Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hmmm... you seem to be missing the point. The problem is that hardly any of us are responsible for own health care bills - they're either being paid by our insurance or through government programs - and so no one really cares how much it costs. That's why the prices for health care keep rising unabated. Neither health care consumers, nor health care providers, have an genuine interest in keeping prices low.
You really believe that someone writing a thousand dollar check every month for healthcare insurance has no interest in reducing it????
They have no interest in choosing lower priced health care. In fact, they have the opposite incentive. If you're paying $1000/month for insurance, and you have a choice of doctors, which are you going to choose? The cut-rate doctor or the premium provider? Even if both are highly rated, wouldn't you err on the side of caution and assume the doctor charging more is offering better service?
You really believe that someone writing a thousand dollar check every month for healthcare insurance has no interest in reducing it????
They have no interest in choosing lower priced health care. In fact, they have the opposite incentive. If you're paying $1000/month for insurance, and you have a choice of doctors, which are you going to choose? The cut-rate doctor or the premium provider? Even if both are highly rated, wouldn't you err on the side of caution and assume the doctor charging more is offering better service?
As far as health is concerned, people always err on the side of caution.
That's why countries that are successful at managing health care don't leave it up to consumers.
In addition, you act like there's an alternative in health care to spreading risk.
What is it?
They have no interest in choosing lower priced health care. In fact, they have the opposite incentive. If you're paying $1000/month for insurance, and you have a choice of doctors, which are you going to choose? The cut-rate doctor or the premium provider? Even if both are highly rated, wouldn't you err on the side of caution and assume the doctor charging more is offering better service?
As far as health is concerned, people always err on the side of caution.
That's why countries that are successful at managing health care don't leave it up to consumers.
Which is exactly what we ought to be learning from those other countries. And why anyone who gives a wit about freedom of choice doesn't want government managing health care.
In addition, you act like there's an alternative in health care to spreading risk.
What is it?
There are always alternatives, but it's not spreading risk that's the problem. If insurance were being used merely as a hedge against catastrophic risk, we wouldn't be in such a bind. What we've been trying to do is use insurance to spread expense rather than just risk, and it simply doesn't work well for that. As a means of financing regular health care expenses, health insurance is just a scam. A kind of pyramid scheme where everyone thinks they're going to come out ahead, but in the end we all lose - except for the insurance companies, who are in the middle of every transaction skimming their profits.
Which comes back to what I've been saying all along. What we need is LESS insurance, not more. The more we pay for health care out-of-pocket, the more money we'll save, and the more health care prices will come down.
As far as health is concerned, people always err on the side of caution.
That's why countries that are successful at managing health care don't leave it up to consumers.
Which is exactly what we ought to be learning from those other countries. And why anyone who gives a wit about freedom of choice doesn't want government managing health care.
In addition, you act like there's an alternative in health care to spreading risk.
What is it?
There are always alternatives, but it's not spreading risk that's the problem. If insurance were being used merely as a hedge against catastrophic risk, we wouldn't be in such a bind. What we've been trying to do is use insurance to spread expense rather than just risk, and it simply doesn't work well for that. As a means of financing regular health care expenses, health insurance is just a scam. A kind of pyramid scheme where everyone thinks they're going to come out ahead, but in the end we all lose - except for the insurance companies, who are in the middle of every transaction skimming their profits.
Which comes back to what I've been saying all along. What we need is LESS insurance, not more. The more we pay for health care out-of-pocket, the more money we'll save, and the more health care prices will come down.
You're in luck! Less insurance is what we're getting. Not because of the liberty scam but because health care delivery costs are unaffordable, yet we demand more. We are the health care cost and quality failure of the developed world.
Why? Because of Conservatism's wholey mythical boogeyman of socialist economic systems. Despite the fact that they are employed by virtually every country in the developed world including ours from the beginning.
There is nothing more costly than ignorance and we've empowered it!
Which is exactly what we ought to be learning from those other countries. And why anyone who gives a wit about freedom of choice doesn't want government managing health care.
There are always alternatives, but it's not spreading risk that's the problem. If insurance were being used merely as a hedge against catastrophic risk, we wouldn't be in such a bind. What we've been trying to do is use insurance to spread expense rather than just risk, and it simply doesn't work well for that. As a means of financing regular health care expenses, health insurance is just a scam. A kind of pyramid scheme where everyone thinks they're going to come out ahead, but in the end we all lose - except for the insurance companies, who are in the middle of every transaction skimming their profits.
Which comes back to what I've been saying all along. What we need is LESS insurance, not more. The more we pay for health care out-of-pocket, the more money we'll save, and the more health care prices will come down.
You're in luck! Less insurance is what we're getting. Not because of the liberty scam but because health care delivery costs are unaffordable, yet we demand more. We are the health care cost and quality failure of the developed world.
Not from what I've seen bubbling out of the ACA cauldron. We're going to get less health care, but we're getting even more insurance - whether we like it or not.
Why? Because of Conservatism's wholey mythical boogeyman of socialist economic systems. Despite the fact that they are employed by virtually every country in the developed world including ours from the beginning.
There is nothing more costly than ignorance and we've empowered it!
No doubt about that. But the 'conservatives' responsible for ACA are all Democrats.
The really frustrating thing is, if we were just socializing health care, it wouldn't be such a sadistic cluster-fuck. When Obama was elected, I'd pretty much conceded that we'd see socialized medicine by the end of his run, and I was somewhat ok with the idea. Things were (and still are) so screwed up in the health care market that I figured Congress couldn't possibly make things worse. Of course, they proved me wrong.
I don't think that it's arguable that full socialized health care will come. Sort of like the fossil fuels business though, those who profit from the status quo will delay it as long as they can.
Obamacare care is a small but necessary step towards ultimate solution.
I don't think that it's arguable that full socialized health care will come. Sort of like the fossil fuels business though, those who profit from the status quo will delay it as long as they can.
Obamacare care is a small but necessary step towards ultimate solution.
Wake up man! Both liberals and conservatives are falling for the same lie - the claim that ACA is a 'step' toward socialized medicine. What we're getting is neither socialism, nor capitalism. It's corporatism, combining the worst aspects of both.
I don't think that it's arguable that full socialized health care will come. Sort of like the fossil fuels business though, those who profit from the status quo will delay it as long as they can.
Obamacare care is a small but necessary step towards ultimate solution.
Wake up man! Both liberals and conservatives are falling for the same lie - the claim that ACA is a 'step' toward socialized medicine. What we're getting is neither socialism, nor capitalism. It's corporatism, combining the worst aspects of both.
It's health care insurance regulation.
It's making and allowing everyone to pay for their own health care.
Which one are you afraid of?
Wake up man! Both liberals and conservatives are falling for the same lie - the claim that ACA is a 'step' toward socialized medicine. What we're getting is neither socialism, nor capitalism. It's corporatism, combining the worst aspects of both.
It's health care insurance regulation.
It's making and allowing everyone to pay for their own health care.
Which one are you afraid of?
Both. Because neither are what they purport to be.
The "health care insurance regulation" of ACA is, primarily, the regulation of health insurance customers - indeed, forcing the unwilling to become customers.
And, the idea that ACA makes everyone pay for their own health care isn't true, as I've been pointing out.
It's health care insurance regulation.
It's making and allowing everyone to pay for their own health care.
Which one are you afraid of?
Both. Because neither are what they purport to be.
The "health care insurance regulation" of ACA is, primarily, the regulation of health insurance customers - indeed, forcing the unwilling to become customers.
And, the idea that ACA makes everyone pay for their own health care isn't true, as I've been pointing out.
All regulations impose responsibility. Thats their purpose. Why you want to allow irresponsibility is the question.
The idea that ACA makes everyone responsible for cost of their own health care is absolutely true. No more dumping your cost on others.
Both. Because neither are what they purport to be.
The "health care insurance regulation" of ACA is, primarily, the regulation of health insurance customers - indeed, forcing the unwilling to become customers.
And, the idea that ACA makes everyone pay for their own health care isn't true, as I've been pointing out.
All regulations impose responsibility. Thats their purpose. Why you want to allow irresponsibility is the question.
The idea that ACA makes everyone responsible for cost of their own health care is absolutely true. No more dumping your cost on others.
Failing to meet someone else's idea of minimum insurance coverage is not irresponsibility. Racking up bills and not paying them is. And that can happen whether you have insurance or not. Your justification for the mandate assumes that people without your idea of enough insurance are guilty until proven innocent. It's antithetical to the basic notions of liberty and justice.
All regulations impose responsibility. Thats their purpose. Why you want to allow irresponsibility is the question.
The idea that ACA makes everyone responsible for cost of their own health care is absolutely true. No more dumping your cost on others.
Failing to meet someone else's idea of minimum insurance coverage is not irresponsibility. Racking up bills and not paying them is. And that can happen whether you have insurance or not. Your justification for the mandate assumes that people without your idea of enough insurance are guilty until proven innocent. It's antithetical to the basic notions of liberty and justice.
People with insufficient coverage rack up bills and can't pay them.
There is no justice in health care. If you get sick, you seek a cure. You should be able to pay for that care.
There is no justice in health care. If you get sick, you seek a cure. You should be able to pay for that care.
Ok. No justice. Got it.
There is no justice in health care. If you get sick, you seek a cure. You should be able to pay for that care.
Ok. No justice. Got it.
Justice is insuring that people who break the law are held accountable.
Ok. No justice. Got it.
Justice is insuring that people who break the law are held accountable.
Your reasoning is circular. There is such a thing as an unjust law. Justice is more fundamental than law.
Justice is insuring that people who break the law are held accountable.
Ok. No justice. Got it.
Justice is insuring that people who break the law are held accountable.
Health care is insuring that people aflicted by disease or injury get restored to health.
You see a connection?
Your reasoning is circular. There is such a thing as an unjust law. Justice is more fundamental than law.
What is an unjust law? Give me a definition and an example.
A law that dictates behavior, rather than protects rights. ACA's individual mandate is a fine example.
