Healthcare - Spiraling out of control

[guerilla]

Your free market health care system is fucked and you know it.

There is no free market health care system. There is only your system of the fist and the club, of monopolies, regulation and taxes. The failure belongs to your side of the ideological aisle.

Your countrymen are being bankrupted, declined payment and declined cover because there's more money to be made not helping people.

The US system is completely interventionist and fascist. It has nothing to do with markets. Markets increase quality and lower prices over time. High prices are a dead giveaway markets aren't working.

You don't know who my countrymen are. I don't play flag games and identify myself with large groups of idiots.

A sad example is Ron Paul's 2008 campaign manager who died uninsured with a $400,000 hospital bill because he couldn't get\afford insurance due to a terminal pre-existing illness.

How can you insure something that has a known risk factor of 100%?

Apparently you do not understand what insurance is.

You can argue until your blue in the face, but the fact is people living in countries with socialised medicine live longer, healthier lives.

Where is this fact from?

Is it worth the 2% levy on my tax bill? fucken A it is.

If your medical costs are more than 2% of your taxes, you are a free rider welfare recipient, and you're in no position to say it is worth it, because you're not paying for it.

I really can't comprehend how you could argue against that.

How can I argue that people want to remove my right to free choice, and to force me to pay for their medical care?

I understand you have this dream of a pure free market, but you need to open your eyes to the reality around you.

I don't have a dream about a pure free market. There is no free market or enlightenment coming. The world is populated with people like you. People who want something for nothing, and deny others the right to make free choices.

All I can do is continue to be successful and insulate myself from the stupidity of democratic majorities by being mobile, affluent and connected. When there is a life extension technology, I will be able to afford it. You will have to join a queue and see if the government decides your life is one worth extending.

Good luck.

 

[johnmatrix]

There is no free market health care system. There is only your system of the fist and the club, of monopolies, regulation and taxes. The failure belongs to your side of the ideological aisle.

How is that when we have a private system co-existing with the public system. If I want to go private I can... there's nothing stopping me.

How can you insure something that has a known risk factor of 100%?

Apparently you do not understand what insurance is.

So what should he have done? just die in a gutter somewhere because he isn't economically viable, or beg for charity.

Where is this fact from?

The world health organisations ranking of health care systems, you'll find the majority of the top systems are government subsidised.

If your medical costs are more than 2% of your taxes, you are a free rider welfare recipient, and you're in no position to say it is worth it, because you're not paying for it.

I've never been in hospital and the most I've used is a few doctor visits a year, hooray I'm not a freeloader! Funny how the same thing doesn't apply to your healthcare plan.

How can I argue that people want to remove my right to free choice, and to force me to pay for their medical care?

You're forced to pay for roads you don't use too.

I don't have a dream about a pure free market. There is no free market or enlightenment coming. The world is populated with people like you. People who want something for nothing, and deny others the right to make free choices.

I've said it a million times, if you want private healthcare here you're free to get it. There's no iron fist telling us what to do.

You will have to join a queue and see if the government decides your life is one worth extending.

Good luck.

Sarah Palin's death panel bullshit must have really got to you. Our government has never denied anybody treatment. As I said a million times, we have a private system too, I'm free to use that if I like. That's some extremist stuff you're spilling mate, and completely unrealistic.

 

[secretagentdad]

This thread made my night.

 

[guerilla]

How is that when we have a private system co-existing with the public system. If I want to go private I can... there's nothing stopping me.

You obviously didn't watch the video I linked. I despise laziness and ignorance. It's a toxic combination.

So what should he have done? just die in a gutter somewhere because he isn't economically viable, or beg for charity.

Charity is preferable to theft. Most of the idiots bringing him up online re: Ron Paul, don't know a damn thing about Kent Snyder. It's actually a disgusting tactic to use someone's death to make an ideological point, when you don't even know the ideology or circumstances the person died under.

The world health organisations ranking of health care systems, you'll find the majority of the top systems are government subsidised.

The US system is subsidized. Show me the chart which proves your point.

I've never been in hospital and the most I've used is a few doctor visits a year, hooray I'm not a freeloader!

You're not a freeloader yet. If you're only paying 2% of taxable income per year, good luck not being a free loader when you're older.

You're forced to pay for roads you don't use too.

I oppose that as well. Being forced is immoral.

I've said it a million times, if you want private healthcare here you're free to get it. There's no iron fist telling us what to do.

You have to compete for doctors with the public option, which has unlimited funding through taxation and no profit or loss mechanism. Again, the video. Again, economics. Again, crowding out.

So sure, you can pay twice for healthcare, and then participate in a diminished marketplace. Yipee.

Sarah Palin's death panel bullshit must have really got to you.

I have no idea what you are talking about, or why you would introduce Sarah Palin into this discussion.

As I said a million times, we have a private system too, I'm free to use that if I like.

Sure, you can use it. You better hope it isn't expensive because the public system drove up the prices and its highly regulated by an activist government. That's what happened in the US.

But then you already know that the US has socialized medicine for millions of its citizens, right?

That's some extremist stuff you're spilling mate, and completely unrealistic.

What Soviet Medicine Teaches Us - Yuri N. Maltsev - Mises Daily

 

[stmadeveloper]

All I can do is continue to be successful and insulate myself from the stupidity of democratic majorities by being mobile, affluent and connected. When there is a life extension technology, I will be able to afford it. You will have to join a queue and see if the government decides your life is one worth extending.

Good luck.

If you had your way 100 percent though G -- well you wouldn't have roads to get to the treatment center. Plus with out any "regulations" at all, you better be sitting on millions because it would be owned by one corporation charging millions for it.

You've gone beyond libertarian/conservative to unrealistic in ours or our kids lifetimes. Your vision would be anarchy or worse.

Some things won't ever be privatized - it just won't work. It IS the role of government.... be it state or federal.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So that means that your government is going to have to pay for a legal system (that should protect the rights of property, liberty, etc..), provide the support and structure of a national legal and penal code, ensure that we have the infrastructure and technology to keep that common defense, and support a standing army. Armies need supply lines for example and that means roads. You could keep going with that to include everything from fields to grow the food, but it's not what the framers meant for sure.


What the constitution called for and what we have now are way far apart - but your view means NO federal government. Your view means that you don't want any of your money to be taken in the form of taxes because it might help or assist another person or be spent on something you wouldn't have approved of.

Do you not want your taxes to go towards the things that DO protect your property, freedom, liberty, etc...? For example the patent office. Should each state have it's own? You'd still need a federal court to protect you so people in another state couldn't take your ideas... you cool with paying for that? Or is it only things that might assist the poor or are good sound bites like you don't think you should be taxed for roads?

Does that include your state/local/county taxes? What about the property tax that pays for the school system in your state? Or goes towards infrastructure to get you to the starbucks/mall/restaurant/keep you mobile?

Do you really think that you could stop all federal programs and that things would work out across the board just based on economics and supply and demand? That's never worked out well in history.... especially when the supply and demand are people/wages/health.

 

[johnmatrix]

You obviously didn't watch the video I linked. I despise laziness and ignorance. It's a toxic combination.

I work 6 days a week in my own shop, can't watch videos here it's a bit unprofessional. I have to avoid the boob threads too.

The US system is subsidized. Show me the chart which proves your point.

There's no chart, I looked up the top 10 healthcare systems as ranked by the world health organisation and found out which are public or private.

1. France - public funded
2. Italy - public
3. San Marino - public
4. Andorra - public
5. Malta - public
6. Singapore - public
7. Spain - public
8. Oman - public
9. Austria - public
10. Japan - public

How about that, not one private system in the top 10... what a surprise.

So sure, you can pay twice for healthcare, and then participate in a diminished marketplace. Yipee.

You pay a lower levy if you have private health insurance, so no we're not paying twice, maybe 1.5 times but not twice.

I have no idea what you are talking about, or why you would introduce Sarah Palin into this discussion.

Your statement about my government deciding whether I should get a life extension treatment is reminiscent of Sarah Palin's description of Obama's healthcare reform, the "death panels" to decide who lives and who dies. It's all complete hokum and distortion by the other side of course.

Sure, you can use it. You better hope it isn't expensive because the public system drove up the prices and its highly regulated by an activist government. That's what happened in the US.

It's not expensive, as I said already it's $5000 a year for top family cover, a third of what it is in the US. If anything it's cheaper because the health insurance companies have to compete with "free" government healthcare. As a single person, I can get excellent private cover for around $40 a month. The only reason I might consider private cover is for dental, which unfortunately isn't government subsidised here, unlike France\Canada\UK.

But then you already know that the US has socialized medicine for millions of its citizens, right?

Yeah, it's too bad Obama couldn't get it extended to all citizens, and had to compromise by forcing health insurance on everyone. The republicans completely distorted what he was trying to do, it's a real shame.

 

[johnmatrix]

I'm curious how it would work if all roads were privately owned. Does the company that invests billions in them send a bill to everyone in the country for an equal percentage? do they install a GPS tracker in your car and charge you according to how much you use the roads? interesting idea, but completely impractical in reality...

What a world to live in!

 

[Pseudo Nym]

This might clear some things up for you guys WRT some of the philosophy being espoused here: Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Your_Pal]

Wow I'm surprised by reading first page of this thread.. You guys pay too much to cover your health problems and still insurance companies screw you.

Here in India you can get major treatment like surgery for a mere of 10K USD and a quality treatment.

Its really shocking to see 32K baby born expenses. geez

 

[cziffra]

I'm curious how it would work if all roads were privately owned. Does the company that invests billions in them send a bill to everyone in the country for an equal percentage? do they install a GPS tracker in your car and charge you according to how much you use the roads? interesting idea, but completely impractical in reality...

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Walter Block - Mises Institute

 

[cziffra]

Your statement about my government deciding whether I should get a life extension treatment is reminiscent of Sarah Palin's description of Obama's healthcare reform, the "death panels" to decide who lives and who dies. It's all complete hokum and distortion by the other side of course.

Health care is a scarce resource. There is not an unlimited number of doctors and nurses. We also do not have infinite amounts of drugs and other medical supplies. Government interference creates shortages, so they will have to decide at some point who gets care and who doesn't. Of course, in the free market the supply of medical care would be greater due to the lack of regulations, licensing, and other government intrusions.

You seriously need to study economics. I used to view the world the same way you do until I studied economics. It's easy to think that you are a compassionate person while supporting your current positions, but what if you are supporting policies that are actually causing these problems because you don't understand why the problems exist or what the outcome of government polices will be? I think most people in this thread want the same outcome, which is for more people to have access to health care. Government isn't the way to do this.

 

[Ar Scion]

How do you calculate efficiency?

That ^^ is why I don't even touch claims like "market failure". They are based on a false premise, and the burden of proof is on the person promoting the theory, not on me to debunk it.


I will ask again, how do you calculate efficiency? What is efficiency without values?


Who claimed the market was perfect?

According to the definition, an economy is most efficient when a certain resource is used to produce the maximum possible value of goods and services.

If this is consistently hampered by market forces, the phenomena is termed market failure.

At least this is how market failure appears to be defined.

In other words, it's much like government failure, when government intervenes to hinder the most efficient allocation of goods and resources.

Go ahead and touch the issue now.

 

[moratraffic]

I know you're not calling me out, and please understand that my 'I'm glad I live in Canada' jab was just that, a friendly jab. I don't think I can really give you an in depth and statistically accurate analysis because I don't have the Hard numbers, nor do I care to look them up.

I was in Gettysburg, PA visiting family about a week ago and we all got in to some healthy discussions about this. I'm not sure how else to respond, other than the response you don't want to read, which is 'Good Societies take care of the least among them'. My wife and I both make above average wages so we definately fall in to the 'Paying for others' spectrum, however as children with immigrant parents, our parents came to Canada and basically worked dead end jobs to make ends meet so they (and us) would have fallen in the 'others paid a portion of the cost' spectrum.

So as a 34 year old, I have spent the 1st half of my life in one spectrum and the 2nd in the other. Assuming I stay gainfully employed through my middle ages, that would actually work out to be 2/3's in the 'paying for others' and 1/3 in the 'others paid a portion'. And I am perfectly ok with this because if it weren't for the assistance in the beginning, we may have not made it to where we are today.

Not paying out of pocket for expenses such as child birth, casts for broken limbs, MRI's, or (knock on wood) any life altering illnesses or conditions is a tremendous burden that I do not have to worry about. I know it isn't "free" but it's a small percentage of what my tax dollars go towards and I don't really even notice the deduction from my wages, considering my tax dollars also go towards other things that keep my municipality, province, and country operating.

On a side, note. That same relative living in Gettysburg,PA pays approx. $15,000 in property tax annually vs. my $2000 annually living in a bustling metropolis like Toronto.

No shit, you were in Gettysburg? I am from there, so it is always weird to here people visiting family since it is such a tiny town.

But you are right. Gburg, or Adams County, just raised their property taxes at least 100% across the board and even those who appealed got very little relief from that. And don't even get me started on the ER and hospital there. Would never go there again.

The taxes we pay here are crazy, and it is like that in so many areas like this. I wouldn't mind as much, either, if I would actually see those dollars going to economic development in the area. Just my 2 cents on the area.

 

[johnmatrix]

Health care is a scarce resource. There is not an unlimited number of doctors and nurses. We also do not have infinite amounts of drugs and other medical supplies.

There isn't an unlimited number of patients either...

 

[BigWill]

I'm curious how it would work if all roads were privately owned. Does the company that invests billions in them send a bill to everyone in the country for an equal percentage? do they install a GPS tracker in your car and charge you according to how much you use the roads? interesting idea, but completely impractical in reality...

What a world to live in!

I live in a private community and we pay for our roads. I see no reason why every neighborhood couldn't do the same. Highways I do think need to be funded by fee's although they should be funded by registration fee's and car sales tax(they are partially). That way if you drive a car you don't pay for the road.

 

[guerilla]

According to the definition, an economy is most efficient when a certain resource is used to produce the maximum possible value of goods and services.

How do we define value?

This is the crux of the discussion.

At least this is how market failure appears to be defined.

It's a tautology.

Go ahead and touch the issue now.

We're going in circles.

You cannot calculate efficiency without a concept of value. Since interpersonal value comparisons are not possible, and all value is subjective, I would love to know how we even begin to define economic efficiency as a goal, not as a definition of the word.

Hopefully that makes sense to you.

 

[guerilla]

If you had your way 100 percent though G -- well you wouldn't have roads to get to the treatment center. Plus with out any "regulations" at all, you better be sitting on millions because it would be owned by one corporation charging millions for it.

Why wouldn't I have roads? If people wanted roads, a free market would provide them because there is profit in producing what people want.

There are regulations in the market, private property regulations, as you mentioned a corporation owning something. They cannot own something unless others can own things as well. This is a natural order, materials in reality have specific owners so as not to generate conflicts over use.

I am also not scared of corporations. They wouldn't exist without a state to license them. Any license they received to operate in such a manner would have to come from the communities they operate within.

You've gone beyond libertarian/conservative to unrealistic in ours or our kids lifetimes. Your vision would be anarchy or worse.

I am not dealing in "realism". Realism is, the USG is bankrupt. Realism is, the political system is completely corrupt. Realism is, never ending wars, the destruction of personal choice and an economy stuck in neutral.

That's your reality. That's the result of the system you're promoting and defending. I am interested in better.

As to whether my anarchy would be worse, that's really a question of whether humans are fundamentally evil or not. If you believe they are fundamentally evil, then why do you vote for those most attracted to power, in order to rule your life and dominate your choices?

Some things won't ever be privatized - it just won't work. It IS the role of government.... be it state or federal.

Comrade, the government has always made the shoes!

How will poor people get shoes if the government doesn't make them!!!?????

What the constitution called for and what we have now are way far apart - but your view means NO federal government.

That's correct. A federal government is unnecessary.

Your view means that you don't want any of your money to be taken in the form of taxes because it might help or assist another person or be spent on something you wouldn't have approved of.

This is incorrect. I have no problem assisting or helping other people. I don't believe that people in need are a justification to establish a political class, restrictions on my property ownership, violence and theft.

We don't need a government to provide charity, nor does government provide any charitable giving.

Do you not want your taxes to go towards the things that DO protect your property, freedom, liberty, etc...?

How can you protect a man's liberty by taking the product of his life (property)?

My liberty comes from my creator.

As far as the rambling about [sic] public services, people can pay for what they want. I mean, that's freedom and liberty, right? Free choice.

You're claiming I have to pay for these things, and I agree. I just don't understand why I have to pay a monopoly for these things, at a rate they set and I cannot negotiate, control, audit or opt out of.

Do you really think that you could stop all federal programs and that things would work out across the board just based on economics and supply and demand?

I don't think I can stop anyone. People love being under a government.

Do I think that the laws of economics can work things out? Probably not for most people, and yet I don't think that any government or man can overcome facts of reality like scarcity. Maybe if we all vote hard enough, I suppose...

That's never worked out well in history.... especially when the supply and demand are people/wages/health.

We have always been at war with Eastasia brah.

 

[guerilla]

I work 6 days a week in my own shop, can't watch videos here it's a bit unprofessional. I have to avoid the boob threads too.

Since you don't have the time to address a substantive argument, maybe you should stop being the lead boob in these threads...

How about that, not one private system in the top 10... what a surprise.

Where in the world is there a private health care system? Are you going to continue this strawman, or can you name even one?

You pay a lower levy if you have private health insurance, so no we're not paying twice, maybe 1.5 times but not twice.

That's efficient. And what is the rate like, considering you have to compete for medical resources with the public sector funded plans?

It's all complete hokum and distortion by the other side of course.

It isn't. Rationing occurs in socialized systems. There is not unlimited high level care.

If anything it's cheaper because the health insurance companies have to compete with "free" government healthcare.

*Sigh*

Yeah, it's too bad Obama couldn't get it extended to all citizens, and had to compromise by forcing health insurance on everyone. The republicans completely distorted what he was trying to do, it's a real shame.

Yeah, it's always someone elses fault in politics. Poor Obama. He couldn't feed everyone with only 7 loaves and 7 fish. Boo hoo. The Republicans stop all his best miracles!!!

 

[erifdekciw]

One thing that strikes me about republicans is they never want to spend money to help their own people, but they will gladly support a huge military that goes around and kills people because some how it makes american that much safer and more powerful.

When in reality we should be using our influence and power to make american lives better and making america a better place. Yet we aren't. Republicans hate the idea of funding anything that helps the american people because they think they are paying for minorities to leech off the system.

 

[dreamache]

One thing that strikes me about republicans is they never want to spend money to help their own people, but they will gladly support a huge military that goes around and kills people because some how it makes american that much safer and more powerful.

When in reality we should be using our influence and power to make american lives better and making america a better place. Yet we aren't. Republicans hate the idea of funding anything that helps the american people because they think they are paying for minorities to leech off the system.

Let's not get mixed up with this whole republicans vs. democrats crap. It's a facade. Guarantee you if democrats were in office when 9/11 hit, we'd be in the same exact situation we're in now. Military will do what military wants.