Health care

[wdmso]

Why should everyone get the same health care? because money should not influence your care or status or skin color( has a lot to do with your income) but seem you have no issue with that

How is that even possible? your confusing availability with out come 2 different issues Some doctors are better than others. its about getting care but again the logic more money paid equals better doctors rather than overall availably to care

Even in single government payer systems there is discrimination and rationing and choices of who gets care instead of others. And some get it sooner than others. And some die waiting.

this is a completely made up ^^^^^^ so this happens on Medicaid NO!

It happens now in the current system.. die cuz you cant afford the Best doctors and care or lose your house or go on welfare or MA Health not because your a slug you have no choice

this OMG single payer result in Government run hospitals like in Venezuela is a honed fear tactic of the right that the boogie mans coming blaming Liberals ideas for everything even as we hear daily how many seats they own in states and in DC and Governorships

its amazing how that works

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Why should everyone get the same health care? because money should not influence your care or status or skin color( has a lot to do with your income) but seem you have no issue with that

Get over it. Money does influence. That's why people strive to get it. The notion that money should not influence something overlooks the intrinsic meaning of money. Money is a medium of EXCHANGE. And it represents the labor or product of those who own money (or inherit it). In a free society, exchange is voluntary. Healthcare involves an exchange between buyer and seller. If a buyer can demand the same product from a seller for less money than others are willing or able to pay, the exchange is not voluntary. It is coerced. And if government can force sellers in a given exchange to trade their product for less return than they can get from other buyers, than it can do so in all exchanges. And if government can take ownership of all exchanges, determining which can exist, in what manner they exist, and "pay" for all exchanges equally for all buyers regardless what those buyers have to offer for the product, then there is really no exchange. The government, in effect, owns the product and the labor to produce it, and likewise owns the health of those needing the product. It all becomes a process of people filling the slots in the scheme that government masterminds devise, "benevolently" seeing to it that those filling the slots stay healthy enough to continue doing so.

I see that you didn't answer (among other things) my question "And if the government can mandate that everyone must have the same health care, why can't it mandate that everyone must buy the same car? And why can't the government be the single payer for all those same cars?"

So, yeah, there is a reason for money, or some facsimile. It makes it more efficient to make trades. It expands the size and efficiency of a market. It, or what it represents, is an intrinsic part of a marketplace. Removing it or what it represents from the market, eliminates the market.

A bureaucratically planned and enforced society has no need of a market. A market is the enemy of planned, controlled, societies. And vice versa.

How is that even possible? your confusing availability with out come 2 different issues Some doctors are better than others. its about getting care but again the logic more money paid equals better doctors rather than overall availably to care

In the case of better doctors, the outcome is what is available. There is no confusion between outcome and availability there. What you're confusing is that availability to health care gives all the availability to the same healthcare. That is not possible. Some will get better, some not as good, doctors, so it is not possible under single payer system for all to choose the best. So everybody will not get the same healthcare. Nor will the same healthcare even be available to everybody. Even having the chance at the best healthcare, other than luck, is to have more to offer for it.

Even in single government payer systems there is discrimination and rationing and choices of who gets care instead of others. And some get it sooner than others. And some die waiting.

this is a completely made up ^^^^^^ so this happens on Medicaid NO!

It happens in totally single payer systems . . . such as the UK which you mentioned. We have not yet achieved such a system in our country. We're on the cusp of that happening. If and when it does, it will be happening here.

It happens now in the current system.. die cuz you cant afford the Best doctors and care or lose your house or go on welfare or MA Health not because your a slug you have no choice

That's the reason for sustaining a free market. It creates the possibility for getting better results for yourself if you strive for the means to do so. And that striving, by the way, is what creates bigger markets which create more technology and means to provide better results. Take away the striving and the market shrinks. Availability for better stuff diminishes. The trajectory toward controlled societies increases. Freedom is lost. But the poor will be taken care of by government edict, and there will be more levelling of society into an overall poorness living under the deception of a minimized state of hog heaven.

this OMG single payer result in Government run hospitals like in Venezuela is a honed fear tactic of the right that the boogie mans coming blaming Liberals ideas for everything even as we hear daily how many seats they own in states and in DC and Governorships

its amazing how that works

By all means, let us keep chipping away at the benefits of a free marketplace. Let us keep squeezing the life out of it.

Venezuela! Pfft! Nothing there to see. Cuba is the paradise which we keep missing to notice as such. China and Russia trying to move toward capitalism in order to sustain their economies--just a little tick, a little glitch on the road to the final equal, fair, and politically righteous societies controlled by government edict.

[JohnR]

So I should work 60 hours a week to pay for my Buick health care plan (can't afford the Cadillac plan) AND contribute to someone else's Buick health care plan?

I contribute both with my plan (that also pays into Hospitals that assist the uninsured) and with my taxes that are "redistributed" for me.

The money should have no issue re quality of health care is wrong and frankly unicornrubyslipper talk. Money HAS to be taken into account. Otherwise people will continue to take money out of other people's piles. And more and more and take money from our kids and your kids futures as debt. That should be unacceptable. It is not a bottomless pit.

Should there be more inexpensive ways to distribute health care? More clinics? More community center based medicine? What responsibility lies with those that are receiving this no cost / low cost health care (let alone the full plans)?


FTR - I am for some type of AFFORDABLE care for those that cant afford it and those that are taxed for it - but this is not affordable nor sustainable.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

So I should work 60 hours a week to pay for my Buick health care plan (can't afford the Cadillac plan) AND contribute to someone else's Buick health care plan?

I contribute both with my plan (that also pays into Hospitals that assist the uninsured) and with my taxes that are "redistributed" for me.

The money should have no issue re quality of health care is wrong and frankly unicornrubyslipper talk. Money HAS to be taken into account. Otherwise people will continue to take money out of other people's piles. And more and more and take money from our kids and your kids futures as debt. That should be unacceptable. It is not a bottomless pit.

Should there be more inexpensive ways to distribute health care? More clinics? More community center based medicine? What responsibility lies with those that are receiving this no cost / low cost health care (let alone the full plans)?


FTR - I am for some type of AFFORDABLE care for those that cant afford it and those that are taxed for it - but this is not affordable nor sustainable.

Great last line. There should be some quasi public plan for those that can't afford to get it in the private sector, and I have absolutely zero issue with paying taxes to support such a plan...heck, that's one of the things I WANT to pay taxes for. And we have that today with Medicaid. We just need to try to improve it, but don't ask me how. I know fraud and waste drive up costs, let's start there and see how much it saves.

I also don't think people should pay for pre-existing conditions (and I don't have any, not advocating for my own wealth). We don't get to choose whether or not we are born healthy, and those that are unlucky enough to be born with issues, should not endure a lifelong struggle to pay for them. Just my $0.02.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

So I should work 60 hours a week to pay for my Buick health care plan (can't afford the Cadillac plan) AND contribute to someone else's Buick health care plan?

I contribute both with my plan (that also pays into Hospitals that assist the uninsured) and with my taxes that are "redistributed" for me.

The money should have no issue re quality of health care is wrong and frankly unicornrubyslipper talk. Money HAS to be taken into account. Otherwise people will continue to take money out of other people's piles. And more and more and take money from our kids and your kids futures as debt. That should be unacceptable. It is not a bottomless pit.

Should there be more inexpensive ways to distribute health care? More clinics? More community center based medicine? What responsibility lies with those that are receiving this no cost / low cost health care (let alone the full plans)?


FTR - I am for some type of AFFORDABLE care for those that cant afford it and those that are taxed for it - but this is not affordable nor sustainable.

John affordable heath car is not possible its lost ..These company's Love money they will never roll back prices .. not different then the airlines charging for baggage extra leg room even picking a seat . or a Hotel that charges you to park or charges you a resort fee cuz they have a pool once they knew they could charge it and get paid they all do it ... there all in on it its baked into the cake

Maybe the government should stop spending $100 million per F35 fighter "redistributed" some of the 57% of our national defense Budget and send a little to health care which is only 5% .... of the Budget

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Maybe the government should stop spending $100 million per F35 fighter "redistributed" some of the 57% of our national defense Budget and send a little to health care which is only 5% .... of the Budget

Sadly it is more like 140 million a pop on F35 (more actually as that number does not included engines). I could find plenty of waste in procurement and more than happy top debate the ills of defense procurement and Beltway Bandits.

But you do not underscore your seriousness on math or debate when you put out numbers like that : "57% of our national defense Budget and send a little to health care which is only 5% ". Those numbers are false, and at best highly misleading. The only time numbers are close to yours is when you are parsing discretionary spending. See image 1 below from CBO. This has Defense around 45% of discretionary spending and health around 23% (combined national health and Veteran/VA spending). But those numbers don't include most of Healthcare which is Medicare and Medicaid If you look at total budget (3.9 Trillion) then defense is down around 15% and health including Medicare / Medicaid are around 28%.

So argue your point but establish a consistent baseline for your numbers: You can't use gross numbers in one pie and compare to net numbers in the other pie

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

By all means, let us keep chipping away at the benefits of a free marketplace. Let us keep squeezing the life out of it.

Venezuela! Pfft! Nothing there to see. Cuba is the paradise which we keep missing to notice as such. China and Russia trying to move toward capitalism in order to sustain their economies--just a little tick, a little glitch on the road to the final equal, fair, and politically righteous societies controlled by government edict.

A Free market and for profit model hospital's are why health care is where it is today not obama care ... a free market wont fix a problem created by a free market system Heath care isn't a product... it was turned into 1

look at Oklahoma... Free market limited regulations has given them earthquakes their 2nd in the country

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Heath care isn't a product... it was turned into 1

it's a service...you have to pay for those too..

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

A Free market and for profit model hospital's are why health care is where it is today not obama care ... a free market wont fix a problem created by a free market system Heath care isn't a product... it was turned into 1

Hospitals and health care have been highly regulated for many decades. And the regulations have steadily grown over that time. Neither hospitals nor health care have been operating as free market models for a long time. The costs have steadily risen in that time. As well, the freedom in the market has steadily fallen. "Where it is today," as you put it, is the result of the decades of rising regulations and government intervention in general during that time. The costs, under the increasing regulatory system have not gone down. They have constantly increased. That you don't see the connection that stares you in the face, and blame the condition on something that doesn't exist is indicative of how well Progressive propaganda works.

Ultimately, the failure or success of any political or social or even economic system depends on the willingness of the people to make it work, no matter what the personal costs may be. Whether it is free market or communism, or any variations and gradations in between, the commitment of the people is required to make it all work.

Free markets are not responsible for the distortions imposed on them. They are not responsible for criminal abuses of them. They are certainly not responsible for government regulations which weaken their effectiveness and, worse, diminish their freedom. Freedom, with all the personal responsibilities and virtues which truly enable us to freely interact without diluting the freedom of others, is required to make a free market work. And a free market is the most dynamic way to truly "progress" from primitive poverty to wealthy nations, and thus to have access to the riches that humans are capable of creating and producing.

If we all commit to a free market and practice that commitment with the responsibility and virtue that freedom requires, we will create the wealth and technologies required for a maximum distribution of a good life for all, and that virtue will freely, without dictatorial coercion, provide for those not capable of doing so for themselves.

The fault does not lay in the free market. As Shakespeare would say: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings." When we surrender our freedoms to Caesar, to unlimited, dictatorial government, we degrade and ultimately destroy the free market and make the market a slave to tyrants.

That is why those who love liberty, with its unalienable rights, over security and unearned comforts, prefer free market systems rather than communistic, socialistic, fascistic systems. Those who prefer the comfort of government granted rights and securities tend to favor the socialistic, communistic, fascistic systems. All systems would work if we were all the same and we all committed to one of them. We are not all the same. If we are to live together, we must choose a system to which we all can commit. The Founders created a pretty good one to that end. But those who don't trust the rest of us have been trying for a century to transform our system of limited government and the people's unalienable rights to one of some sort of benevolent dictatorship.

This notion of a free market being the cause of our ills has been discussed in several posts, including conversations with you. You have not refuted nor even responded to most of the content in them (post #7 in this thread for instance). It seems you keep bringing up the same arguments which have been answered and refuted, over and over again. So, wearily we have to keep giving you basically the same responses which you don't seem to have understood the many times before. Debating with you about the free market brings to mind what it takes to keep responding to your blaming it for our problems. It takes the persistence advocated by the phrase "illegitimi non carborundum"

look at Oklahoma... Free market limited regulations has given them earthquakes their 2nd in the country

Oklahoma has had regulations and imposed new ones in response. Nor has the reason for the earthquakes been totally established:
http://www.news9.com/story/24792205/...as-earthquakes

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oklahoma has had regulations and imposed new ones in response. Nor has the reason for the earthquakes been totally established:
http://www.news9.com/story/24792205/...as-earthquakes

LOL One researcher, a Tulsa geologist, is now suggesting something else may be at work -- the weather and aquifers.

amazing nothing like keeping your head buried in the sand

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

LOL One researcher, a Tulsa geologist, is now suggesting something else may be at work -- the weather and aquifers.

amazing nothing like keeping your head buried in the sand

I am not the one here who has his head buried in only one possibility. And I don't have an ideological investment in any of the possibilities. The cause of earthquakes in Oklahoma is not about the free market.

A free market is not free of government regulation. What it should be free of is regulation which restricts or denies freedom. In order to understand the reason for that in a social compact founded on individual freedom, you have to understand what social and political freedom essentially is. It is not license. It demands that those who wish to be free do not trample on the freedom of others. Interactions must be voluntary and honest. Coercing someone or cheating her is not voluntary interaction. Being cheated is not voluntary, agreed to, interaction. When you coerce or cheat, you are not free because you depend on someone else's involuntary submission to you. In effect, you become a slave to slavery. The slave owner cannot survive without slaves. He is not socially free in his interactions with those he cheats or coerces. His cheating and coercion destroys the intrinsic nature of freedom. Social freedom, in contrast, ensures that everyone is free to depend on his ability to do rather than depending on the submission of others to do for him. It requires the responsibility to assure that all in society are free. It requires the virtue to reign in personal desire to coerce and cheat. And that is the foundation for a truly free market.

License, on the other hand, comes in two forms. Breaking of the social contract by personally coercing or cheating others. Or complicity with government which gives you a license to have legal advantages over others.

So, given that society can impose regulations, what should be the nature of those regulations vis a vis a free market? Such regulations should be of the kind that assures the market is free. Such regulations should, on the one hand, penalize those who distort the market, those who coerce or cheat others. On the other hand, it should not grant license to some giving them advantages over others, and certainly should not give some the legal power or advantage that essentially eliminates competition from others who want to freely engage in the market.

If the people of Oklahoma want to impose regulations for well founded, correct reasons equally on all who want to drill for oil on their territory, they can do so. It can penalize those who violate the regulations. And it must not grant advantages to some at the disadvantage of others.

The health care system has been massively distorted by government regulations. At this point, the regulations have squeezed out competition. They have limited or denied the ability of individuals to freely trade with providers and insurers. They have made the costs for medical devices outrageously expensive. They have made, in general, health care so expensive that individuals cannot afford it. they have driven the system incrementally, and steadily, toward single payer government health care.

None of that is free market. When you blame the free market for those conditions, you have your head buried in the sand that Progressive government constantly throws in your eyes.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The health care system has been massively distorted by government regulations. At this point, the regulations have squeezed out competition. They have limited or denied the ability of individuals to freely trade with providers and insurers. They have made the costs for medical devices outrageously expensive. They have made, in general, health care so expensive that individuals cannot afford it. they have driven the system incrementally, and steadily, toward single payer government health care.





BIG Bad Goverment isn't the Problem Single payer is coming and heath insurance company's will be a memory they have already dug there own Grave with unsustainable rate hikes

A free market dictum is "charge what the market will bear." Another way of saying that is to charge what a customer or given set of customers are willing to pay. Another version is to give equal value for value. Ignoring the dictum will eventually lead to businesses extinguishing themselves.

What you seem to be saying is that all health insurance companies are too stupid to do what works. That their greed blinds all of them to stupidly commit market suicide. One would think that some enterprising and bright health insurance business which understood the need to follow the dictum would come along and charge what you consider sustainable prices.

Of course, that would more likely occur in a free market.

A government controlled and regulated market might not be free enough, due to regulations, to charge what is both affordable and profitable. And a government controlled market would lead to cronyism, the cooperation of big businesses supporting regulations if they eliminated competition creating larger coerced profits for themselves. It is most likely that all the insurance companies are not too stupid and too greedy to charge what you consider sustainable prices, rather it is more than probable that government mandates cost them too much to do so. And that a few crony companies benefitted from the mandates.

One way to sustain the insurance companies, is for the government to "subsidize" (pay for) the price of insurance for those who can't afford it, and even to subsidize the big crony insurance companies for the losses due to government control and regulation. This all was done in Obamcare.

At what point does it become unsustainable for government to subsidize buyers for all the regulatory costs it imposes on business? In a for profit business sense, or even in a to merely break even sense, that point has already been reached. Health insurance companies have been forced by mandates to price themselves out of business if they're not subsidized, and more buyers of insurance can't afford to pay for it unless they are subsidized. And the national debt is unsustainable.

Now, that is clearly, definitely, obviously, not a free market situation. What should also be obvious to a reasonable person, is that insurance companies are not all so stupid that "they have already dug there own Grave with unsustainable rate hikes" as you put it. That is not a reasonable assumption. Perhaps a Progressive talking point assumption, but not a reasonable one. What is a reasonable assumption is that they have been regulated to the point of unsustainability. That it is coercion, not stupidity, that has dug their grave.

And it is no coincidence that, as you say, single payer is coming. It was already admitted by some Dems that single government payer is what they wanted all along. Government health care has been a Progressive dream and goal since the FDR era. It has been admitted that Obamacare is just another step toward that. It is not only reasonable, but obvious, that the government regulations on health insurance companies imposed by the ACA were meant to dig that grave for them. For them to be, as you say, "a memory."


health care will still happen hospitals doctors and nurses will still work

Of course all that will happen. It happens even in some of the poorest most dictatorial godforsaken countries. It is one of the items that those governments will at least minimally provide or risk revolution. And it will be provided in most, or all, of single payer systems at a level below what most of the population would get in a free market.

medications will still be made the share holders will be the entire US not just stock holders look for a profit

Sure, medications will still be made. But innovation will be levelled to a status quo. It takes a lot of motivation to strive for new and better stuff. The profit motive has been the strongest and most sustainable motivator in human history. We don't live in a fictional Star Trek world where most go where no man has gone before just for the sake of mankind. For most, it takes more than feeling good about yourself to go along for the ride. For most, it is easier to repeat than to innovate. But if we can get a lot more than we already have, a lot more are willing to take the trip.

And your notion that the entire US, the entire population will be the shareholder in single payer government run and paid healthcare is ridiculous. Shareholders invest for profit. Explain how the taxpayers all paying for the entire health care system creates a profit for them.

And how do they all profit equally? If the "profit" is healthcare and if all get the same healthcare but some pay more than others and some pay nothing, do all profit equally? Isn't the only way all could profit equally is if all had identical economic conditions--the same economic worth--same pay, etc. etc. Is that an attractive economic and social model for you?

Isn't investing a means to get more than you paid for the investment. Otherwise, just keep the money rather than investing it. Go ahead, build a car and pay the entire cost of building it, then buy the car from yourself for more than you paid to make it. Where, exactly, is the profit in that. Oh, you say no, no . . . the entire population will pay some groups of people to build cars for everybody. And then the cars, which will be identical, will be distributed, at no further cost, to the entire population. So there will be no profit. We shall all equally pay exactly what it costs to build a car and have that car for the equal amount of money we spent.

That sort of economic system has been tried several times in the past. The attempts have not been sustainable. Simply put, human nature doesn't fit into that box.

[detbuch]

How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive

A long article but brief summary of how government intervention incrementally over time helped to create excessively profitable monopolies of doctors, of hospitals, of insurance, etc. Somewhat tough and boring to read, but give it a try if you're interested in a basic understanding of the rise in cost of healthcare:

https://mises.org/blog/how-governmen...e-so-expensive

[detbuch]

A very, VERY, important video to watch regarding the high cost of health care, and why "health care is not really that expensive" according to the doctor in this video. And how it would not really be that expensive if health care was truly free market based:

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A very, VERY, important video to watch regarding the high cost of health care, and why "health care is not really that expensive" according to the doctor in this video. And how it would not really be that expensive if health care was truly free market based:

you do love your you tube echo chamber


but not to worry Trumps going to blow up the whole thing up!! i hope nobody is buying open market .. He just bit the hand that feeds him

Right off the guys web site https://surgerycenterok.com/?procedu...y=urology#jump In an effort to make care accessible to all of our patients regardless of their financial situation, we’ve partnered with Parasail to find patient‐friendly payment plans Vasovasostomy $5,300.00* Total Knee Arthroplasty (Knee Replacement)i
$15,499*
not sure how thats less than Insurance

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you do love your you tube echo chamber

If you have nothing relevant to say about the video, why do you bother to reply with stupid, useless, junk?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you have nothing relevant to say about the video, why do you bother to reply with stupid, useless, junk?

stupid, useless, junk?

Happy to see that you feel prices from his web site are useless junk?

But your you tube videos are not stupid, useless, junk? produced to generates Views ... and promote his business model .. packaged as a cure for health care ...


nothing relevant to say about the video or do mean agree with the video because his prices are relevant

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

stupid, useless, junk?

Happy to see that you feel prices from his web site are useless junk?

But your you tube videos are not stupid, useless, junk? produced to generates Views ... and promote his business model .. packaged as a cure for health care ...


nothing relevant to say about the video or do mean agree with the video because his prices are relevant

Have you compared his prices to those that other Hospitals charge insurance companies. Point is that other mainstream doctors and their surgeons charge way more. If you think that insurance makes those surgeries cheaper, you're not considering overall costs. Major surgeries are not something a person has every month. The bulk of the surgeries on his list are once or twice in a lifetime. And many or most people will not require most of those surgeries. Insurance premiums with high deductibles occur every month. And the deductible will occur with every surgery. And the costs get higher every year. The overall cost of healthcare is far more expensive under our insurance/government paid system. We all pay for that. Add up all the insurance premiums you pay in a lifetime for a service and for the great majority of people who live the age of life expectancy will have paid far more in premiums than the actual price you paid for that which was insured.

His point was that health care is way more expensive than it would be in a free market based system. His free market based prices are way lower than the regulated system imposes on healthcare. That is what the debate should be about. Not out of context prices.

You didn't discuss any of that. You showed some numbers without context and made a snarky comment about me and a supposed echo chamber. For me, that was useless junk.

[Slipknot]

Very informative
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Recent quote by our President "Take a look at who those insurance companies support and I guarantee you one thing. It’s not Donald Trump.” The Repub. lack of compassion and hate for "those" people is pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Neither side is true or honest. Get a grip
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device