Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....

[jasonnfree]

if there had been no third-party payment systems (government or private) devised for health care.

1) a government or soviet monopoly of course will be very very inefficient and expensive. A private capitalist competitive insurance system would be the exact opposite.

Prior to Lyndon Johnson signing the Medicare Act of 1965, that is what the US had - a completely capitalistic health care system with private insurance only, and it was a problem because half of Americans couldn't afford private health insurance.

The capitalistic system you long for was tried for 200 years and it was an epic FAIL, Eddie. By 1965, half of all Americans could not afford private health insurance. So much for your "free market competition would lower prices". One quarter of the money Americans pay for US health care goes to pay for insurance company staff whose job it is to refuse or limit their claims.

Only someone too dumb to be one person defends the capitalistic US health care system as having the ability to provide quality health care at a cost comparable to or lower than a single payer system. In fact, the intelligent argument that conservatives use is that there are not enough doctors and hospitals to handle the increase in the number of patients if 100% of Americans have full access to the system, and that waiting listing will abound when universal health care comes in.

Nobody but an idiot would argue that a capitalist system will be cheaper. And you, Eddie are that idiot.

Truman tried for a form of national health insurance after WW2 but republicans yammered socialism repeatedly until it was forgotten. If we can't take care of those in need who can't afford medical care, such as Canada and most other first world nations do, than we are truly nothing but an oligarchy.

 

[Grandma]

Without consumer protections quality and safety standards drop like anvils off a cliff.

under capitalism you are obviuously free to buy the most quality and safety possible. The products with the least safety and quality are the first ones to go bankrupt; the ones with the most safety and quality are the first ones to make a huge profit. What IQ must you have to not know that????????? Ans: a liberal intelligence

Buyers have no real choice.

dear an average supermarket has 12,000 different items for sale!!!!!!!
a liberals intelligence for sure. 100% pure ignorance!!

Are those 12,000 different brands of the same item? How many different brands of baked beans are there? Do you have any idea how many different brand names are owned by Kraft Foods?

 

[Underhill]

The alternative is to mind your own business. There's no need to use the coercive power of the state to force your neighbors into your idea of the best health care solution. Freedom isn't such a bad deal.

Freedom is what we had and what brought us to this point, along with every other civilized nation on the planet.

No, it's exactly the opposite. Increased regulation and corporate/state collusion track just ahead of health care inflation historically.

The health care and health insurance markets are deeply dysfunctional right now; you'll get no disagreement from me on that. But freedom is not the culprit. It's not the bad faith actions of individual insurance companies that are the problem. It's their collusion with the state, via lobbying and DC's 'revolving door'. That's what drove the tax and labor policies that built the group insurance industry in the first place, and it's the same kind of manipulation of the process that created PPACA.

So you are claiming there was never a purely free system and that these regulations have always been around?

Of course that isn't true. And of course we've had a free system in the past. What you fail to understand is that these rules and regulations were all put in place for a reason. Every one of them was done to address a problem. Free market systems are no panacea.

You are obviously wishing for a past that never existed.

Now if you are saying there is too much regulation, that some of them have gone to far, you might have a point. But this notion that we need no regulation is laughable by anyone who has picked up a history book.

 

[Underhill]

Could you please define 'coercion' as you're using it? I know of no definition that would exclude law enforcement. As to the rest of it, for good or bad, the US isn't Canada.

If every person in the land is born into a world where universal health care is funded by taxes and not by insurance, how is the system coercive?

Taxation is coercive by nature. Otherwise it we'd call it 'donation'.

I couldn't care less if it's a tax or a premium. Either way we need coverage. So all I care about is which is cheaper. And it's clear that single payer could be saving us a fortune.

 

[dblack]

Freedom is what we had and what brought us to this point, along with every other civilized nation on the planet.

No, it's exactly the opposite. Increased regulation and corporate/state collusion track just ahead of health care inflation historically.

The health care and health insurance markets are deeply dysfunctional right now; you'll get no disagreement from me on that. But freedom is not the culprit. It's not the bad faith actions of individual insurance companies that are the problem. It's their collusion with the state, via lobbying and DC's 'revolving door'. That's what drove the tax and labor policies that built the group insurance industry in the first place, and it's the same kind of manipulation of the process that created PPACA.

So you are claiming there was never a purely free system and that these regulations have always been around?

Nope. Not claiming that.

Of course that isn't true. And of course we've had a free system in the past. What you fail to understand is that these rules and regulations were all put in place for a reason. Every one of them was done to address a problem. Free market systems are no panacea.

And many of them have had unintended consequences that have contributed to health care inflation and lack of flexibility in the market.

You are obviously wishing for a past that never existed.

Nope. Wrong again. Probably best to just read what I type and not spend to much time guessing what I'm 'wishing for'.

... this notion that we need no regulation is laughable by anyone who has picked up a history book.

0 for 3.

Listen, re-read my post and try again.

 

[dblack]

If every person in the land is born into a world where universal health care is funded by taxes and not by insurance, how is the system coercive?

Taxation is coercive by nature. Otherwise it we'd call it 'donation'.

I couldn't care less if it's a tax or a premium. Either way we need coverage. So all I care about is which is cheaper. And it's clear that single payer could be saving us a fortune.

Exactly. That's the insidious equivocation at the core of this argument - the idea that corporations and government are functionally the same thing. And it's pushing us headlong into a corporatist state where equal rights and individual freedom are a thing of the past.

 

[editec]

HC insurance companies have NO REASON to want the cost of HC to go down.

Their right in increase rates is typically based on COSTS & a SET profit based on costs.

Ergo, when the cost of HC goes up?

They make MORE money.

GET IT?

Which is why we need to get rid of the insurance companies completely and go to single payer. Eliminate mountains of paperwork and the profit motive in one swoop.

Single payer is still insurance, with all the distorted incentives and inefficiencies that model entails. It just removes all choice and competition and creates one insurance company - whether it's run by government or not is irrelevant.

Single universal payer insurance is more efficient than multiple payer insurance. It is not a perfect solution, it is merely better than anything else we can think of. It would give us about a 25% decrease in costs instantly since it eliminates insurance companies nearly 20% admin costs and their 5% profits. Additionally it would also bring down HC providers admin costs since they'd only need to to paperwork with one HC payer

Medicade's admin costs are about 2% of the cost of HC.

If you do not instantly understand why Universal HC insurance is more efficient then you really do not understand the entire concept of risk pooling and insurance.

ACA is the worst possible response to the HC cost problem I can imagine. Obama's introduction of that instead of Single Payer was a betrayal of his own platform.

Thinking that somehow forcing people to buy HC insurance from a private HC insurance company is socialism is dumber than dust.

And that is what ACA does.

 

[dblack]

Which is why we need to get rid of the insurance companies completely and go to single payer. Eliminate mountains of paperwork and the profit motive in one swoop.

Single payer is still insurance, with all the distorted incentives and inefficiencies that model entails. It just removes all choice and competition and creates one insurance company - whether it's run by government or not is irrelevant.

Single universal payer insurance is more efficient than multiple payer insurance.

Maybe. It's usually possible to construct a more 'efficient' system (at least from some perspective) with a dictatorial solution. But the costs of indulging this urge aren't always represented in dollars.

ACA is the worst possible response to the HC cost problem I can imagine. Obama's introduction of that instead of Single Payer was a betrayal of his own platform.

Thinking that somehow forcing people to buy HC insurance from a private HC insurance company is socialism is dumber than dust.

And that is what ACA does.

Sad, but true.

 

[Underhill]

Taxation is coercive by nature. Otherwise it we'd call it 'donation'.

I couldn't care less if it's a tax or a premium. Either way we need coverage. So all I care about is which is cheaper. And it's clear that single payer could be saving us a fortune.

Exactly. That's the insidious equivocation at the core of this argument - the idea that corporations and government are functionally the same thing. And it's pushing us headlong into a corporatist state where equal rights and individual freedom are a thing of the past.

What always baffles me is this notion that government is something we should be terrified of. This is government of the people and for the people. We elect our leaders.

It seems like most people I talk to are more scared of what the government might do than anything they have actually done.

 

[dblack]

I couldn't care less if it's a tax or a premium. Either way we need coverage. So all I care about is which is cheaper. And it's clear that single payer could be saving us a fortune.

Exactly. That's the insidious equivocation at the core of this argument - the idea that corporations and government are functionally the same thing. And it's pushing us headlong into a corporatist state where equal rights and individual freedom are a thing of the past.

What always baffles me is this notion that government is something we should be terrified of. This is government of the people and for the people. We elect our leaders.

It seems like most people I talk to are more scared of what the government might do than anything they have actually done.

You should read some history, if you're looking for examples of what government can do when it comes unhinged. It's not that corporations are innnocent, but they don't have armies, and - unless we invite them to (PPACA) - they can't force their will on us with police.

 

[lynn63]

The problem I see with a one payer system is not having in place strict policies on surpluses for any given year that prevents using those extra dollars for anything but healthcare. Our government is complaining about rising costs at this particular moment in time is that the revenue coming in is less then what is being paid out. The years of surpluses that they spent to build our large government is gone with no means to pay back on those surpluses.

They should have thought of that when they kept signing all of those NAFTA agreements giving the OK for most of our manufacturing to leave the US. Manufacturing companies and their large number of employees that were young and healthy is how healthcare insurance companies made such large profits over the years.

This is the main reason why Obamacare is being mandated now to recapture what is left of the businesses that were not obligated to obtain healthcare. It is NOT going to benefit the working class since they will end up paying for most of their healthcare even with insurance.

 

[Underhill]

Exactly. That's the insidious equivocation at the core of this argument - the idea that corporations and government are functionally the same thing. And it's pushing us headlong into a corporatist state where equal rights and individual freedom are a thing of the past.

What always baffles me is this notion that government is something we should be terrified of. This is government of the people and for the people. We elect our leaders.

It seems like most people I talk to are more scared of what the government might do than anything they have actually done.

You should read some history, if you're looking for examples of what government can do when it comes unhinged. It's not that corporations are innnocent, but they don't have armies, and - unless we invite them to (PPACA) - they can't force their will on us with police.

Yes, I know what governments can do. But when has our government been guilty of the same in its domestic policy?

Look at gun control. You guys were all worried, but the reality is the number of people against it meant it was never going to happen. The same is true with most anything too extreme or unpopular. So if our government does something it's because we allowed them to.

And we can always change our minds.

 

[Underhill]

The problem I see with a one payer system is not having in place strict policies on surpluses for any given year that prevents using those extra dollars for anything but healthcare. Our government is complaining about rising costs at this particular moment in time is that the revenue coming in is less then what is being paid out. The years of surpluses that they spent to build our large government is gone with no means to pay back on those surpluses.

In most respects our government is smaller than it used to be. The only notable exception to that is in defense.

They should have thought of that when they kept signing all of those NAFTA agreements giving the OK for most of our manufacturing to leave the US. Manufacturing companies and their large number of employees that were young and healthy is how healthcare insurance companies made such large profits over the years.

This is the root of most of our countries problems. The destruction of our manufacturing sector will be the reason for our decline if we don't address it and soon. Sadly virtually none of our politicians are talking about it.

This is the main reason why Obamacare is being mandated now to recapture what is left of the businesses that were not obligated to obtain healthcare. It is NOT going to benefit the working class since they will end up paying for most of their healthcare even with insurance.

Health care is mandated now because there is no other reasonable way to manage cost. Romneycare has a mandate. The republican plan in the 90's had a mandate. And you better believe if McCain had won and come up with his own plan, it would have included one too.

Nobody likes it, but short of creating a medicare for all type scenario, a mandate is the only reasonable solution.

 

[Dragonlady]

You should read some history, if you're looking for examples of what government can do when it comes unhinged. It's not that corporations are innnocent, but they don't have armies, and - unless we invite them to (PPACA) - they can't force their will on us with police.

But your thinking seems to be entirely predicated on that worst case scenario. And yes, corporations do have armies now. Blackwater, Haliburton - both have armies. Outsourcing government contracts is where the money is now and both are hiring out what used to be derisively referred to as "mercenary armies". I find it chilling to think the former vice-president and the former Secretary of Defense are so emeshed in the US homeland security infrastructure, but then I don't live there.

As a student of history, I would suggest look at how Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld conducted the Iraq war funnelling billions of US taxpayer $$ into companies that they owned stock in, and in some cases founded, with the goal of making money off their public service.

As a guy who is batshit crazy paranoid over stuff that isn't a problem, you're totally missing the stuff the IS exactly what you're talking about. These are the rich white guys of the Republican Party. The ones who started the war in Iraq, based on false information, so that they or their corporate friends, could steal Iraq's oil wealth. They almost pulled it off too. Now they want the US to attack Iran.

Scary guys running the Republican party.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What always baffles me is this notion that government is something we should be terrified of.

perfect proof that a liberal will be very very very slow!!

I wonder why our Founders gave us very very limited government?
What were those fools thinking!! It almost seems that they had studied history and learned that central liberal government was responsible for the constant slaughter that is the vast majority of human history. Imagine that, they knew it in the 18th Century and modern liberals still don't know it even after seeing Hitler Stalin and Mao. I guess its no surprise they spied for Hitler and Stalin. Does anyone know why they did not spy for Mao or Pol Pot??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As a student of history,

dear as a liberal you lack the IQ to be a student in any worthwhile sense. We know this from your conclusion that China is worse off under capitalism than communism.

Do you think any of your conclusions are better than that one when they are all based on the same braindead liberal bigotry.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One quarter of the money Americans pay for US health care goes to pay for insurance company staff whose job it is to refuse or limit their claims.

this is another lie from a truly retarded liberal. If this is true I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away once again with your liberal tail between your legs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The ones who started the war in Iraq, based on false information,

far more importantly it was information that all the world's intelligence services believed to be true, and information that Sadam wanted Iran to believe so Iran would not attack.

Liberals loved Saddam's rape rooms, terrorist support, use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, and other things and so wanted to support him I suppose??

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The capitalistic system you long for was tried for 200 years and it was an epic FAIL, Eddie. By 1965, half of all Americans could not afford private health insurance. So much for your "free market competition would lower prices".

world renowned stupidity and bigotry once again. The McCarran-Ferguson Act ( 1945) made competition in health care insurance illegal in 1945!!!

Don't worry as a liberal bigot you can ignore the truth as you ignore China's Republican capitalist economic miracle!!

 

[dblack]

You should read some history, if you're looking for examples of what government can do when it comes unhinged. It's not that corporations are innnocent, but they don't have armies, and - unless we invite them to (PPACA) - they can't force their will on us with police.

But your thinking seems to be entirely predicated on that worst case scenario. And yes, corporations do have armies now. Blackwater, Haliburton - both have armies. Outsourcing government contracts is where the money is now and both are hiring out what used to be derisively referred to as "mercenary armies". I find it chilling to think the former vice-president and the former Secretary of Defense are so emeshed in the US homeland security infrastructure, but then I don't live there.

As a student of history, I would suggest look at how Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld conducted the Iraq war funnelling billions of US taxpayer $$ into companies that they owned stock in, and in some cases founded, with the goal of making money off their public service.

As a guy who is batshit crazy paranoid over stuff that isn't a problem, you're totally missing the stuff the IS exactly what you're talking about. These are the rich white guys of the Republican Party. The ones who started the war in Iraq, based on false information, so that they or their corporate friends, could steal Iraq's oil wealth. They almost pulled it off too. Now they want the US to attack Iran.

Scary guys running the Republican party.

Scary guys running the Democrats as well.

It's odd, because you seem to see the same problem I do - corporate/government collusion - and yet advocate solutions that create ever more of it.