk. but you cannot invest what isn't there. So, if you were fored to insure those already ill, you'd end up only with the sick as your customers. The vast majority of the healthy population would have no reason to contract your service.

Now, that means you cannot spread the risk among a large population, nor can you spread it over time. You're no longer a hedge, but rather a milking cow that has to pay up as soon as it gets paid. Meaning the whole thing collapses at once.

On the other hand if you've been paying insurance for years and fall ill, your premiums will rise but your coverage remains.

What you ought to be asking is what to do. How come so many people are uninsured when they fall ill?

Quote:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me"



That's a lovely poem. Unfortunately today it should read "Your entitled masses yearning for a handout." But that doesn't quite ahve the same ring to it, does it?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 10:50:44 AM permalink
I'll take the moral decision to redistribute wealth option to provide health care and sleep well and you can take the one that's let's sick people go without treatment.

Let God judge us.

*well if I believed in a god.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 10:56:50 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I'll take the moral decision to redistribute wealth option to provide health care and sleep well and you can take the one that's let's sick people go without treatment.



Did I say the poor shouldn't get treatment?

I donate money to charities that provide treatment to those who can't afford it, including one run by a private hospital.

I wouldn't sleep well if I advocated the forcible confiscation of money and wealth from some to give to those who are either too irresponsible or to stupid to rpovide for themselves. But that's not entirely fair, as some people go uninsured due to government meddling in the insurance market.

We can debate this. But don't go assuming I'm a monster because we disagree.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 10:59:39 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I'll take the moral decision to redistribute wealth option to provide health care and sleep well and you can take the one that's let's sick people go without treatment.

Let God judge us.

*well if I believed in a god.



It seems as if government is your god.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 11:04:20 AM permalink
Well, I don't think you're a monster, but i still can't agree with the point of view you hold either.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 11:07:33 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Well, I don't think you're a monster, but i still can't agree with the point of view you hold either.



If you dont' think that, then plese stop saying so.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 11:10:12 AM permalink
Well, someone stop implying I might want to be a thief then, which started before I even said that.

I was referring to duffman's post anyway, but yours showed up in between our two posts.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 11:14:51 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Well, someone stop implying I might want to be a thief then, which started before I even said that.



I'm not implying you are a thief. I'm saying the government is a thief. How else do you define the forcible taking of money and wealth other than theft?

At that most people ar ewilling to pay reasonable taxes for basic government services. I know for most this also includes "welfare." That's a view that needs changing fast, especially as "welfare" keeps expanding to middle class handouts.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 11:21:13 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

I'm not implying you are a thief. I'm saying the government is a thief. How else do you define the forcible taking of money and wealth other than theft?



Well, of course, most of us never signed any agreement with the government, so all taxes for anything are subject to debate I suppose if you want to make a case for it.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 11:24:16 AM permalink
...although that's a debate that's usually goes one sided, unless you can hide out somewhere.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 11:25:07 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Look at it this way: if you're going to cover all my medical expenses once I get sick, and you cannot deny me coverage, than why should I pay for insurance unless I get sick or have an accident? I woudl derive no benefit from insuring myself prior to faling ill, would it?

Insurance is a means to hedge against risk by spreading the risk among a large population over a period of time. Insurers can and do invest some of the money they take in as premiums to hedge their risk. but you cannot invest what isn't there. So, if you were fored to insure those already ill, you'd end up only with the sick as your customers. The vast majority of the healthy population would have no reason to contract your service.


The same would be true of the fire department if it were not supported by taxation. Nobody would voluntarily pay fire premiums for fire department services if they could get guaranteed fire-mitigation services only when they needed it. The only people who would pay are those whose homes were actively on fire.

That's why we use taxation to support a fire department. It is precisely the same reason that we should use taxation to support a public health-insurance department.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 11:42:26 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

The same would be true of the fire department if it were not supported by taxation. Nobody would voluntarily pay fire premiums for fire department services if they could get guaranteed fire-mitigation services only when they needed it. The only people who would pay are those whose homes were actively on fire.

That's why we use taxation to support a fire department. It is precisely the same reason that we should use taxation to support a public health-insurance department.



What is the connection here? And why does it need to be "public?" Private insurance works just fine. It just that some people want to get the insurance at cost or even free.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 11:47:56 AM permalink
One way to recoup some of the costs for universal health insurance or care is to create the unforgiven loan when someone incurs a health care cost they can't pay. It might be as little as a few dollars at a time for some people. You know, they show up to get a driver's license and they have to pay a slight extra fee to receive their license. Or any time they might have to do government related functions. Well, I don't know, but it might be one way to equal things out better for people concerned about other people getting by without contributing.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 12:27:00 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

What is the connection here? And why does it need to be "public?" Private insurance works just fine. It just that some people want to get the insurance at cost or even free.


The connection? Fire prevention service is something everyone benefits from, even if they never have a fire in their home. Having a healthy and productive population is also something everyone benefits from, even if they never get sick.

I don't have any figures on this, but I wonder how much more it would cost in taxation to cover the younger portion of the population in the same way as those 65 and up are covered by . It would have to be far less per-capita, but how much more overall?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 12:41:44 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

The same would be true of the fire department if it were not supported by taxation.



No. if there were no municipal fire department, then you'd need to find some other means to insure your property against it. You might form a fire brigade on your neighborood and pay for it yourselves, like some airports do. Or insurers may set up fire brigade co-ops, but that won't guarantee enough coverage, or do much for abandoned properties.

In any case, fire and rescue are very rare events. Granted in a big city the fire department sees action every day, but any given firehouse may not. It's a relatively small expense.


Quote:

That's why we use taxation to support a fire department. It is precisely the same reason that we should use taxation to support a public health-insurance department.



There's a big difference. a fire in one property will spread to others if it's not put out, not to mention the clouds of toxic fumes that are released. My illness does not affect you significantly.

Here are the probelms with current insurance:

1) the insured are used to not paying for it. By and large their employers pay it. That carries these problems:

1.1) Since you dont' pay for it, you're not mindful of the medical expense you incurr.
1.2) Since you're on someone else's plan, you lose coverage if you lose or quit the job.
1.3) If you are unemployed for some time or get employed by someone who cannot cover your insurance, you'll find it difficutl to obtain insurance on your own.

2) Government mandates on what should be covered have gotten out of hand. Not only the notion that insuarance should cover sham treatments like accupuncture, but that every medical expense should be covered. This further disconnects those suing medical services from those making the payments.

3) Lawsuits against doctors are way out of hand. Doctors these days are motivated more by fear of lawsuits than by a desire to treat their patients. Since the patients don't care what it costs, and since the doctors will be paid the same whether they order every test known to them or none at all, there's no reason to curb unnecesary tests. This drive sup insurance payments, which drives up insurance premiums, which makes it harder to pay for insurance.

Naturally there should be some form of retribution against doctors who are negligent. Just not a blank check charged to doctors who prove to be less than omniscient.

Some cases require extensive testing. That's because a set of symptoms could be condition X or condition Y, and the doctor needs to perform some tests to find out which it is. If he tests for X and doesn't find it, she needs to test for Y. If Y turns out to be the case, she often needs to determine what kind of Y it is. But this si really not very common, fictional shows like House MD notwithstanding.

4) Government does not allow insurance to be sold over state lines. This is a mockery of the commerce clause, BTW, which assumes some regulation of trade between states, not a prohibition against some forms of trade. The reason is that different states have different mandates for insuresrs. That's part of the problem, not part of the solution.


So, here's what you do:

1) Stop treating medical insurance favorably as a fringe benefit, and instead pay the money directly to the employees so they're better able to get their own insurance. This say they get to keep their coverage if they change jobs, get fired, retire or quit. Furhter, since they'll be responsible for their insurance expenses, epople will exercise more care on what they use it on, just as they do with the rest of their money

2) End all mandates of what should be covered. Let insurers and their customers work things out between the, You could get an insurance that only covers catastrophic conditions (major accidents and illnesses), but not every doctor's visit or every medicine you buy. You coudl also get an all-inclussive insurance that even pays for fixing a hangnail. Your choice.

3) Put some restraint back in malpractice lawsuits. For one thing punish actual negligence, not lack of omiscience. For another, cap whatever payments a plaintiff is entitled to. This sill put an end to the practice of defensive medicine, doctors will be able to see theri patients as patients and not as potential plaintiffs, and bring down the number of unnecessary tests performed, and this will bring down insurance premiums.

4) Let all insurers sell their insurance where they wish, as long as theya re able to provide the coverage promised. This increases competition nation-wide and that will mean lower prices.

There would remain a problem with the prices of drugs. Americans pay more for most drugs than most other people aroudn the world. A big aprt of the problem is that other countries set up price controls, which means the big transnational pharmaceuticals will charge more where they can. This problem ins't easily solved. But another part, the minor one, is also overuse of drugs. Some because the disregard for cost discussed above allows for more prescriptions, some due to prescribing antibiotics where they are not needed.

But first we need to address the first four problems and suggestions I noted above. This would decrease radically the number of uninsured people in all levels, and would bring prices down, too. Naturally there would remain a small number who cannot afford insurance. Charities should be enough for them. If not, I would still not favor any kind of government program, because as I've stated these tend to expand innexorably until they beocme the morass we ahve now.

And also naturally some people would be unwilling to obtian insurance, whether out of conviction or out of ignorance or even laziness (can you imagine a heroin junkie buying insurance?) What I'll say next does sound cruel: if they don't want insurance, we shoulnd't force them to get it. But they are responsible for the consequences of their decisions.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 12:59:48 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

I don't have any figures on this, but I wonder how much more it would cost in taxation to cover the younger portion of the population in the same way as those 65 and up are covered by . It would have to be far less per-capita, but how much more overall?



It would cost more, not less. With all incentive to keep your costs low people would load up on consuming health care like a busload of nicklel slots players given a buffet comp at Bellagio. Having people actually be responsible and shop for the best price for their own care will keep costs lowest.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 5:06:31 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Kind of hard to beleive. You said 86 million were without insurance "for some time" and now 50 million supposedly did not have it at all. That is 136 million.


No, I would think, that 86 million figure includes that 50 as well. 50 million uninsured "long term" plus another 36, who were uninsured for some time during that period.


Quote:

What is more insulting is insinuating that you cannot survive in the USA without health insurance for even a short period of time.


And who insinuated that?
I remember specifically saying that you can survive.

Quote:

What is most insulting is demanding the government subsidize it and "force" you to buy health insurance coverage because they know better than you.


About what? Going without health insurance completely? Well, it's not just government, I think almost EVERYONE knows better than that. I agree with you it kinda is insulting to think a person can really be that stupid. I just hope you don't really think that, and only using it hypothetically as an argument.



Quote:

MIT Graduates are genreally just more intelligent than the local community college student. That probably has a great deal to do with it.


Yes, that has a lot to do with it. But the opportunity to socialize and study together with those more intelligent people has a lot too, as well as the opportunity to be taught by and work with greatest scientists in the country.


Quote:

Making them attend a sports program? Boy, you sure are big on forcing people to do things. I suppose you are among the people who want the military draft back as well, maybe?



I meant to say making them able to attend. Missed a word. Please don't make a big deal out of it.

Quote:

And enough about "execs getting rich." People running multibillion dollar, 10s of 1,000s of employee organizations will be paid high, as that kind of responsibility warrants it.


Well, yes, it does. I don't mind people getting rich at all. It's just in this particular case, it is ridiculous how everybody comlains about how high the prices are, and how something has to be done about it, and the very reason they are high is just the middleman, that does need to be there to begin with.

Quote:

You are quite a greedy person to want your insurance "at cost" yet complain because somebody gets paid for giving the shareholders who hired them a proft.


I am not greedy, you misunderstood. I don't really complain about them giving the profit to their shareholders. It is their job, and they are doing it quite well. They see the opportunity to exploit the market inefficiency, and make money off it, they should be honored for that, not blamed.
It is the government I blame for allowing that inefficiency to exist and be exploited at great expense of the people, without much if ant whatsoever benefit to them.

Quote:

And BTW, how much profit a company makes is none of your business or concern unless you are a shareholder.


Come again? How is public company's profit none of my concern?

Quote:

If you feel the cost of the insurance is too high, don't buy it. Just don't ask the government to get into the business.


Well, sorry, but I think that's just what I am doing here. I think the government should get into the business. And don't tell me what I should or should not ask for :)


Quote:

Why do you assume it will be "better?" The USPS is not better than UPS and FedEx. AMTRAK is terrible.


USPS is definitely better than UPS or FedEx. I don't have an opinion of amtrack, except I see no private companies rushing in to profit of its "terribleness".
I have already explained why I think government-run insurance will be better to the consumer. It does not need to be profitable, and to make its investors happy, it's objective is to provide healthcare to the consumer, not to make money. That will make it posisble to significantly lower the cost of the health insurance, which, while solving the huge immediate accessibility problem for lots of people, will also provide an incentive for private business to work better, more efficiently, cut costs, lower prices and provide better services.
I don't really see any downside to it whatsoever, besides the negative connotations associated with the labels stuck to the idea by the propaganda.




Quote:


From dictionary.com:

•Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Says nothing about a monopoly.



It's not a very good definition. "Means of production are owned collectively" - that fits all the US public companies.

Quote:

It talks about the government owning and planning means of producing and distributing goods.

In this case the "good" is health insurance and care. You want the government owning and running the insurance company. You want socialism. Why not just admit it?



Is USPS socialism? Are firefighters socialism? Come on.
Socialism is a political system, not a form of ownership of any one particular company.


Quote:

So you trust the government bureacrat with no incentive for customer service than the private company?


Why do you compare a bureaucrat (a person) to a company? It's either a government company vs. private company, or a government bureaucrat vs. private bureaucrat. In the latter case I don't quite trust either, equally.
But speaking about companies as a whole, I have to pick the government in this case. I see no incentive whatsoever in this particualr case for the private company to want to serve me well. None whatsoever. The government has at least an incentive to please the voters. It is not much, but it is better than nothing.

Quote:

You seem to live in some fantasyland where the government works efficiently and is oh-so fair.


Nope. I know it's inefficient and unfair. I think it's ok, that it is inefficient - if there is real inefficiency, that matters, the market will find a way to benefit from it. As for being unfair ... in my "non-fantasy world" I know that nothing in the world, not private, not government, is intrinsically fair. It's all about motivation. The government has incentive to do fairly in this case, a private company does not.

Quote:

Here is a news flash: private companies don't want to "let you die" as if they do they will tend to sell less insurance because nobody is going to keep buying from a company that "lets people die."


Yeah, right. There are three insurance companies you can buy a plan from here, where I live. Only one of them (yes, one) sells individual plans. Is it "letting people die"? You bet! Do people still want to buy from it? Sure they do. How about the other two companies? Do they "let people die"? Most definitely. If you want more horror stories, I can tell them to you all night.
You seem to live in some fantasyworld, where market is "fair", and there is competition, and consumers have real choice. here is a news flash for you - none of that exists in the area of medical insurance, and has not existed for a very long time.

Quote:

Government workers, OTOH, are far more likely to just take a bureacrat attitude and say, "sorry, regulations say you don't get the treatment."


You can have your private insurance, if you prefer. Like I said a million times, I am not advocating private insurance getting outlawed. All I want is an alternative.




Quote:

Except the freedom to make one's own health care choices, of course.......................


No. Where did you get that idea? I am all for that freedom. Any health care decision is fine by me, including assisted suicide. Not sure what it is you are talking about here, you must have me confused with someone else.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 5:19:28 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

It would cost more, not less. With all incentive to keep your costs low people would load up on consuming health care like a busload of nicklel slots players given a buffet comp at Bellagio.


What is it that stops them from doing it now? What is it that stops the elderly from doing it? How do you figure it can possibly cost more?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 5:33:24 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Come again? How is public company's profit none of my concern?



If you do not own stock in the company then their profit is none of your concern. Why would it be?


Quote:

USPS is definitely better than UPS or FedEx. I don't have an opinion of amtrack, except I see no private companies rushing in to profit of its "terribleness".
I have already explained why I think government-run insurance will be better to the consumer. It does not need to be profitable, and to make its investors happy, it's objective is to provide healthcare to the consumer, not to make money. That will make it posisble to significantly lower the cost of the health insurance, which, while solving the huge immediate accessibility problem for lots of people, will also provide an incentive for private business to work better, more efficiently, cut costs, lower prices and provide better services.



If you like slower service and an organization that might go bankrupt this winter, then the USPS is better. It seems you must be a total price-buyer with no care of quality. All you keep saying is you want the government in health insurance because you are too cheap to pay the market price. Just admit you like and want socialism. I freely admit the free market is not for everybody, those who do not want to put in the effort to succeed usually prefer to live off the rest of society albiet at a lower level of life quality. If you want "cheaper" care, please just go to the free clinic and wait hours for care, then you can have the system you prefer.



Quote:

s not a very good definition. "Means of production are owned collectively" - that fits all the US public companies.



No, it does not. You seem to not understand the difference between "public" and "publiclly traded." Just because Ford is publiclly traded does not mean it is "collectively owned."


Quote:

USPS socialism? Are firefighters socialism? Come on.
Socialism is a political system, not a form of ownership of any one particular company.



USPS socialism? Absolutely. Firefighters? No, they are part of the public safety department and not in fee for service. To compare firefighters to helth insurance shows a lack of basic understanding of economics.


You seem to live in some fantasyworld, where market is "fair", and there is competition, and consumers have real choice. here is a news flash for you - none of that exists in the area of medical insurance, and has not existed for a very long time.


Quote:

can have your private insurance, if you prefer. Like I said a million times, I am not advocating private insurance getting outlawed. All I want is an alternative.



All you want is socialized medicine and all you want is the governmnet in competition with private business. Neither is good. Neither is Constitutional.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28576
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 5:42:31 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman






All you want is socialized medicine and all you want is the governmnet in competition with private business. Neither is good.



If the Post Office was run like a regular business, it wouldn't be
broke. Obamacare will also be broke in record time if its allowed
to stand. The gov't runs nothing efficiently.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 6:01:51 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

If you do not own stock in the company then their profit is none of your concern. Why would it be?


It's a public company. Any number of reasons. I may be considering buying its stock. I may be holding or considering buying stock of its competitor, a client or a supplier. I may own one of its suppliers, or a client of of of its suppliers. I may be considering subscribing to its services as a client. I may be considering subscribing for services of its competitor and looking for negotiation points. I may be thinking about starting a competing business. I may be researching the economy of a particular market sector. I may be interested in the health of the economy in general. I may simply be curious.


Quote:


If you like slower service and an organization that might go bankrupt this winter, then the USPS is better.


Slower service? I mail a letter, and it arrives anywhere withing the state, and most neighboring states either next day or, at worst, in two days. I can use FedEx instead, sure. But to get the same kind of service, I would have to pay literally hundreds of times more (tens of dollars vs. tens of cents).
As for going bankrupt this winter ... frankly, I don't care. In any event, its not like no private company ever went bankrupt ...

Quote:

It seems you must be a total price-buyer with no care of quality.


No, I care for both. I care about price, and I care about quality. What I certainly do not care about is the form of ownership of the company I am buying from. That I find silly.

Quote:

All you keep saying is you want the government in health insurance because you are too cheap to pay the market price.


No. What I am saying is that there is no real market in this business, and therefore there is no market price. The price, artificially set by insurance companies is unreasonably high, and imposes an unnecessary burden on the majority of the people. That burden can be relieved by a reform involving government providing a baseline to form the real market price, tied to the cost of service, supply and demand as it is supposed to be, and stimulate businesses to work efficiently and productively.

Am I too cheap personally to pay the price? I would not call it that. I personally have no problems with health insurance at this point in my life (while I am employed and able to work).
I just think that the current situation is bad for the economy, bad for the society, and bad for the country. I think, it should be fixed, not for my sake (I'll "survive", as you say, either way), but for the sake of our children.

Quote:

Just admit you like and want socialism.


I am afraid, you don't know the first thing about socialism. I have first hand knowledge. Believe me, (1) I don't want it, and (2) US, or US + universal medical coverage, or even US + Obamacare is NOTHING like socialism.
In general, let me tell you that trying to label your opponent like that instead of making real arguments isn't really serving your cause.



Quote:

No, it does not. You seem to not understand the difference between "public" and "publiclly traded." Just because Ford is publiclly traded does not mean it is "collectively owned."


Huh? Who owns it then?




Quote:

Firefighters? No, they are part of the public safety department and not in fee for service. To compare firefighters to helth insurance shows a lack of basic understanding of economics.


Well, enlighten me then. What is in your view the key difference between firefighters or a highway department and Medicaid?
They may not be in fee for service, but they certainly do not work for free. Medicaid isn't collecting fee from its subscribers either on the other hand. If one is "socialism", then so is the other.

The real problem is however, let me tell you again, you are labeling things that are completely incompatible with your label. Socialism is a political system. Saying that some company is "socialism" is kinda like calling a stopwatch "monochromatic".



Quote:

All you want is socialized medicine and all you want is the governmnet in competition with private business. Neither is good. Neither is Constitutional.


That is not *all* I want. But, among other things, I want these, yes. Both are good. Great even.
As for constitutionality, I am not an expert. Show me how you think they are unconstitutional if you can. I figure, if USPS is constitutional, and public schools are, if amtrack is constitutional, as well as FDIC, NIH, PBS, Medicaid and Medicare, then a government run health insurance company gotta be constitutional as well, unless you can demonstrate to me how the constitution forbids it specifically while allowing everything else. And if you are saying that all those things are unconstitutional as well ... well, then I'll just have to conclude, that you must be one of those conspiracy theorists, claiming that the evil government has been opressing us for centuries under the eye of their Masonic Order, and there isn't really much left to talk about in that case :)
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28576
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 7:20:51 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

That is not *all* I want. But, among other things, I want these, yes. Both are good. Great even.



Yeah. I know if I had a kid and he was really sick,
I'd want to rush him to the nearest country with
socialized medicine so he could get the best
treatment. Everybody knows the best doctors all go to
those countries.

Get real.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 8:01:09 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Not on Roth IRA. And not on income low enough to fall below the exemption.


That is why what you are responding to said "most retirement income." Those two exceptions are puny, to say the least.
Quote:

It's a federal program. What difference does it make which pocket exactly the money comes from to pay for it?


Because you made a serious misstatement that taxes paid for the FDIC. It seems that when we examine your assertions, they often fall flat on the facts and you try to handwave away the objections.
Quote:

In the end of the day, it is your and mine money. Maybe, it's not taxes, maybe the banks pay for it directly, by raising prices for their services, so what?


Welcome to the real world of how business is conducted. Many financial institutions do not want to participate, and even those that do so enthusiastically see no problem in offering instruments that are not FDIC insured. That is the nature of the free market and competition, not to mention gauging risk versus reward.
Quote:

Suppose, the hospitals (or banks, or employers) had to pay for universal healthcare instead of taxes. Would that make it ok with you?


No one has to suppose your example. That is the present U.S. system for a multitude of U.S. residents. And that is the system that draws people from around the world to receive their health care here. No other country draws anywhere near that clientele.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 8:04:34 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Nobody would voluntarily pay fire premiums for fire department services if they could get guaranteed fire-mitigation services only when they needed it. The only people who would pay are those whose homes were actively on fire.


Experts including the nonpartisan CBO say that is just what will occur under Obamacare.
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 8:21:17 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

That is why what you are responding to said "most retirement income." Those two exceptions are puny, to say the least.

You say they are puny, I say they cover most of the population (and thus "most retirement income").
In any event, the taxes you pay on your retirement income do not count in the context of that discussion, since the money you've earned while you were working did not get taxed. You are simply returning a debt when you are paying taxes on retirement income, and not in full, because your tax rate after retirement is lower than it was while you were working.

Quote:

Because you made a serious misstatement that taxes paid for the FDIC.


No, I did not. Please do not put words in my mouth. I have never said that taxes paid for FDIC.

Quote:

It seems that when we examine your assertions, they often fall flat on the facts and you try to handwave away the objections.


I could note the same about yours. And add to that your irritating manner of handling a discussion by inventing a (wrong) statement your opponent have never made, and then arguing with it righteously and with great fanfare ...

First you have accused me of being (maliciously?) inconsistent by pretending you could not do simple math, neglected to apologize, or even acknowledge your mistake, and went directly to nitpicking on the question of retirement taxation, that did not really have much to do with the topic at hand to begin with, lost that, turned around and ... invented the "FDIC is paid by taxes" thing ... I take it, after being unable to oppose intelligently to anything I have said, you chose as the last resort arguing with an imaginary opponent, that just says wrong things, you can easily debunk. Is that it?
I don't mind, really, and would probably have just let it go, if you have not permitted yourself the above personal attack at me. That was an unwise move. You should have at least waited to see if I let your FDIC invention go unnoticed before assuming I am too stupid to remember what I have said and what I have not.

Quote:


No one has to suppose your example.


No one has to? I guess so. Unless, they want to participate in a discussion and not just have a monologue ...

Quote:

That is the present U.S. system for a multitude of U.S. residents.


No, it isn't. I think, you missed the word "universal" in my post.

Quote:

And that is the system that draws people from around the world to receive their health care here.


LOL. You really believe that, don't you? Sorry ... I am speechless.
Insurance companies draw people from around the world to be treated here? Seriously?

Quote:

No other country draws anywhere near that clientele.


No other country has as many doctors either. If you consider numbers relative to the size of population or economy, you'll be very surprised. The US isn't such a Mecca for the sick as you like to imagine, and the stream has been also shrinking significantly over the years. Back in the seventies, your statement might have been right, but now ... even in absolute numbers, I really doubt that.
The system is broken, the capacity has been declining steadily, the prices are going up even faster, the technology ... well ... the technology is great, it used to be unique 30 years ago, but other countries have been catching up, and the prices there are much, much more attractive.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 8:33:15 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

USPS is definitely better than UPS or FedEx. I don't have an opinion of amtrack, except I see no private companies rushing in to profit of its "terribleness".


The first line is evidence of a lack of user knowledge. The second is a clear indicator to any sentient person that long distance passenger railroading is obsolete and that any efforts to sustain it, not to mention revive it, are the height of folly.
Quote:

Government-run insurance will be better to the consumer. It does not need to be profitable, and to make its investors happy.


Yeah, and we think we will always have that minority of actual taxpayers to carry the load for all those losses that are incurred.
Quote:

That will make it posisble to significantly lower the cost of the health insurance, which, while solving the huge immediate accessibility problem for lots of people, will also provide an incentive for private business to work better, more efficiently, cut costs, lower prices and provide better services.


Five unsubstantiated talking points in one sentence. Give that poster a gold star!
Quote:

I don't really see any downside to it whatsoever, besides the negative connotations associated with the labels stuck to the idea by the propaganda.


As if the proponents have not engaged in a massive and deceptive propaganda effort.
Quote:

I see no incentive whatsoever in this particualr case for the private company to want to serve me well. None whatsoever.


Not even profits or its continued existence?
Quote:

There are three insurance companies you can buy a plan from here, where I live. Only one of them (yes, one) sells individual plans.


Time to move to a more developed area.
Quote:

Is it "letting people die"? You bet!


You have no ostensible way of substantiating that.
Quote:

If you want more horror stories, I can tell them to you all night.


Whatever your access to unverifiable anecdotes, many people, including a sizable group just in this forum, would like to see just what objective reports you have on this particular subject.
Quote:

You seem to live in some fantasyworld, where market is "fair", and there is competition, and consumers have real choice. here is a news flash for you - none of that exists in the area of medical insurance, and has not existed for a very long time.


Thanks to distorted and contorted federal and state regulators.
Quote:

Like I said a million times, I am not advocating private insurance getting outlawed. All I want is an alternative.


At different times when the health care bill was in the legislature, the president, as well the House and Senate leaders, all said the entire broad plan would collapse without single payer mandate. It is clear that the advocates have always sensed a problem with the underpinnings of the grand scheme.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 5th, 2011 at 8:35:08 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

LOL. You really believe that, don't you? Sorry ... I am speechless.
Insurance companies draw people from around the world to be treated here? Seriously?



Shows some more of what you don't know.

My insurance policy, from a Mexican insurer, includes treatment in the US. That's a very common option, much sought after, in health insurance.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 9:02:24 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

You say they are puny, I say they cover most of the population (and thus "most retirement income").


And you have absolutely no way of knowing that. As a matter of fact, they are puny. Comparing Roths to Traditionals, Escape Wealth Asset Protection said, "The value in the Roth IRAs is dwarfed by other IRA accounts. The latest figures from 2009 showed less than $300 billion in Roth accounts, versus almost $5 trillion in Traditional, SEP and Simple IRAs." Real numberss, real facts. Not "I say they cover."
Quote:

In any event, the taxes you pay on your retirement income do not count in the context of that discussion, since the money you've earned while you were working did not get taxed.


You just cited Roth IRAs as being so influential. Apparently you do not realize that taxes are paid on that money while working.
Quote:

Your tax rate after retirement is lower than it was while you were working.


That is not guaranteed anywhere. And with gigantic tax increases looming, that seems a less likely proposition than a seven appearing in the next six rolls.
Quote:

No, I did not. Please do not put words in my mouth. I have never said that taxes paid for FDIC.


Then you should explain more clearly than writing implicit sentences like these in references to taxes: "What will you do if the bank that holds your account goes bankrupt? I assume you have something like FDIC setup in in Mexico? If so, who do you think pays for that?" In reference to this, let it be noted than in a prior post, the handwave communicated that it didn't matter whether the tax was direct or indirect.
Quote:

You have accused me of being (maliciously?) inconsistent by pretending you could not do simple math


If you're referring to the confusion about the uncovered, your response was that you didn't know whether the figure is 35 million, 50 million or 85 million. By checking your side's arguments and data, you might be able to present them better here instead of being so upset when challenged.
Quote:

The question of retirement taxation, that did not really have much to do with the topic at hand to begin with, lost that


Says someone who does not understand what Roth IRA's and erroneously posts their taxation rules.
No one has to? I guess so. Unless, they want to participate in a discussion and not just have a monologue ...
Quote:

LOL. You really believe that, don't you? Sorry ... I am speechless.
Insurance companies draw people from around the world to be treated here? Seriously?


If you bothered to read the sentence you reposted, you would see that it did not refer to insurance companies. "And that is the system that draws people from around the world to receive their health care here."
Quote:

I really doubt that.


It seems as if the doubting will have to continue, as it appears you have not been able to gather the data to back up your assertions.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
September 5th, 2011 at 9:35:56 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

I wouldn't sleep well if I advocated the forcible confiscation of money and wealth from some to give to those who are either too irresponsible or to stupid to rpovide for themselves..



I suppose we could do means testing for everyone on their health care worth. George Soros, Rush Limbaugh, Paris Hilton, Steve Jobs, Carrot Top, and that dude selling books on tv (i forget his name because a settlement banned him from selling his infomericial crap, but couldn't abridge his free speech rights so he just sells books now. )

Some people would argue some aren't a net gain to society but a detriment.

(I'm sorry Carrot Top, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now)
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
  • Jump to: