How much should health care cost? Should it cost anything?

[RDD_1210]

I've shown repeatedly you have no basis for your opposition to health care reform that was passed. Everything you bring up, I show where you went wrong in your thinking. So now you're left with just calling it unconstitutional, which also isn't true. But you obviously don't care, you just want to hate this bill no matter what. Even though you've yet to show me anything in the way of any shape of logic or reason. Instead you cry about some mythical freedoms being lost.

Okay show where in the constitution where government is granted the authority to make people buy things.

You haven't proved shit. All you've shown is a lack of understanding of basic economic principles and a narrow minded disregard for liberty when you think it suits you.

My arguments are backed by basic economic principles. Yours are backed by unfounded fear of anything free market based. You can not increase demand on a product or service and expect access to it to improve. That's what this bill does. You can not expect to reduce the cost of premiums by giving the insurance company more customers and further restricting what and how they have to provide their product. Explain to me how this bill can possibly give people more options by further restricting how insurance companies can provide their product.

Show me anywhere that I've posted anything that was wrong. Seriously. Did you not understand the value of subsidizing insurance versus paying for peoples healthcare through the ER? What did I specifically say that you didn't understand or think was incorrect? Specifically. Because I never heard you disagree with my explanations.

 

[Bern80]

I've shown repeatedly you have no basis for your opposition to health care reform that was passed. Everything you bring up, I show where you went wrong in your thinking. So now you're left with just calling it unconstitutional, which also isn't true. But you obviously don't care, you just want to hate this bill no matter what. Even though you've yet to show me anything in the way of any shape of logic or reason. Instead you cry about some mythical freedoms being lost.

Okay show where in the constitution where government is granted the authority to make people buy things.

You haven't proved shit. All you've shown is a lack of understanding of basic economic principles and a narrow minded disregard for liberty when you think it suits you.

My arguments are backed by basic economic principles. Yours are backed by unfounded fear of anything free market based. You can not increase demand on a product or service and expect access to it to improve. That's what this bill does. You can not expect to reduce the cost of premiums by giving the insurance company more customers and further restricting what and how they have to provide their product. Explain to me how this bill can possibly give people more options by further restricting how insurance companies can provide their product.

Show me anywhere that I've posted anything that was wrong. Seriously. Did you not understand the value of subsidizing insurance versus paying for peoples healthcare through the ER? What did I specifically say that you didn't understand or think was incorrect? Specifically. Because I never heard you disagree with my explanations.

and yet you claimed you proved me wrong....... and still refuse to show how exactly the insurance mandate is constitutional.

As far as subsidizing insurance I think you fail to see the big picture and how it would play out in reality. How will it be decided who gets subsidized insurance? How much of their premiums will be subsidized? What is government going to do with the people that can't afford insurance? So they can't afford the least expensive private plan out there...is some government beauracrat gonna try to figure out what they can afford then subsidize the rest? I doubt it. My guess is their entire premium would have to be subsidized. That being the case what will an individuals options be for these plans that government will be paying for? To be fair I would have to guess they would only have the option of one plan. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone just pick the best plan they could? They're not paying for it after all. THAT is why I originally asked what the point is of subsidizing insurance plans. Because the plans for those that can't pay will have to be the same for everyone. You might as well jsut have a national UHC system that covers the basics for everyone at that point.

 

[Flopper]

Should health care "cost" something? Yeah. It should be a collective cost. No young person should have to die for want of health care.

And yeah..I said "young". We all gotta die sometime.

All employed in the United States should pay a tax which directly funds universal preventative healthcare, and an actual and immediate need for emergency treatment. Employers should not be required to contribute to this fund, other than their own personal obligations as an employee/owner (as should all self employed individuals).

And what should that tax be? 10%? 20? 40? 80? When a commodity like health care is free, it will be overused, and the access will drop. The only way then to control costs is rationing. Back to your death panels deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't and when and what is the best value for the government healthcare dollar.

Congratulations. You're no longer a citizen, you're cattle, and Farmer Sam will keep you around till you are of no more use to him. Then off to the glue factory.

That is what you are really advocating but don't want to admit is the truth of it.

I for one would not use healthcare any more than I do now if it were free. I doubt that I am the exception. Sitting in a doctor's office for 2 hours or half the night in an emergency room is not the way I like to spend my day. I have been in the hospital twice in my life. Both were horrible experiences, I hope I never have to repeat. So I strongly disagree that people will overuse healthcare if it's free.

Healthcare is always rationed. Without insurance, it's rationed based on your ability to pay. If you have insurance, it's rationed by your carrier. If you have Medicare or Medicaid, it's rationed by the government.

 

[Flopper]

The biggest problem with our current health care model is that no one knows what anything costs. Do you know what a doctor charges for an office visit. a blood panel, an x ray, an EKG, an appendectomy etc?

The answer in all cases is "No" for the vast majority of people.

How can market forces be applied to put pressure on providers to lower prices when no one knows what anything actually costs?

I read this recently

Worried About Cholesterol? Order Your Own Tests - WSJ.com and it made a lot of sense to me.

I could skip paying for a doctors office visit (however much that costs) and just pay for a blood panel. it's easy enough to tell if the results warrant a call to a doctor or if everything is OK.

Just think if we could shop around for other services in a more a la carte fashion we could very well see a huge drop in prices for medical care and people would have to take a more active and responsible role in their own lives.

I receive an explanation of benefits for every claim received by my insurance company. I assumed all insurance companies do this. If you pay the bills yourself, you certainly should have a bill that itemizes the cost.

Patients demand services but they are not a positive force for controlling healthcare costs. 30% of the healthcare costs are expended on end of life care. Dying patients do not do cost comparisons. Younger patients with insurance have little incentive to do so. Even if patents had the incentive, comparing quality of services versus cost is well beyond their capability.

The only parties that control cost are insurance companies and government. Insurance companies negotiate contracts for services with providers in their network. Medicare puts limits on the amount they will pay. This is really the only cost controls.

 

[Bern80]

Should health care "cost" something? Yeah. It should be a collective cost. No young person should have to die for want of health care.

And yeah..I said "young". We all gotta die sometime.

All employed in the United States should pay a tax which directly funds universal preventative healthcare, and an actual and immediate need for emergency treatment. Employers should not be required to contribute to this fund, other than their own personal obligations as an employee/owner (as should all self employed individuals).

And what should that tax be? 10%? 20? 40? 80? When a commodity like health care is free, it will be overused, and the access will drop. The only way then to control costs is rationing. Back to your death panels deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't and when and what is the best value for the government healthcare dollar.

Congratulations. You're no longer a citizen, you're cattle, and Farmer Sam will keep you around till you are of no more use to him. Then off to the glue factory.

That is what you are really advocating but don't want to admit is the truth of it.

I for one would not use healthcare any more than I do now if it were free. I doubt that I am the exception. Sitting in a doctor's office for 2 hours or half the night in an emergency room is not the way I like to spend my day. I have been in the hospital twice in my life. Both were horrible experiences, I hope I never have to repeat. So I strongly disagree that people will overuse healthcare if it's free.

Healthcare is always rationed. Without insurance, it's rationed based on your ability to pay. If you have insurance, it's rationed by your carrier. If you have Medicare or Medicaid, it's rationed by the government.

The issue is not that it would be overused. Simply that demand will go up. Without a corresponding increase in resources, access will get get worse. Like it or not that demand will go up is the argument of proponents of Obamacare simply stated another way.

What is the reason we are being told health care needs to be reformed in this country? What we are being told is that if not but for the cost, more people would receive the care they need. Therefore if we solve the problem of cost, those that weren't using the system before now will be.

So as you said it will be rationed another way. Do you trust government to ration it fairly? Wouldn't you rather have some level of control over who it gets rationed to in case that who is you?

 

[urdrwho]

Rationed? That depends. Since I pay most all of my invoices out of my check book, it isn't rationed by any insurance or government entity. Perhaps if I have cancer like my neighbor and need $300,000 of care, my insurance company might have some say in the matter.

But for normal, "hey doc I think I have the flu".....I am not rationed. I go to any doctor, any hospital, any ancillary I want to go to and there is no rationing.

If ya all want to go the government route there will be rationing, there is not a country that doesn't ration the care.....I say go for it but leave me out! IF there is to be rationing leave that up to the individuals present condition in life. I don't want some bureaucrat saying when to hook me to the ventilator and when to disconnect me from the ventilator.

Try working within government regulations sometime and you'll soon see how insane they can get. Two hundred pages to tell how to make brownies.

Healthcare is always rationed. Without insurance, it's rationed based on your ability to pay. If you have insurance, it's rationed by your carrier. If you have Medicare or Medicaid, it's rationed by the government.

 

[Big Fitz]

Healthcare is always rationed. Without insurance, it's rationed based on your ability to pay. If you have insurance, it's rationed by your carrier. If you have Medicare or Medicaid, it's rationed by the government.

That's why government healthcare is bad. No matter if you have the money or not, a bureaucrat tells you if you are eligible for, or allowed to be treated when the schedule allows.

A free market rations by setting value of a commodity limiting access by ability to pay. Sucks for some, but it is the most fair option out there.

So I strongly disagree that people will overuse healthcare if it's free.

Sorry, economics 101 disagrees with you. When a price lowers, demand rises. You personally may not. Others will.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Then so are roads and mail and firehouses, not to mention police, and street lights and the public schools.

Every last one of these could be effectively privatized and would probably function better.

Really now? Who will be paying for the roads? Interstate highways? Do tell who will provide the money for the maintenance. Who would be paying for the private schools that all the poor kids get to go to in inner cities?

There is no mystery to the concept that healthier people are more productive people.

All for the collective, eh? Keep the body politik healthy. Works great till you're the one denied healthcare because some beancounter has decided you're obsolete and not worth the society's dollars to keep healthy, because they're better spent elsewhere. Then the panic begins for you.

It is up to the individual, not the state, to keep themselves productive.

It is the benefit of the company/town/state/country if the people of that company/town/state/country are more productive than counterparts. Again, this is not a difficult concept. Promoting healthy hard work is always beneficial for an area compared to less productivity. Do I really need to go over the basics of economics here?

If you really want survival of the fittest, why have healthcare at all? Why should doctors even treat people like you instead of hording health knowledge on their families exclusively? The concept is absurd.

Strawman. It's all or nothing, eh? Before the government started interfering with wage and price controls in the 1930's forcing businesses to shoulder healthcare costs because they were forbidden to increase wages, paying for healthcare was much more reasonable. It's always been expensive, but it was at least possible to afford with catastrophic health insurance. This is no longer health insurance we're talking about. We've had the discussion moved to be that over deserving free whole life care. This is impossible to sustain and anyone not an economic ignoramus can see it.

I think you mean "slippery slope" not "strawman." Survival of the fittest works for natural systems. Civilization is not such a system. We have used intelligence to compensate for deficiencies in biology. Being "fit" in this society has little to do with physical advantage, and should not be treated as such. Applying darwin to this idea is foolish.

EXACTLY right. The current healthcare system setup has robbed America of one of its underlying fundamentals: free market capitalism and competition.

Soooo... now you WANT free markets? Gonna give yourself whiplash changing directions like that. Or is this an example of doublethink in action?

The fundamentals of an economy keep it in line by competition driving down prices. Our current system has REMOVED that ability. A government option would PROMOTE that ability. Alternately, a superseding entity that can mandate that down-driven price can also accomplish that goal. Either way, the goal is still to drive down prices, and there are two options there.

Now if you have an ACTUAL refutation of these concepts, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, please stop whining without a real point.

This really shouldn't be too hard of a concept. Please try to stay with me here. Healthier people are more productive than sicker counterparts, and that has nothing to do with non-counterpart comparisons as you just made. This should be common sense. Sick people call out to work more, cannot perform their jobs as well, etc. That's not to say that any nation with healthcare by default is more productive. It's saying that any given population can decrease their productivity by decreasing their health, and vice versa. Do you actually disagree with this?

You're trying to blend incompatible arguments. You want to believe that economics give a shit about 'nice'.

No, my argument has nothing to do with "nice," and I have no clue where you could have acquired that idea. Sick people call out of work more, cannot perform their jobs as well, and decrease personal and organization productivity. A country's productivity is comprised of the productivity of its businesses, which is comprised of the productivity of its employees. This has nothing to do with nice. It just means that more sick days means less is being DONE. Which part of that do you disagree with?

Or will you just keep whining without actually pointing out anything specific that you believe is incorrect? Maybe you should write another paragraph about vague actions and how my debate points make you feel sad.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Now it is clear, you just like to argue. It doesn't matter if you have your head up your you-know-where, you'll just argue for the hell of it. The statement below shows you have no idea what you are talking about. One hundred percent of the time there is no generic.

Perhaps you should try rereading my statement, notice where you couldn't even copy and paste it correctly, and perhaps put some contextual clues into how your interpret it. You will clearly see that I was refuting your point in that THERE IS NOT ALWAYS a generic available for any given drug. The remainder of your argument is thus completely invalid.

Rationed? That depends. Since I pay most all of my invoices out of my check book, it isn't rationed by any insurance or government entity. Perhaps if I have cancer like my neighbor and need $300,000 of care, my insurance company might have some say in the matter.

But for normal, "hey doc I think I have the flu".....I am not rationed. I go to any doctor, any hospital, any ancillary I want to go to and there is no rationing.

And this has little to do with the greater health care costs generated by this country.

If ya all want to go the government route there will be rationing, there is not a country that doesn't ration the care.....I say go for it but leave me out! IF there is to be rationing leave that up to the individuals present condition in life. I don't want some bureaucrat saying when to hook me to the ventilator and when to disconnect me from the ventilator.

This very clearly shows you have little idea of how hospital systems work in this country. Perhaps you should do some reading before putting forth a poor opinion again.

 

[Flopper]

I believe the vast number of people that would seek additional healthcare if it were free, would not be the elderly, because their healthcare is pretty well covered by Medicare now. Medicaid already covers the poor. Most of the middle class is covered by insurance now. So most of the additional demand would come from the middle class without insurance and not covered by Medicaid. Most of this group are younger workers who do not have the health problems of the older workers. Of course there will be some increase in demand, but I seriously doubt the demand would tax the industry enough to cause a crisis since there would be increases in supply.

I agree, if we solved the problem of cost, we solve most of the problem, but that is not going to happen with or without the new healthcare law.

I guess I am not concerned with government rationing of healthcare under a “free system”, because it's not really a free system because it would run as Medicare is run today and most people would be required to pay premiums. The government establishes the amount it will pay for all procedures. All claims go to the government. Payments are made to providers. Those providers that do not accept the payment as full payment for services bill the patient or Supplemental insurance or Medicaid. The cost of claims is used to calculate the premiums, which are billed either to Medicaid or the patient. So the government replaces the insurance companies. The premiums are determined by the cost of the claims and processing with no profit added. The health insurance companies provide only secondary insurance paying what government does not pay. Medicare operates as it currently does. Healthcare providers are still privately owned and operated.

However, since the single payer system was rejected, healthcare claims and insurance are going to work pretty much as it does today.

 

[Big Fitz]

Who will be paying for the roads? Interstate highways?

Trying to blur the lines between appointed duties of government and tasks better privatized does not win the argument. It is a shared public good used by everyone for the function of society. It is the duty of government to provide and maintain routes of transportation. The same way everyone benefits equally from military protection, courts, weights and measures and the like, you fail when you attempt to try a redacto in absurdum to claim then that because these basic services, which are the purpose of every government equal a tacit permission for complete state control as is the core of socialism.

Who would be paying for the private schools that all the poor kids get to go to in inner cities?

As someone who has worked busing those children to private schools in the inner cities, the parents pay for them. I've driven for charter schools in some of the worst areas of the twin cities who deal in very rough and special need kids. Their parents are poor as well as rich who want their kids to get the best education possible. It was great when I watched two 6th graders at one of these schools discuss SHAKESPEARE that their teacher had assigned. Don't hand me your class warfare rhetoric on schooling. I've personal experience with it and have seen it's bunk.

It is the benefit of the company/town/state/country if the people of that company/town/state/country are more productive than counterparts. Again, this is not a difficult concept. Promoting healthy hard work is always beneficial for an area compared to less productivity. Do I really need to go over the basics of economics here?

What does this have to do with my response? nothing. I would LOVE it if you used basic economics based on relevant concepts instead of imaginary values that have little to no impact on a market. You are trying to make an argument for a question no one asked and that is the benefit of a healthy/productive workforce. This has no bearing on what health care should cost.

I think you mean "slippery slope" not "strawman." Survival of the fittest works for natural systems. Civilization is not such a system. We have used intelligence to compensate for deficiencies in biology. Being "fit" in this society has little to do with physical advantage, and should not be treated as such. Applying darwin to this idea is foolish.

Who filled your head with THIS malarky? Civilization is immune to economic forces because it is based on intelligence? Hell, by that statement, the Athenians should still be the most powerful civilization in the world because they valued philosophy so much. I am not talking social darwinism here. I'm talking about Economic 'physics'. The most efficient, cost effective, productive method for administering, creating, delivering and supporting a culture wins, unless it refuses to defend itself. How do you think intelligence mitigates these fundamental factors of survival when the same factors work to tear a culture down? But again, irrelevant to the discussion on what the cost of healthcare should be.

The fundamentals of an economy keep it in line by competition driving down prices. Our current system has REMOVED that ability.

Partially, but you've said something I agree with. Government HAS tinkered too much with the proper and healthy operation of a free and competitive market in healthcare. It's why government needs to be FORBIDDEN to participate in it beyond protecting consumers, providers and fostering fair trade and competition. It should never be allowed to administer it.

A government option would PROMOTE that ability.

Incorrect. A government option that sets the prices artificially low skews the system, making sure that money flees the free market to the cheaper government subsidized system, causing the free market to get weaker and weaker and shrink as the government option grows. The government option then grows unwieldy and overused, forcing bad care and rationing since it has killed off the free market. Again, Economics 201 this time.

If you tamper with the natural price ceilings the market does bad things. If you create a price ceiling, all prices go to it and freeze there. Only when you remove it do prices begin to go back to normal equilibrium.

Alternately, a superseding entity that can mandate that down-driven price can also accomplish that goal. Either way, the goal is still to drive down prices, and there are two options there.

False. Take the energy market. If you removed all subsidies, all green energy would fail and disappear inside of a couple years. Why? Because it cannot compete against oil, coal and natural gas or nuclear. Period. You are wanting to do the same with healthcare. Create an artificially low priced option that is not sustainable in a market, subsidize it and then pretend it won't affect the rest of the industry??? You're lying to yourself.

Now if you have an ACTUAL refutation of these concepts, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, please stop whining without a real point.

LOL... I suppose all the previous refutations, particularly the energy markets have no bearing on economic principles you are only passingly familiar with when twistable to your desired end result?

No, my argument has nothing to do with "nice," and I have no clue where you could have acquired that idea. Sick people call out of work more, cannot perform their jobs as well, and decrease personal and organization productivity. A country's productivity is comprised of the productivity of its businesses, which is comprised of the productivity of its employees. This has nothing to do with nice. It just means that more sick days means less is being DONE. Which part of that do you disagree with?

Again, still irrelevant to the OP of how much should health care cost. You want to debate productivity, start a new thread. It has no bearing here.

You want to focus on wellness as it relates to productivity, fine. but you need to explain how this is even relevant to the issue at hand.

Or will you just keep whining without actually pointing out anything specific that you believe is incorrect? Maybe you should write another paragraph about vague actions and how my debate points make you feel sad.

Only one here who's debate points are sad is you. Please, remain germane to the topic instead of changing the discussion. Hell, I never went out for debate club oh so many eons ago and I know that one.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Who will be paying for the roads? Interstate highways?

Trying to blur the lines between appointed duties of government and tasks better privatized does not win the argument. It is a shared public good used by everyone for the function of society. It is the duty of government to provide and maintain routes of transportation.

Wait a minute. It was YOU who claimed that these services could be "effectively privatized," and now you're back pedaling away from supporting your own claim by saying I am blurring the lines? If you can't support what you say, don't bother saying it in the first place. But you are right in that roads are a shared good used by everyone for the function of society. So is healthcare.

Who would be paying for the private schools that all the poor kids get to go to in inner cities?

As someone who has worked busing those children to private schools in the inner cities, the parents pay for them.

Poor parents would pay for schools if they were "effectively privatized?" That's delusional. You may have driven a school bus for a while, but you have a poor understanding of economics. If school systems are completely privatized as you stated they could be, then poor neighborhoods would have poor schools. That's the case now when tax dollars are already being shunted from better neighborhoods. How do you expect a privatized school system to acquire funding in a poor neighborhood? Which parents will be paying?

What does this have to do with my response? nothing. I would LOVE it if you used basic economics based on relevant concepts instead of imaginary values that have little to no impact on a market. You are trying to make an argument for a question no one asked and that is the benefit of a healthy/productive workforce. This has no bearing on what health care should cost.

It has nothing to do with your response. It was responding to urdrwho, and then you responded and failed to refute it. The original argument, which you clearly failed to follow on multiple occasions now, was that healthcare is a necessary social commodity that allows for a productive society. Poor healthcare reduces productivity of that society. This is still not a hard concept you seem to be struggling with. If you want to jump in on other people's conversations, you may want to figure out what was being said. If you feel that statement is wrong, point out why. Your inane sidetracks about people wanting to be "nice" or the above quote is just foolish.

I think you mean "slippery slope" not "strawman." Survival of the fittest works for natural systems. Civilization is not such a system. We have used intelligence to compensate for deficiencies in biology. Being "fit" in this society has little to do with physical advantage, and should not be treated as such. Applying darwin to this idea is foolish.

Who filled your head with THIS malarky? Civilization is immune to economic forces because it is based on intelligence?

Now THAT is a strawman argument. Can you point out in any of my posts where I've claimed civilization is immune to economic forces? The remainder of that paragraph rant was removed as it has nothing to do with what was actually said. Perhaps you should reread and try to respond again.

Partially, but you've said something I agree with. Government HAS tinkered too much with the proper and healthy operation of a free and competitive market in healthcare. It's why government needs to be FORBIDDEN to participate in it beyond protecting consumers, providers and fostering fair trade and competition. It should never be allowed to administer it.

A government option that sets the prices artificially low skews the system, making sure that money flees the free market to the cheaper government subsidized system, causing the free market to get weaker and weaker and shrink as the government option grows. The government option then grows unwieldy and overused, forcing bad care and rationing since it has killed off the free market. Again, Economics 201 this time.

Except consumers are NOT protected right now. Opening the flood gates by removing state restrictions and placing in REAL competition would re-instate that protection. Alternately, the government providing a check through it's own insurance option would accomplish the same goal. Making broad sweeping generalizations like "it should never be allowed" has no support to it. Try refuting the concept instead of just saying "never."

The fact is, the public option was never meant to set prices artificially low, and thus the remainder of THAT point you made is also incorrect. The point was to set the prices at a point that balances the intake and the output. In other words, if 5 people spend a collective $100 on healthcare each year, the pre-established cost would be $20 each, not something artificially lower. It sounds like you don't actually know too much about what the public option was attempting to establish.

Please, remain germane to the topic instead of changing the discussion.

Please try to actually follow the discussion, and realize that when I type something under a quote of someone else, I'm not responding to something you're saying. Try to avoid being so confused at such discussion points.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh look...

It was YOU who claimed that these services could be "effectively privatized,"

They can be. Again, redacto in absurdum fail. I never said ALL. Fire Departments, yes. Police Departments yes. I'd even throw in post office even though it's constitutionally mandated, yes. Those were the services you listed and I answered. Nice try to try and make a qualified statement, universal Alinskyite.

So is healthcare.

False. Those blessed with good health through luck of the draw or constant effort on their part use it less than those who are born sickly. It is a necessity based service that has no need for government control/administration because individuals can gain access and cure through trade with other individuals trained in the profession. If I don't need treatment or Rosacea, Port Wine Skin, Pregnancy, Hemophilia, Hepatitis B or any of a million other health issues... I don't get it. This is not equivalent to a road or court.

Again. You fail at your attempt at universalizing you own example from two municipal services to a human right. I never heard "life, liberty, fire prevention and the pursuit of happiness."

Poor parents would pay for schools if they were "effectively privatized?" That's delusional.

Never heard of education vouchers have you? Exemption from taxes so their kids can go to private school. Huh. Whatta surprise. To claim it doesn't happen when I've spent 3 years DRIVING THESE KIDS TO THEIR SCHOOLS is beyond moronic. No... I didn't get those paychecks. I didn't really drive those routes and those kids didn't exist... because it fucks your argument up.

You're going to make me open another new case of fail for you aren't I?

You may have driven a school bus for a while, but you have a poor understanding of economics. If school systems are completely privatized as you stated they could be, then poor neighborhoods would have poor schools

Assumptive with no proof. Previous posts have pwned your economic ignorance. More fail but denial seems to be an effective anodyne for you.

How do you expect a privatized school system to acquire funding in a poor neighborhood? Which parents will be paying?

Sorry, this discussion is not about school district planning. Make a new thread somewhere. But please, keep dodging the OP's question: what should healthcare cost?

The original argument, which you clearly failed to follow on multiple occasions now, was that healthcare is a necessary social commodity that allows for a productive society. Poor healthcare reduces productivity of that society.

No, I followed it just fine. It's problem is it's not germane to the topic at hand as you work to get off the uncomfortable position you're stuck in unable to answer the OP.

If you want to jump in on other people's conversations, you may want to figure out what was being said. If you feel that statement is wrong, point out why. Your inane sidetracks about people wanting to be "nice" or the above quote is just foolish.

Would this be the net troll's complex version of saying "I am rubber you are glue..?" Public forum. Butch up Sally Frillypants. Anyone can kibbitz on the conversation, particularly when your point is so full of irrelevance and fail to the topic at hand: what should healthcare cost?

Quote:
I think you mean "slippery slope" not "strawman." Survival of the fittest works for natural systems. Civilization is not such a system. We have used intelligence to compensate for deficiencies in biology. Being "fit" in this society has little to do with physical advantage, and should not be treated as such. Applying darwin to this idea is foolish.

Who filled your head with THIS malarky? Civilization is immune to economic forces because it is based on intelligence?

Now THAT is a strawman argument. Can you point out in any of my posts where I've claimed civilization is immune to economic forces? The remainder of that paragraph rant was removed as it has nothing to do with what was actually said. Perhaps you should reread and try to respond again.

I believe you implied that right here. I've highlighted it in red for you. Implied, assumed, alluded.

Except consumers are NOT protected right now.

>cough< FDA >cough< Ever hear of the USDA either? How about the private organizations of consumer protection like the UL, BBB, Chambers of Commerce and Consumer Reports? Have a six pack of fail for that idiotic statement.

Opening the flood gates by removing state restrictions and placing in REAL competition would re-instate that protection.

Again attempting to universalized a qualified statement. I did not say I wanted Lassaiez Faire capitalism or total free markets. Those have big problems too. I have maintained for YEARS on this board that there is a place for regulation of trade in the constitution. Government is to be the watchdog, not the administrator. It is to protect the public, the employees and the weak from mob rule, chaos as well as tyrannical plutocratic oppression and monopolies and trusts. Have a party ball of fail.

Alternately, the government providing a check through it's own insurance option would accomplish the same goal.

Let's explain something to you. A government option could exist and compete fairly in certain conditions. The problem is by nature it won't. What are these specific conditions? Simple. They must price themselves at fair market levels without subsidization. That means it can offer products that are valued accordingly to cost to provide. The instant you start pricing your product below it's natural level you affect the market and break the natural balance of the market.

So if you give a product worth 500 bucks a month at industry, unsubsidized standards, a subsidization and allow individuals to purchase it at 250 dollars and use taxation on everyone, even those who pay their own insurance, to support the artificially low price you've damaged it's equalibrium. Who won't go for a 500 dollar product for half price? Its personally economic foolishness to not take the best deal possible. And so, people flee the private companies for this great deal they can't compete with because they don't get tax dollars. This makes them economically weaker and finally destroying them or forcing them to get out of the business. That is why a government option fails. But if it does not artificially price point itself lower than the market, it could exist.

The problem is, you deadbeat socialists don't want to compete fairly. You want a utopian 'free health care' fantasy that cannot exist in reality. You forget that no matter how heart wrenching it is, you can't give everyone everything for free. That is the fundamental flaw with your "logic". It's not based on what is but what you wish it was.

So again... fail.

The fact is, the public option was never meant to set prices artificially low

Flat out bullshit. If it wasn't, the government wouldn't be having to spend money on it, and would essentially making a not-for-profit government owned insurance company that received no tax money. It has never been self sustainable. Nothing in the government is.

Making broad sweeping generalizations like "it should never be allowed" has no support to it. Try refuting the concept instead of just saying "never."

Sure it does. It lacks constitutional authority. Now individual STATES can do it. The 10th Amendment covers that. Unfortunately, your argument has never once been about states doing this, but the federal government doing this. Therefore, it should NEVER be allowed.

The point was to set the prices at a point that balances the intake and the output.

You can't do that by fiat. The market sets prices based on value, consumption and cost. If you price a product lower than your costs, you go out of business or MUST find a new source of revenue. Government does that by using taxes and spreading the cost over everyone claiming 'it's the most fair' way to do it. It's not of course. The most fair would be to stay out of it, let the market set the prices and leave well enough alone.

This is rudimentary economic theory here. You can get this at any private community college.

In other words, if 5 people spend a collective $100 on healthcare each year, the pre-established cost would be $20 each, not something artificially lower. It sounds like you don't actually know too much about what the public option was attempting to establish.

I know what the believers want to think that this is true. Problem is you've only established one part of the equation. You're assuming, incorrectly, that 100 dollars total income equals 100 dollars in value as well as 100 dollars in cost. The reality is that the three aspects are independent of each other. A business (at least a successful one) creates a product that has X cost. They then set a profit point for this product at Y because it includes perceived future costs and the necessity to improve over time. The product is perceived by the public to have Z value. If the equation of X+Y>Z, the product will fail. The perceived value must exceed the actual cost and profit point. And just so you know, the profit point is not something that automatically ends up in the pockets of wall street fat cats. It goes into investment funds of their own, inflating the money supply by allowing for lending and profit of it's own. Money works and grows the economy so everyone can benefit. Their profit grows, they can expand, and offer more products and protect themselves against downturns.

But, since you do not even have the capacity to follow through on the bigger picture and implications of economic impact created by government interference, I'm not surprised you don't know this stuff. You stop at the simple theory and then don't try to work it through real world impact... like most libs. Reality often disagrees with the elegance of theory.

Which is why Utopian Collectivist beliefs fail.

and speaking of which... you've been:

yet again.

 

[urdrwho]

Can anyone tell me why smarterthahick posts this "100% of the time there is not a generic, and it is important to realize that older meds can address the same thing with a higher likelihood of side effects. Some of these are to a negligible degree, certainly, but putting others at risk just because you have yet to experience such a side effect is negligent, and thankfully not practiced by physicians. "

And then in post #149 he says he "Perhaps you should try rereading my statement, notice where you couldn't even copy and paste it correctly, and perhaps put some contextual clues into how your interpret it. You will clearly see that I was refuting your point in that THERE IS NOT ALWAYS a generic available for any given drug. The remainder of your argument is thus completely invalid. "

Does anyone know WTF he is saying? He says that 100% of the time there is no generic but for some reason he feels that he said a factual statement. Did he even take time to read what I posted from the FDA? To say that older meds will have more side effects --- here is your quote "older meds can address the same thing with a higher likelihood of side effects." flys in the face of how medicines are even tested.

I think we have a young kid on this forum. Why do I say so? Because he posts things like this "This very clearly shows you have little idea of how hospital systems work in this country." Why does it clearly show? Just because you don't agree with another persons position never shows they don't understand the administration of hospitals.

Can someone send Smarterthanhick PDR for Christmas?

Oh and please tell him that the reason people don't copy the entire quote is to lessen the clutter while reading the posts.

He seems to think that a debating skill is to tell other people that they don't understand but never gives the fact of what they don't understand. Smarterthanhick, please don't become an attorney because if you do your E&O will take a beating.

 

[urdrwho]

I agree.

Please tell smarterthnhick that all over this country you have volunteer fire departments. Fire departments are not always a government entity. In my area we also have a private police department. It is a regional police department that can be purchased by any local government that wants to use their services.

We also have a toll road in our State. Although it isn't entirely private, the funds collected to maintain the road from the people that use the road. The length of the toll road is 350 miles.

Seems smarterthnhick lives in a bubble. Anybody send him his PDR yet so he can look up generic verses brand name?

Oh look...

It was YOU who claimed that these services could be "effectively privatized,"

They can be. Again, redacto in absurdum fail. I never said ALL. Fire Departments, yes. Police Departments yes. I'd even throw in post office even though it's constitutionally mandated, yes. Those were the services you listed and I answered. Nice try to try and make a qualified statement, universal Alinskyite.

 

[Bern80]

........ since there would be increases in supply.

From where? What part of Obamacare creates more medical industry employees and facilities?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let me ask this question -

If someone goes to an ER at a hospital, they are not refused treatment, who should be paying for that?

Well, who benefited from it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let me ask this question -

If someone goes to an ER at a hospital, they are not refused treatment, who should be paying for that?

The patient. Now answer my question.

Ummm.....What if they can't? hence why they don't have insurance to begin with.

You didn't ask who WAS going to pay for it. You asked who SHOULD pay for it. Whether they can or can't, they still SHOULD.

FYI, I don't know of any hospitals that won't let you work out a payment plan.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you really think that liberals want totally free healthcare? Is that even possible? One way or another it is going to be paid for by us. The question is how to we go about paying for it? Do we pay through insurance companies who take part of what we pay and put it in their pocket for profit? Or do we pay for it through non-profit means where you have no middle man who needs to turn a profit for shareholders?

ANY private business needs to turn a profit RDD. Even if you were paying your doctor and the hosipital directly. They still need to make a profit. But that's the only way to eliminate the middle man. Even if all health care was funded through tax collection there's still a middle man; government.

LOL, If you eliminate the middle man that *needs* to turn a profit, you lower costs for everyone right off the bat. If government is the middle man, you still have administration costs, but you don't have the need to make multi-billion dollar profits for your shareholders.

No, you just need to fund scads of waste and dead weight, because that whole "no need to show a profit" thing also eliminates any need for the government to be lean and efficient in operations. And they never are, are they?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let me ask this question -

If someone goes to an ER at a hospital, they are not refused treatment, who should be paying for that?

The person that went to the ER.

If they have ins, the ins pays the lion share.

If not they can set up a payment plan.

What if they are flat broke or living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford the 100k+ treatment they just racked up?

Still doesn't change your original question of "Who SHOULD pay for it?"