So What Was The Point of Obamacare Again?

[boedicca]

[

Only in your deluded world devoid of free market forces.

All government interference does is enable rent-seeking. We have lower supply, higher prices, and government sponsored spoils for the Big Government cronies instead of a functioning health care market place.

It is not devoid of market forces. Hospitals and doctor practices can remain private, savings accounts are your own money. Catastrophic care would be a nanny state situation. I don't care if you can't afford a fancy cars,dinners, concerts, vacations, mansions etc. but I (and most people) want everyone to be able to get chemotherapy, bypass surgery etc.

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Your ignorance of history is Astounding.

Here's a reading assignment that might help you:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-F...r=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[healthmyths]

what about all the people who's healthcare got substantially worse after the switch, or did everyone forget about them?

I am not doubting they may be some, but most of what I have heard are accusations and assertions that are not proven or substantiated. I have people, ON US MESSAGE BOARD, assert that their premiums have skyrocketed and when asked for details, have not had any.

The biggest complaint I have heard is, "Tax payers are subsidizing people to have health insurance through the ADA."

That may be true, but who was paying for the visits that the uninsured were making on a regular basis to the ER and paying through the nose.......Yes, the Tax Payer.

For my husband and myself, after ACA, the coverage on our insurance is not a lot different, but our healthcare premiums are up 38%, most of the deductibles and copays have doubled at least--some more than doubled--and we both lost our primary physicians plus hubby's cancer doctor, the wait times to see a doctor are much longer, and we live under considerable uncertainty re the changes yet to come. I don't know a single soul who is insured now who was not insured before and I don't know a single soul who thinks they are better off under ACA than they were before ACA. I know a number of people who lost the great insurance they had.

The absolute proof of how bad it really is should be evident that the President, members of Congress, and federal employees are all exempt from the ACA. If it was so great, why did they make sure they would not be subject to it?

Are you getting your policy from the exchanges or from an employer provided policy? Many employers have raised employees costs and used the ACA as cover.

"as cover"???
Are you f...king dumb regarding how insurance works???
A) There never were 46 million uninsured. Stupid idiots who contest there was CAN't ADD and subtract!
B) Ever heard of the "Pre-existing conditions" NOW not a part of insurance verification?

Obama ONCE again exaggerated the "pre-existing conditions" by stating the following:
"Up to half of all Americans have a pre-existing condition," he told the crowd in Maryland.

HALF of 310 million is 150 million!
But idiots never questioned that statement!

Since about 85 percent of Americans already have insurance, many through large group plans, this would not be a concern.
Obama says half of Americans have a pre-existing condition PolitiFact
85% of 310 million is 263 million WITH insurance thus "pre-existing" doesn't apply...
so where are the 150 million Obama???

Then further FACTS!!!
Insurance industry studies show that one in eight applicants for private health insurance have preexisting conditions that affect their eligibility or premiums.
This gives a total of 1.5 million Americans who were denied health insurance or paid higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.
Obama s Pre-existing Conditions Whopper - Forbes

But NO idiots like YOU with absolutely NO FACTS argued we need eliminate "pre-existing conditions" because Obama says nearly half of all 310 million
americans don't have insurance because of it!!!!
Idiots like you bought that big ass LIE!
The truth is less then 1.5 million Americans were denied or had to PAY higher premiums due to "pre-existing conditions"!!

 

[Foxfyre]

[

Only in your deluded world devoid of free market forces.

All government interference does is enable rent-seeking. We have lower supply, higher prices, and government sponsored spoils for the Big Government cronies instead of a functioning health care market place.

It is not devoid of market forces. Hospitals and doctor practices can remain private, savings accounts are your own money. Catastrophic care would be a nanny state situation. I don't care if you can't afford a fancy cars,dinners, concerts, vacations, mansions etc. but I (and most people) want everyone to be able to get chemotherapy, bypass surgery etc.

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Totally unregulated capitalism indeed has some really ugly components built into it. But a regulated capitalism--regulated only to prevent the various states or corporations from doing deliberate economic violence to each other--and that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people, is the best vehicle humankind has ever devised to raise the standard of living of all and to eliminate the worst of the human condition.

. . .The beauty of capitalism is in the efficient operation of the system and the people it quietly serves. Its economic effectiveness is measured in less hunger, greater health, longer life, and increased populations; not in affective dogma, conventional wisdom, and political correctness. As such, we must as Hayek said, submit to impersonal forces that has made possible the growth of civilization because, as Bastiat hoped, we have taken into account both the effects of what can be seen and those that must be foreseen.

Capitalism also has a unique psychological component that forces man to come to terms with himself before he can come to terms with the philosophy. This is achieved by self-awareness through understanding that man is not perfectible, and acts by his nature out of self-interest. Upon this enlightenment, one can realize that greed for wealth can be used against itself for positive ends. By pitting one man versus another within a civilized competitive structure it becomes a necessity for man to cooperate in ways that are beneficial to others to satisfy purely selfish motives. In other words, two negatives, in the form of self-interested men, make a positive outcome for society as a whole because in order to selfishly gain, one must first serve. . . .
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art..._be_learned_in_5_minutes_100230.html[/indent]

It is as Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

And that is why government takeover of healthcare is so destructive when it comes to the actual benefit produced. Take the competitiveness and free market equations out of it and you are left with a more inferior product that costs more.​

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

It is not devoid of market forces. Hospitals and doctor practices can remain private, savings accounts are your own money. Catastrophic care would be a nanny state situation. I don't care if you can't afford a fancy cars,dinners, concerts, vacations, mansions etc. but I (and most people) want everyone to be able to get chemotherapy, bypass surgery etc.

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Totally unregulated capitalism indeed has some really ugly components built into it. But a regulated capitalism--regulated only to prevent the various states or corporations from doing deliberate economic violence to each other--and that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people, is the best vehicle humankind has ever devised to raise the standard of living of all and to eliminate the worst of the human condition.

. . .The beauty of capitalism is in the efficient operation of the system and the people it quietly serves. Its economic effectiveness is measured in less hunger, greater health, longer life, and increased populations; not in affective dogma, conventional wisdom, and political correctness. As such, we must as Hayek said, submit to impersonal forces that has made possible the growth of civilization because, as Bastiat hoped, we have taken into account both the effects of what can be seen and those that must be foreseen.

Capitalism also has a unique psychological component that forces man to come to terms with himself before he can come to terms with the philosophy. This is achieved by self-awareness through understanding that man is not perfectible, and acts by his nature out of self-interest. Upon this enlightenment, one can realize that greed for wealth can be used against itself for positive ends. By pitting one man versus another within a civilized competitive structure it becomes a necessity for man to cooperate in ways that are beneficial to others to satisfy purely selfish motives. In other words, two negatives, in the form of self-interested men, make a positive outcome for society as a whole because in order to selfishly gain, one must first serve. . . .
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art..._be_learned_in_5_minutes_100230.html[/indent]

It is as Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

And that is why government takeover of healthcare is so destructive when it comes to the actual benefit produced. Take the competitiveness and free market equations out of it and you are left with a more inferior product that costs more.​

Why then do most European and Asian countries get healthcare of comparable quality to ours at much much much lower costs?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

It is not devoid of market forces. Hospitals and doctor practices can remain private, savings accounts are your own money. Catastrophic care would be a nanny state situation. I don't care if you can't afford a fancy cars,dinners, concerts, vacations, mansions etc. but I (and most people) want everyone to be able to get chemotherapy, bypass surgery etc.

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Your ignorance of history is Astounding.

Here's a reading assignment that might help you:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415295755&sr=8-1&keywords=why nations fail

I'm not about to read something that apparently made you as stupid as you are.

Here's another question you won't answer:

Why didn't the laissez faire capitalism of the early Industrial Revolution in places like England not survive in that form?

Why did the reformers act to rein it in? Why were they, in your view, NOT justified in reining it in, regulating it, restricting it, outlawing practices, applying standards?

Why should they, as you believe, have left it alone?

 

[Foxfyre]

[

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Totally unregulated capitalism indeed has some really ugly components built into it. But a regulated capitalism--regulated only to prevent the various states or corporations from doing deliberate economic violence to each other--and that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people, is the best vehicle humankind has ever devised to raise the standard of living of all and to eliminate the worst of the human condition.

. . .The beauty of capitalism is in the efficient operation of the system and the people it quietly serves. Its economic effectiveness is measured in less hunger, greater health, longer life, and increased populations; not in affective dogma, conventional wisdom, and political correctness. As such, we must as Hayek said, submit to impersonal forces that has made possible the growth of civilization because, as Bastiat hoped, we have taken into account both the effects of what can be seen and those that must be foreseen.

Capitalism also has a unique psychological component that forces man to come to terms with himself before he can come to terms with the philosophy. This is achieved by self-awareness through understanding that man is not perfectible, and acts by his nature out of self-interest. Upon this enlightenment, one can realize that greed for wealth can be used against itself for positive ends. By pitting one man versus another within a civilized competitive structure it becomes a necessity for man to cooperate in ways that are beneficial to others to satisfy purely selfish motives. In other words, two negatives, in the form of self-interested men, make a positive outcome for society as a whole because in order to selfishly gain, one must first serve. . . .
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art..._be_learned_in_5_minutes_100230.html[/indent]

It is as Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

And that is why government takeover of healthcare is so destructive when it comes to the actual benefit produced. Take the competitiveness and free market equations out of it and you are left with a more inferior product that costs more.​

Why then do most European and Asian countries get healthcare of comparable quality to ours at much much much lower costs?

They didn't and don't really. If their costs are less it is only because their governments are better managers than ours.

The USA was the most excellent and most affordable healthcare system in the world until the 1960's when the government has started meddling with it. From the first day that Medicare went into effect, costs began escalating at an unprecedented rate. And the more the government has meddled, the worse it has gotten.

The amount that comes out of any one person's pocket to pay directly for healthcare services or for insurance is only a fraction of the real cost that we all have to pay now or later in some way or another.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Totally unregulated capitalism indeed has some really ugly components built into it. But a regulated capitalism--regulated only to prevent the various states or corporations from doing deliberate economic violence to each other--and that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people, is the best vehicle humankind has ever devised to raise the standard of living of all and to eliminate the worst of the human condition.

. . .The beauty of capitalism is in the efficient operation of the system and the people it quietly serves. Its economic effectiveness is measured in less hunger, greater health, longer life, and increased populations; not in affective dogma, conventional wisdom, and political correctness. As such, we must as Hayek said, submit to impersonal forces that has made possible the growth of civilization because, as Bastiat hoped, we have taken into account both the effects of what can be seen and those that must be foreseen.

Capitalism also has a unique psychological component that forces man to come to terms with himself before he can come to terms with the philosophy. This is achieved by self-awareness through understanding that man is not perfectible, and acts by his nature out of self-interest. Upon this enlightenment, one can realize that greed for wealth can be used against itself for positive ends. By pitting one man versus another within a civilized competitive structure it becomes a necessity for man to cooperate in ways that are beneficial to others to satisfy purely selfish motives. In other words, two negatives, in the form of self-interested men, make a positive outcome for society as a whole because in order to selfishly gain, one must first serve. . . .
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art..._be_learned_in_5_minutes_100230.html[/indent]

It is as Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

And that is why government takeover of healthcare is so destructive when it comes to the actual benefit produced. Take the competitiveness and free market equations out of it and you are left with a more inferior product that costs more.​

Why then do most European and Asian countries get healthcare of comparable quality to ours at much much much lower costs?

They didn't and don't really. If their costs are less it is only because their governments are better managers than ours.

The USA was the most excellent and most affordable healthcare system in the world until the 1960's when the government has started meddling with it. From the first day that Medicare went into effect, costs began escalating at an unprecedented rate. And the more the government has meddled, the worse it has gotten.

The amount that comes out of any one person's pocket to pay directly for healthcare services or for insurance is only a fraction of the real cost that we all have to pay now or later in some way or another.

Ok, then go with the GOP plan to kill Medicare. See how that works for you.

 

[Foxfyre]

[

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Totally unregulated capitalism indeed has some really ugly components built into it. But a regulated capitalism--regulated only to prevent the various states or corporations from doing deliberate economic violence to each other--and that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people, is the best vehicle humankind has ever devised to raise the standard of living of all and to eliminate the worst of the human condition.

. . .The beauty of capitalism is in the efficient operation of the system and the people it quietly serves. Its economic effectiveness is measured in less hunger, greater health, longer life, and increased populations; not in affective dogma, conventional wisdom, and political correctness. As such, we must as Hayek said, submit to impersonal forces that has made possible the growth of civilization because, as Bastiat hoped, we have taken into account both the effects of what can be seen and those that must be foreseen.

Capitalism also has a unique psychological component that forces man to come to terms with himself before he can come to terms with the philosophy. This is achieved by self-awareness through understanding that man is not perfectible, and acts by his nature out of self-interest. Upon this enlightenment, one can realize that greed for wealth can be used against itself for positive ends. By pitting one man versus another within a civilized competitive structure it becomes a necessity for man to cooperate in ways that are beneficial to others to satisfy purely selfish motives. In other words, two negatives, in the form of self-interested men, make a positive outcome for society as a whole because in order to selfishly gain, one must first serve. . . .
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art..._be_learned_in_5_minutes_100230.html[/indent]

It is as Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

And that is why government takeover of healthcare is so destructive when it comes to the actual benefit produced. Take the competitiveness and free market equations out of it and you are left with a more inferior product that costs more.​

Why then do most European and Asian countries get healthcare of comparable quality to ours at much much much lower costs?

They didn't and don't really. If their costs are less it is only because their governments are better managers than ours.

The USA was the most excellent and most affordable healthcare system in the world until the 1960's when the government has started meddling with it. From the first day that Medicare went into effect, costs began escalating at an unprecedented rate. And the more the government has meddled, the worse it has gotten.

The amount that comes out of any one person's pocket to pay directly for healthcare services or for insurance is only a fraction of the real cost that we all have to pay now or later in some way or another.

Ok, then go with the GOP plan to kill Medicare. See how that works for you.

Don't you really feel the least bit foolish repeating that assigned talking point? Whatever happened to critical thinking and competent analysis? The GOP has no plan whatsoever to kill Medicare. And those who continue to buy the partisan garbage suggesting that look really really out of touch with reality as well as being gullible partisan lapdogs. Or really really dishonest. That's really the only two choices.

 

[boedicca]

[

It is not devoid of market forces. Hospitals and doctor practices can remain private, savings accounts are your own money. Catastrophic care would be a nanny state situation. I don't care if you can't afford a fancy cars,dinners, concerts, vacations, mansions etc. but I (and most people) want everyone to be able to get chemotherapy, bypass surgery etc.

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Totally unregulated capitalism indeed has some really ugly components built into it. But a regulated capitalism--regulated only to prevent the various states or corporations from doing deliberate economic violence to each other--and that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people, is the best vehicle humankind has ever devised to raise the standard of living of all and to eliminate the worst of the human condition.

. . .The beauty of capitalism is in the efficient operation of the system and the people it quietly serves. Its economic effectiveness is measured in less hunger, greater health, longer life, and increased populations; not in affective dogma, conventional wisdom, and political correctness. As such, we must as Hayek said, submit to impersonal forces that has made possible the growth of civilization because, as Bastiat hoped, we have taken into account both the effects of what can be seen and those that must be foreseen.

Capitalism also has a unique psychological component that forces man to come to terms with himself before he can come to terms with the philosophy. This is achieved by self-awareness through understanding that man is not perfectible, and acts by his nature out of self-interest. Upon this enlightenment, one can realize that greed for wealth can be used against itself for positive ends. By pitting one man versus another within a civilized competitive structure it becomes a necessity for man to cooperate in ways that are beneficial to others to satisfy purely selfish motives. In other words, two negatives, in the form of self-interested men, make a positive outcome for society as a whole because in order to selfishly gain, one must first serve. . . .
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art..._be_learned_in_5_minutes_100230.html[/indent]

It is as Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

And that is why government takeover of healthcare is so destructive when it comes to the actual benefit produced. Take the competitiveness and free market equations out of it and you are left with a more inferior product that costs more.​

What you are calling Regulated Capitalism is just plain old Rule of Law in which people and property are protected from fraud, coercion and violence by others. It is not the micro-management picking of winners and losers by interfering in the marketplace that is the hallmark of our Big Government regulatory apparatus.

I posted a link to this book in response to another post today. It is an excellent read regarding how inclusive political and economic systems provide the best environment for people to prosper.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-F...r=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Foxfyre]

[

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Totally unregulated capitalism indeed has some really ugly components built into it. But a regulated capitalism--regulated only to prevent the various states or corporations from doing deliberate economic violence to each other--and that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people, is the best vehicle humankind has ever devised to raise the standard of living of all and to eliminate the worst of the human condition.

. . .The beauty of capitalism is in the efficient operation of the system and the people it quietly serves. Its economic effectiveness is measured in less hunger, greater health, longer life, and increased populations; not in affective dogma, conventional wisdom, and political correctness. As such, we must as Hayek said, submit to impersonal forces that has made possible the growth of civilization because, as Bastiat hoped, we have taken into account both the effects of what can be seen and those that must be foreseen.

Capitalism also has a unique psychological component that forces man to come to terms with himself before he can come to terms with the philosophy. This is achieved by self-awareness through understanding that man is not perfectible, and acts by his nature out of self-interest. Upon this enlightenment, one can realize that greed for wealth can be used against itself for positive ends. By pitting one man versus another within a civilized competitive structure it becomes a necessity for man to cooperate in ways that are beneficial to others to satisfy purely selfish motives. In other words, two negatives, in the form of self-interested men, make a positive outcome for society as a whole because in order to selfishly gain, one must first serve. . . .
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art..._be_learned_in_5_minutes_100230.html[/indent]

It is as Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

And that is why government takeover of healthcare is so destructive when it comes to the actual benefit produced. Take the competitiveness and free market equations out of it and you are left with a more inferior product that costs more.​

What you are calling Regulated Capitalism is just plain old Rule of Law in which people and property are protected from fraud, coercion and violence by others. It is not the micro-management picking of winners and losers by interfering in the marketplace that is the hallmark of our Big Government regulatory apparatus.

I posted a link to this book in response to another post today. It is an excellent read regarding how inclusive political and economic systems provide the best environment for people to prosper.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415301200&sr=8-1&keywords=why nations fail

I have that one on my Kindle and it is a good read. Another I recommend for those who really want a good analysis of why capitalism is superior to any other economic system, including health care, is this one:
Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem by Jay W. Richards. It is also reasonably priced on Kindle.

 

[Foxfyre]

[

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Totally unregulated capitalism indeed has some really ugly components built into it. But a regulated capitalism--regulated only to prevent the various states or corporations from doing deliberate economic violence to each other--and that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people, is the best vehicle humankind has ever devised to raise the standard of living of all and to eliminate the worst of the human condition.

. . .The beauty of capitalism is in the efficient operation of the system and the people it quietly serves. Its economic effectiveness is measured in less hunger, greater health, longer life, and increased populations; not in affective dogma, conventional wisdom, and political correctness. As such, we must as Hayek said, submit to impersonal forces that has made possible the growth of civilization because, as Bastiat hoped, we have taken into account both the effects of what can be seen and those that must be foreseen.

Capitalism also has a unique psychological component that forces man to come to terms with himself before he can come to terms with the philosophy. This is achieved by self-awareness through understanding that man is not perfectible, and acts by his nature out of self-interest. Upon this enlightenment, one can realize that greed for wealth can be used against itself for positive ends. By pitting one man versus another within a civilized competitive structure it becomes a necessity for man to cooperate in ways that are beneficial to others to satisfy purely selfish motives. In other words, two negatives, in the form of self-interested men, make a positive outcome for society as a whole because in order to selfishly gain, one must first serve. . . .
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art..._be_learned_in_5_minutes_100230.html[/indent]

It is as Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

And that is why government takeover of healthcare is so destructive when it comes to the actual benefit produced. Take the competitiveness and free market equations out of it and you are left with a more inferior product that costs more.​

What you are calling Regulated Capitalism is just plain old Rule of Law in which people and property are protected from fraud, coercion and violence by others. It is not the micro-management picking of winners and losers by interfering in the marketplace that is the hallmark of our Big Government regulatory apparatus.

I posted a link to this book in response to another post today. It is an excellent read regarding how inclusive political and economic systems provide the best environment for people to prosper.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415301200&sr=8-1&keywords=why nations fail

Oh and I meant to also comment that you are right. By regulation in this sense I mean enforcement of RICO and anti-trust and interstate commerce laws to ensure that nobody can violate the unalienable rights of others with impunity. What I am absolutely NOT saying is that the federal government (or mostly the state governments for that matter) should micromanage any part of the economy or initiate any policy or pass any law that would favor or disadvantage any one person, group, or entity over any other.

 

[healthmyths]

[

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Totally unregulated capitalism indeed has some really ugly components built into it. But a regulated capitalism--regulated only to prevent the various states or corporations from doing deliberate economic violence to each other--and that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people, is the best vehicle humankind has ever devised to raise the standard of living of all and to eliminate the worst of the human condition.

. . .The beauty of capitalism is in the efficient operation of the system and the people it quietly serves. Its economic effectiveness is measured in less hunger, greater health, longer life, and increased populations; not in affective dogma, conventional wisdom, and political correctness. As such, we must as Hayek said, submit to impersonal forces that has made possible the growth of civilization because, as Bastiat hoped, we have taken into account both the effects of what can be seen and those that must be foreseen.

Capitalism also has a unique psychological component that forces man to come to terms with himself before he can come to terms with the philosophy. This is achieved by self-awareness through understanding that man is not perfectible, and acts by his nature out of self-interest. Upon this enlightenment, one can realize that greed for wealth can be used against itself for positive ends. By pitting one man versus another within a civilized competitive structure it becomes a necessity for man to cooperate in ways that are beneficial to others to satisfy purely selfish motives. In other words, two negatives, in the form of self-interested men, make a positive outcome for society as a whole because in order to selfishly gain, one must first serve. . . .
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art..._be_learned_in_5_minutes_100230.html[/indent]

It is as Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

And that is why government takeover of healthcare is so destructive when it comes to the actual benefit produced. Take the competitiveness and free market equations out of it and you are left with a more inferior product that costs more.​

Why then do most European and Asian countries get healthcare of comparable quality to ours at much much much lower costs?

A) What European/Asian countries?
B) Homogeneous population brings similarities in diet, life styles etc... The USA has 70% white, 13% black Mixed 10% Asian 5% definitely not homogeneous.
C) MAJOR contributor READ this study:
"Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine in US at $650 to $850 billion per year. This is 26 to 34% of all US healthcare costs.
Up to 92% of US physicians practice defensive medicine.
SOURCE: Health News Observer rsaquo Physicians Estimate The Cost Of Defensive Medicine In Us At 650 To 850 Bill Articles
defensive medicine is where physicians order duplicate tests, refer to specialists just to prevent lawsuits in the future. I'm not saying this the physicians ARE!
D) Finally that is a MYTH..."comparable at lower costs..."
Read this web page... AGAIN FACTS NOT myths!!!
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the nature of “universal healthcare” is somewhat different between different countries. We should be cautious that even within Europe, systems like Germany that have some degree of private insurance are quite different from systems like the U.K. where the National Health Service was once quite universally dominant and is now under flux with calls for reform (despite evidence that it works much better than the post-reform version would) from the new conservative government. So there is not always universality within “universal” healthcare systems in Europe; each system is itself dynamic and complex during the years of this analysis.
U.S. versus European healthcare costs the data EpiAnalysis

 

[boedicca]

[

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

Totally unregulated capitalism indeed has some really ugly components built into it. But a regulated capitalism--regulated only to prevent the various states or corporations from doing deliberate economic violence to each other--and that recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of the people, is the best vehicle humankind has ever devised to raise the standard of living of all and to eliminate the worst of the human condition.

. . .The beauty of capitalism is in the efficient operation of the system and the people it quietly serves. Its economic effectiveness is measured in less hunger, greater health, longer life, and increased populations; not in affective dogma, conventional wisdom, and political correctness. As such, we must as Hayek said, submit to impersonal forces that has made possible the growth of civilization because, as Bastiat hoped, we have taken into account both the effects of what can be seen and those that must be foreseen.

Capitalism also has a unique psychological component that forces man to come to terms with himself before he can come to terms with the philosophy. This is achieved by self-awareness through understanding that man is not perfectible, and acts by his nature out of self-interest. Upon this enlightenment, one can realize that greed for wealth can be used against itself for positive ends. By pitting one man versus another within a civilized competitive structure it becomes a necessity for man to cooperate in ways that are beneficial to others to satisfy purely selfish motives. In other words, two negatives, in the form of self-interested men, make a positive outcome for society as a whole because in order to selfishly gain, one must first serve. . . .
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art..._be_learned_in_5_minutes_100230.html[/indent]

It is as Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

And that is why government takeover of healthcare is so destructive when it comes to the actual benefit produced. Take the competitiveness and free market equations out of it and you are left with a more inferior product that costs more.​

What you are calling Regulated Capitalism is just plain old Rule of Law in which people and property are protected from fraud, coercion and violence by others. It is not the micro-management picking of winners and losers by interfering in the marketplace that is the hallmark of our Big Government regulatory apparatus.

I posted a link to this book in response to another post today. It is an excellent read regarding how inclusive political and economic systems provide the best environment for people to prosper.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415301200&sr=8-1&keywords=why nations fail

Oh and I meant to also comment that you are right. By regulation in this sense I mean enforcement of RICO and anti-trust and interstate commerce laws to ensure that nobody can violate the unalienable rights of others with impunity. What I am absolutely NOT saying is that the federal government (or mostly the state governments for that matter) should micromanage any part of the economy or initiate any policy or pass any law that would favor or disadvantage any one person, group, or entity over any other.

Yep. Calling such interference "regulation" is Orwellian.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NG 10111098

Obamacare is finished. It doesnt matter what its purpose was.

Its not finished at all. Repealing the ACA will require CBO scoring. Any repeal of all or part of it will add to the deficit. They will have to do away with the pre-existing conditions protections for the insured and other popular benefits. It will be interesting to watch how Republicans deal with the numbers if they actually do try to repeal it.

 

[rdean]

Obamacare is finished. It doesnt matter what its purpose was.

Because Republicans want American to die and die quickly, right?

 

[NeoTemplar]

Obamacare is finished. It doesnt matter what its purpose was.

Because Republicans want American to die and die quickly, right?

I think there have been several debates on this very fact and every time the answer turns out to be yes but only the disabled who aren't rich. How dare you drain our coffers, naïve!

 

[Claudette]

Obamacare is finished. It doesnt matter what its purpose was.

Because Republicans want American to die and die quickly, right?

No but the taxpayers of America don't want bankroll their HC costs for them and we sure as hell don't want to pay higher costs for outselves either. Thats exactly whats happening.

The only winners in the ACA are those that the rest of us have to pay for.

That might be a great idea to you but it sure ain't to me.

 

[Rotagilla]

the point was an opportunity to implement Cloward-Pivens to purposely overwhelm the system.


They manufacture a "crisis" and then implement a "solution" that actually makes the "crisis" worse...and moreover it purposely makes implementing a real solution to the crisis next to impossible by creating an almost impenetrable tangle of "regulations" and "laws"...

Of course the point being that every "solution" to the crisis will entail purposely overwhelming fed govt programs in an effort to cause those programs and the fed govt to implode under it's own weight.

 

[NeoTemplar]

Obamacare is finished. It doesnt matter what its purpose was.

Because Republicans want American to die and die quickly, right?

No but the taxpayers of America don't want bankroll their HC costs for them and we sure as hell don't want to pay higher costs for outselves either. Thats exactly whats happening.

The only winners in the ACA are those that the rest of us have to pay for.

That might be a great idea to you but it sure ain't to me.

So your saying that you'd condemn people to die just to get a lower healthcare cost?

 

[Avorysuds]

hm, your numbers have been rebuked time and again.

You don't get "just once more." Shut up.

Says an Obama-bot.

What do you know, Mr. Mainstream is back at defending failing large Government programs passed by all Democrats.... I personally would have never guessed your position of this topic lol.