Healthcare should not be a PROFIT driven field

[P@triot]

Republicans LOVE socialism when its boosting their military industrial complex to invade more countries...that fills the pockets of the CEO's and criminals. But when its used to HELP citizens of this country its a bad thing...

Defense is actually the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Damn...imagine that

Defense yes,Empire no.

Defense is actually the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Trying to re-label defense as "empire" is a strong indication that you have nothing rational to support your position.

You call almost a million men dying in a war between the states freedom? The freedom to do what? Surely not to become an independent nation,nor own property. We have had debt for a long time and it will continue to grow.

Again, another nonsensical argument indicating you are incapable of supporting your position. What the hell does the Civil War - started by racist Democrats eager to keep black people as their slaves/property - have to do with freedom?

Under Lincoln, the federal government did not force citizens to purchase health insurance (the Civil War had no impact on this reality). Under Lincoln, the federal government did not eavesdrop on all of my communications (the Civil War had no impact on this reality). Under Lincoln, the federal government did not interfere in the free markets (the Civil War had no impact on this reality). Under Lincoln, the federal government did not spy on journalists and then intimidate them (the Civil War had no impact on this reality).

Good starting place is putting ALL politicians on minimum wage or no wage

Now this I agree with you 100% on

and bringing ALL military home and closing ALL bases overseas.

In other words, employ the Dumbocrat strategy of closing the barn door after all of the horses have run away. Yeah, no thanks. Clinton tried that special form of stupidity and it resulted in 9/11.

Socialism isn't a bad thing but the right wing propaganda machine has sure made people feel like it is. I used to think the same thing until people in my family or myself needed those socialist programs and you see how much we need them to live half way decent lives.

You don't need them to live "half way decent" lives. And even if you did, that need creates "full way awful, shitty" lives for others. The U.S. shouldn't have to collapse because of your needs or my needs.

Socialism is a horrific thing which has collapsed every and any nation it has ever touched.

 

[P@triot]

What difference does it make that health issues can happen "suddenly" and "arbitrarily" while food is a consistent need?

In each case, as long as you plan, you will never have a problem. I've never had cancer (thank God), but I carry health insurance just in case I do.

The difference is actually in the way it's administered.
Other countries also have health insurance that you buy, but they've managed to make it so that the corruption levels just aren't there.
I'm not opposed to health insurance.


What is happening in the US with corruption, massive over spending and so on, shows that it simply isn't working. Why do the for profit food market, housing market and so on work and the healthcare system doesn't?

It appears to me like this.
You don't pay the people who are doing the work. You pay the insurance company. So the people who do the work have no need to keep costs down, there's absolutely nothing that forces them to keep costs down, to reduce administration, to not use expensive drugs, to not do 100 tests when 2 would do etc. All because a patient doesn't choose the hospital or the doctor, and the choice isn't necessarily based on efficiency.

The insurance companies might want to offer lower policies, but they have to pay out for the admin and so on, all of them do, so prices have to be high anyway. They want their profit and they make more profit because of the admin and so on, they have no reason to demand that it goes down. If they're getting 5% and 30% of that 5% comes from corruption, then they're getting 30% more money.

The whole system doesn't work.

Why do you think the health care system wasn't working?
It's always worked for me and for my family. It seemed to be working for all my friends and acquaintances.
The only people it wasn't working for are the random losers trotted out by the politicians and media talking heads when they wanted to push an agenda.

It works so well, that people literally come from all over the world for our healthcare. Only a liberal could even attempt to make the absurd case that our healthcare system "doesn't work".

 

[Political Junky]

The difference is actually in the way it's administered.
Other countries also have health insurance that you buy, but they've managed to make it so that the corruption levels just aren't there.
I'm not opposed to health insurance.


What is happening in the US with corruption, massive over spending and so on, shows that it simply isn't working. Why do the for profit food market, housing market and so on work and the healthcare system doesn't?

It appears to me like this.
You don't pay the people who are doing the work. You pay the insurance company. So the people who do the work have no need to keep costs down, there's absolutely nothing that forces them to keep costs down, to reduce administration, to not use expensive drugs, to not do 100 tests when 2 would do etc. All because a patient doesn't choose the hospital or the doctor, and the choice isn't necessarily based on efficiency.

The insurance companies might want to offer lower policies, but they have to pay out for the admin and so on, all of them do, so prices have to be high anyway. They want their profit and they make more profit because of the admin and so on, they have no reason to demand that it goes down. If they're getting 5% and 30% of that 5% comes from corruption, then they're getting 30% more money.

The whole system doesn't work.

Why do you think the health care system wasn't working?
It's always worked for me and for my family. It seemed to be working for all my friends and acquaintances.
The only people it wasn't working for are the random losers trotted out by the politicians and media talking heads when they wanted to push an agenda.

It works so well, that people literally come from all over the world for our healthcare. Only a liberal could even attempt to make the absurd case that our healthcare system "doesn't work".

Some very wealthy people do come to the US for medical care.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you think the health care system wasn't working?
It's always worked for me and for my family. It seemed to be working for all my friends and acquaintances.
The only people it wasn't working for are the random losers trotted out by the politicians and media talking heads when they wanted to push an agenda.

It works so well, that people literally come from all over the world for our healthcare. Only a liberal could even attempt to make the absurd case that our healthcare system "doesn't work".

Some very wealthy people do come to the US for medical care.

Plenty of middle class Canadians come here every year.

 

[KNB]

Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us - TIME

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why would someone put up their own capital to produce medical devices when there is no profit? This is probably one of the dumbest arguments Ive ever seen. How are you going to support your family when you're working for free walking the beat, bucs?

Yeah, who would ever run a non-profit organisation? Must mean they don't exist, right?

And I'm not even sure if people are talking about the production of drugs and so on here anyway. I'm certainly not.

By healthcare I'm talking the care to do with health, rather than the buying and selling of drugs.

Where drugs companies seem to make a lot of money, however, is through the corruption of the US health system, and the corruption is one reason why a lot of people want to see it non-profit.

They'd still have to buy drugs, like the NHS does, but it wouldn't necessarily buy the drugs with sparkly lights on them that cost twice as much. For example.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your premise seems to be that the purpose of government is to provide us with the things we need for life, and that's what I'd challenge. Government employs violence to protect us from violence. We don't need to employ violence to provide for ourselves.

I'd say the govt is there for those things which don't work on their own. It's evolved from power to do as the leader wished, to being more about doing things for the people, it's take over 1000 years from the Magna Carta to get this far.

Still it seems to be about selfishness to a large degree, but some people see govt as being about the people working for the people.

OMG, that is so naive it's just precious...

OMG why?

Or are you just going to make statements without any actual substance so that no one can really bother to reply back?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your premise seems to be that the purpose of government is to provide us with the things we need for life, and that's what I'd challenge. Government employs violence to protect us from violence. We don't need to employ violence to provide for ourselves.

I'd say the govt is there for those things which don't work on their own. It's evolved from power to do as the leader wished, to being more about doing things for the people, it's take over 1000 years from the Magna Carta to get this far.

Still it seems to be about selfishness to a large degree, but some people see govt as being about the people working for the people.

Not me. Government is fundamentally coercive in nature, and forcing people to work against their will, regardless of who it's for, is wrong.

I didn't say anything about forcing people to work against their will.

I'm saying that some things work better when done for the right reasons and not for profit.

For example, prisons. There are private prisons in Louisiana.

Louisiana is the world's prison capital | NOLA.com

The system is not beneficial to the people, it encourages crime, it encourages lack of improvement in prisons, it encourages a system of keeping people locked up just to make money.
I'm not saying private prisons can't work, but in general govt run prisons are more likely to work for the people.
You don't force people against human nature (I believe this is what you meant, i might be wrong), you merely don't allow profit to play a part.

The police, imagine if the police got paid for the criminals they brought forward.

The fire service in the past in Europe was private, a disaster, a lot of houses burnt down because people wouldn't pay. In England you can still see some placks for fire companies on old houses.

The military is another where private just isn't great. Yes, you have private companies making stuff, and contractors and things coming in, but the soldiers are govt paid.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If no profit in healthcare...logic would say no profit in housing, transportation, food, clothing......

Only healthcare is different to housing, transportation, food and clothing.

Those you need daily.

Haircuts aren't needed daily, do they fall into the same category as health care?

Are they essential to life? Can you not give yourself a haircut?

 

[frigidweirdo]

In the US, there are quite a few things that are socialised. Like the police

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy

The police are not "socialized" - it's the function of law to have a mechanism for enforcing it. Is the law "socialism"?!? Can you make the laws that govern a nation, private?!?

Furthermore, what the hell is your "logic" here even if having law enforcement meant socialism - that because one thing is good socialized, all things would be good socialized?!?

Can you make a rational argument for anything?

When you copied and pasted that quote from wikipedia, it might have been an idea to source it.

What you didn't quote was the next bit.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

""Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these."

Socialism covers a lot of stuff. "State ownership" is clearly what the police is about.

I'm just wondering who owns police buildings, cars, and all other stuff, who pays the wages of the police officers. Is it the govt by any chance?
That would be "state ownership" right?

It's a function of the law to enforce it. And through that you need to have people who enforce it. You could quite easily privatize this, right? Why not have for profit law enforcement? You want for profit healthcare and everything else. Let's get rid of socialism.

No, that's not my logic at all.

My logic is somethings work better socialized and other things don't.

Please don't tell someone what their logic is, based on nothing other than your own logic, and then try and tell them off for not being able to make a rational argument based on what you said and not what I said. It's kind of embarrassing for you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why do you think the health care system wasn't working?
It's always worked for me and for my family. It seemed to be working for all my friends and acquaintances.
The only people it wasn't working for are the random losers trotted out by the politicians and media talking heads when they wanted to push an agenda.

At least 30% of money going is ends up on corruption. That's the amount that can be quantified more or less, and doesn't take into account that which appears legitimate.

You're telling me that spending that much money, it's a lot of money and a large chunk of the US's GDP, on complete waste means it's not working?

Yes, it works for you and your family. You spend X amount on healthcare and it works, and you spend Y amount on corruption and you still get what you pay X for.

I'm not saying there isn't a healthcare system which doesn't work. I'm saying the system is corrupt.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The difference is actually in the way it's administered.
Other countries also have health insurance that you buy, but they've managed to make it so that the corruption levels just aren't there.
I'm not opposed to health insurance.


What is happening in the US with corruption, massive over spending and so on, shows that it simply isn't working. Why do the for profit food market, housing market and so on work and the healthcare system doesn't?

It appears to me like this.
You don't pay the people who are doing the work. You pay the insurance company. So the people who do the work have no need to keep costs down, there's absolutely nothing that forces them to keep costs down, to reduce administration, to not use expensive drugs, to not do 100 tests when 2 would do etc. All because a patient doesn't choose the hospital or the doctor, and the choice isn't necessarily based on efficiency.

The insurance companies might want to offer lower policies, but they have to pay out for the admin and so on, all of them do, so prices have to be high anyway. They want their profit and they make more profit because of the admin and so on, they have no reason to demand that it goes down. If they're getting 5% and 30% of that 5% comes from corruption, then they're getting 30% more money.

The whole system doesn't work.

Why do you think the health care system wasn't working?
It's always worked for me and for my family. It seemed to be working for all my friends and acquaintances.
The only people it wasn't working for are the random losers trotted out by the politicians and media talking heads when they wanted to push an agenda.

It works so well, that people literally come from all over the world for our healthcare. Only a liberal could even attempt to make the absurd case that our healthcare system "doesn't work".

Like a giant game of Chinese Whispers this.

 

[dblack]

I'd say the govt is there for those things which don't work on their own. It's evolved from power to do as the leader wished, to being more about doing things for the people, it's take over 1000 years from the Magna Carta to get this far.

Still it seems to be about selfishness to a large degree, but some people see govt as being about the people working for the people.

Not me. Government is fundamentally coercive in nature, and forcing people to work against their will, regardless of who it's for, is wrong.

I didn't say anything about forcing people to work against their will.

Government's sole function is to force people to do things against their will.

For example, prisons. There are private prisons in Louisiana.

Privatized prisons are utterly idiotic. Prisons, which explicitly and necessarily require force, should be the sole domain of government.

The point I'm making here is that the decision of what should be private and what should be government should be primarily based on the notion of whether or not force and coercion are necessary, because that's the key element we add by applying government to a problem.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Government's sole function is to force people to do things against their will.

Yeah, if you have an electorate which doesn't have a clue and elects people for no reason other than they can advertise themselves to death and use lame issues to differentiate themselves from the one and only other party.

Privatized prisons are utterly idiotic. Prisons, which explicitly and necessarily require force, should be the sole domain of government.

The point I'm making here is that the decision of what should be private and what should be government should be primarily based on the notion of whether or not force and coercion are necessary, because that's the key element we add by applying government to a problem.

Ever thought that prisons could be about other things other than force and coercion?

What about the fire service? Force and coercion? Which line do you sit on. Privatized fire service or govt run fire service?

Maybe we need to kick the sheet out of people on fire.

 

[dblack]

Government's sole function is to force people to do things against their will.

Yeah, if you have an electorate which doesn't have a clue and elects people for no reason other than they can advertise themselves to death and use lame issues to differentiate themselves from the one and only other party.

What? No, you don't seem to understand. The feature that distinguishes government from all other societal institutions is that it writes and enforces laws. Not sure what you're going on about here.

Privatized prisons are utterly idiotic. Prisons, which explicitly and necessarily require force, should be the sole domain of government.

The point I'm making here is that the decision of what should be private and what should be government should be primarily based on the notion of whether or not force and coercion are necessary, because that's the key element we add by applying government to a problem.

Ever thought that prisons could be about other things other than force and coercion?

They're 'about' lots of things, but they can't function without the power to coerce people. That kind of power should ONLY be afforded to government. And it should only be used when truly necessary.

What about the fire service? Force and coercion? Which line do you sit on. Privatized fire service or govt run fire service?

Maybe we need to kick the sheet out of people on fire.

Huh? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Fire protection can be arranged without forced payment via taxation. The neighborhood I live in relies on a volunteer fire department, for example.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What? No, you don't seem to understand. The feature that distinguishes government from all other societal institutions is that it writes and enforces laws. Not sure what you're going on about here.

It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't necessarily agree with what you're trying to say.
You're saying that this is what govt is. I'm saying that it isn't necessarily what the govt is. Part of what govt is, is to make laws and enforce the laws. However this doesn't mean to say that it is constantly going against human will. In a democracy laws are written with the supposed backing of the people who vote in the law makers. So if I help to write the laws, is the govt going against the will of the people?

But govt also does other things which are not about imposing will, as you say. Funding healthcare, education, infrastructure and many other things.

Ever thought that prisons could be about other things other than force and coercion?

They're 'about' lots of things, but they can't function without the power to coerce people. That kind of power should ONLY be afforded to government. And it should only be used when truly necessary.
[/QUOTE]

No, prisons can't function without coercing people to stay where they are. They've had their rights taken away.
But why should this power only be given to the govt? I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I'm asking for a reason why.

Are we talking about this from the power point of view? That the govt should be the body that is allowed certain power? And if so, then why?

What about the fire service? Force and coercion? Which line do you sit on. Privatized fire service or govt run fire service?

Maybe we need to kick the sheet out of people on fire.

Huh? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Fire protection can be arranged without forced payment via taxation. The neighborhood I live in relies on a volunteer fire department, for example.

Yes, the fire service can be done in a manner which doesn't involved force payment.
However I'm going to suppose that the volunteer fire service involves tax money too in order to pay for a lot of the equipment and fuel etc. Also you probably live in a rural-ish area.
I'm not sure, I don't know your area.

However, would you want a private company in charge of the fire service?

 

[dblack]

What? No, you don't seem to understand. The feature that distinguishes government from all other societal institutions is that it writes and enforces laws. Not sure what you're going on about here.

It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't necessarily agree with what you're trying to say.
You're saying that this is what govt is. I'm saying that it isn't necessarily what the govt is. Part of what govt is, is to make laws and enforce the laws. However this doesn't mean to say that it is constantly going against human will. In a democracy laws are written with the supposed backing of the people who vote in the law makers. So if I help to write the laws, is the govt going against the will of the people?

The will of the people is not the same thing as the will of the majority.

But govt also does other things which are not about imposing will, as you say. Funding healthcare, education, infrastructure and many other things.

Those services, if provided by government, are indeed founded on an imposition of will. If you live under the government implementing them, you will pay for them and abide by their mandates - or you will go to jail. If you really think these services don't rely on force, why are they "provided" by government? Why not just fund them voluntarily?

Ever thought that prisons could be about other things other than force and coercion?

They're 'about' lots of things, but they can't function without the power to coerce people. That kind of power should ONLY be afforded to government. And it should only be used when truly necessary.

No, prisons can't function without coercing people to stay where they are. They've had their rights taken away.
But why should this power only be given to the govt? I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I'm asking for a reason why.

Are we talking about this from the power point of view? That the govt should be the body that is allowed certain power? And if so, then why?

That's the fundamental grant of sovereignty. We give government a monopoly on violence and agree to forgo it's use personally in exchange for protection from those who would.

What about the fire service? Force and coercion? Which line do you sit on. Privatized fire service or govt run fire service?

Maybe we need to kick the sheet out of people on fire.

Huh? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Fire protection can be arranged without forced payment via taxation. The neighborhood I live in relies on a volunteer fire department, for example.

Yes, the fire service can be done in a manner which doesn't involved force payment.
However I'm going to suppose that the volunteer fire service involves tax money too in order to pay for a lot of the equipment and fuel etc. Also you probably live in a rural-ish area.
I'm not sure, I don't know your area.

However, would you want a private company in charge of the fire service?

Maybe. Maybe not. It's certainly not an extreme violation of individual rights for small communities to band together to pay for these kinds of things. When the benefit is obvious, the cost minimal (both in terms of money and freedom sacrificed), and the consensus is very high. I see nothing wrong with services like fire protection being established as public services. But it should be the exception, and not the rule.

If, on the other hand, the benefit is questionable, the cost substantial and the consensus minimal, we should avoid the temptation to use government to force conformity in the name of solving social problems.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The will of the people is not the same thing as the will of the majority.

There is no such thing as "the will of the people", it's impossible to have everyone agree on something like that.

Those services, if provided by government, are indeed founded on an imposition of will. If you live under the government implementing them, you will pay for them and abide by their mandates - or you will go to jail. If you really think these services don't rely on force, why are they "provided" by government? Why not just fund them voluntarily?

But there's a difference between a govt having to force something on people, and people accepting it.
If the govt really forces taxes on people, then why don't they just vote out those who force taxes on them? The people, through the ballot box, actually accept taxes and many other things which are then required a citizens until the time comes when the decision is made to change.
Why not voluntarily? Probably because it just wouldn't work. Voluntary will cause friction, anger, and a lot of problems with people using a service they clearly haven't paid for.

That's the fundamental grant of sovereignty. We give government a monopoly on violence and agree to forgo it's use personally in exchange for protection from those who would.

Yes, people allow a certain amount of control in the govt. The time from before the Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights in England was a time of taking away power from the govt and giving it to the people. There are fundamental protections built into the US constitution.
The govt is allowed, legally and constitutionally a certain level of violence to protect. This differs from state to state, some allow capital punishment, others don't, for example.

Now, we're talking giving govt the power to protect. This is written into the US constitution in article 1 section 8 which also allows for providing general welfare. What this general welfare is, is not always so clear.

How much protection do people need when it comes to healthcare? How much protection do people want to give the govt? In most countries where there is democracy, the people appear in favor of a system which protects their healthcare.

Maybe. Maybe not. It's certainly not an extreme violation of individual rights for small communities to band together to pay for these kinds of things. When the benefit is obvious, the cost minimal (both in terms of money and freedom sacrificed), and the consensus is very high. I see nothing wrong with services like fire protection being established as public services. But it should be the exception, and not the rule.

If, on the other hand, the benefit is questionable, the cost substantial and the consensus minimal, we should avoid the temptation to use government to force conformity in the name of solving social problems.

The problem here is that sometimes you need a controlling central body that can have an impact on social problems.
However the problem in the US is one of leaving things to fester, and then making sure no one is able to fix the problems.

Surely in a society that is as advanced as the US and other western countries, trying to fix problems should be a logical part of life.
I mean, you have a capitalist society, where corporations who solve their problems are more likely to be the corporations who survive, while those who let problems fester and mold are the ones who earn the Darwin Award and go bankrupt.
Yet, for all the capitalism out there, the govt appears unable to mimic such ability.

And why? Because in capitalism a corporation is going to be under attack from many areas, perhaps larger companies, smaller companies, other competing companies at the same level and it will always have to adjust.
Politics has 2 parties who control everything, they have such control over the system that it is stagnating.
Unless the political system changes to allow more political freedom away from the 2 main and almost only parties, things will continue to move slowly, and never work.

Then the people see that govt simply can't fix things, and then they never want the govt to do anything.

Every so often people post on here about other countries, and how they pay more taxes and generally get a better deal. And I think many Americans can't understand this because they see everything through the American way.

 

[alan1]

Only healthcare is different to housing, transportation, food and clothing.

Those you need daily.

Haircuts aren't needed daily, do they fall into the same category as health care?

Are they essential to life? Can you not give yourself a haircut?

Insulin is needed daily.
I know plenty of people that give themselves an insulin shot.
Are you now moving the goalposts?

 

[alan1]

Why do you think the health care system wasn't working?
It's always worked for me and for my family. It seemed to be working for all my friends and acquaintances.
The only people it wasn't working for are the random losers trotted out by the politicians and media talking heads when they wanted to push an agenda.

At least 30% of money going is ends up on corruption. That's the amount that can be quantified more or less, and doesn't take into account that which appears legitimate.

You're telling me that spending that much money, it's a lot of money and a large chunk of the US's GDP, on complete waste means it's not working?

Yes, it works for you and your family. You spend X amount on healthcare and it works, and you spend Y amount on corruption and you still get what you pay X for.

I'm not saying there isn't a healthcare system which doesn't work. I'm saying the system is corrupt.

The whole system doesn't work.

And you say that without proving a single darn bit of your statement. I'm supposed to believe you why?
P.S. The goalposts just moved again.