Universal Health Care...

[Balloon guy 158]

how is it being distorted?

By the government

[ShakeZuma 585]

By the government

way to dodge the question.sorry about that all_in, the answer is: with distortions.

[hblask 1]

how is it being distorted?

It started with the wage and price freeze during WWII. The government wouldn't let any companies give raises but companies needed to compete for the now smaller pool of employees (since the govt was busy killing them off). So instead, the govt decided that benefits don't count as wages, and aren't taxable, so we went from a society where everyone had individual insurance that stayed with them their whole life no matter which job they took, and which the insurance companies had to convince each person individually to buy, to a system where companies had to compete by offering the most lavish benefit package to employees and insurance companies only had to convince an HR dept to get 1000 new customers.So this immediately had the effect of making everyone buy the most expensive insurance they could get, because it was tax free income from their company. (If they instead took it as cash, they paid taxes on it).So that was the first blow to free markets.Then came Medicare, which currently pays about 50% of all medical bills in the country, so there's another 50% that has no price consciousness at all.Then there are all the state laws on what each company MUST carry and CAN'T carry and how much they can charge.Then all the laws that give legal favors to various structures, such as HMOs, so that they have unfair advantages.So far, that's just scratching the surface, but you get the idea. Those are probably the biggest ones.I don't know if you remember how it was before all this... my small town had the last remnants of it. Doctors made house calls, and allowed patients to pay what they could afford (something that is illegal now, thanks to Medicare). Doctors has zero or one assistants, and plenty of time for each person.But hey, free markets could never work, right?

[Balloon guy 158]

So far, that's just scratching the surface, but you get the idea. Those are probably the biggest ones.

Good post Henry, but this part is basically never going to be true,Not with all_in

[85suited 0]

Leading OBAMACARE Backer Considering Waiver for his City...http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51840.html

[AmScray 355]

It means government has been distorting the medical market since WWII. Every time they break something, they pass three more laws to fix the thing they broke, which breaks six more things. That's how you end up with a 2000 page bill that makes things worse.

You can put this out there as a theory, but you won't be able to find much to back it up.Health care profiteering is a tough line to walk, since OUR free market engine drives so much health care innovation that winds up benefiting everyone (including the 3rd world) yet grotesque profiteering often rears its ugly head. In the United States, health care has simply become a corporate mechanism to siphon massive profits off the populace, often times at the expense of rational care. This includes denying care to those in need yet cannot afford it, it also includes providing superfluous care to the insured who are going to die but refuse to accept that fact. Our system isn't realistic, nor is it sustainable. I'm of the opinion that capitalism and health care don't mix well. Human health is the ultimate priority in terms of scale. When you make health care a capitalist endeavor, that system will drain everyone of all their money with grotesque profit margins, to enrich a few. See: the history of Gov. Rick Scott. Is this morally right? To allow profiteers to manage our health care system?You either pay up everything you've ever worked for, or you die?

[hblask 1]

You can put this out there as a theory, but you won't be able to find much to back it up.Health care profiteering is a tough line to walk, since OUR free market engine drives so much health care innovation that winds up benefiting everyone (including the 3rd world) yet grotesque profiteering often rears its ugly head. In the United States, health care has simply become a corporate mechanism to siphon massive profits off the populace, often times at the expense of rational care. This includes denying care to those in need yet cannot afford it, it also includes providing superfluous care to the insured who are going to die but refuse to accept that fact. Our system isn't realistic, nor is it sustainable. I'm of the opinion that capitalism and health care don't mix well. Human health is the ultimate priority in terms of scale. When you make health care a capitalist endeavor, that system will drain everyone of all their money with grotesque profit margins, to enrich a few. See: the history of Gov. Rick Scott. Is this morally right? To allow profiteers to manage our health care system?You either pay up everything you've ever worked for, or you die?

You could ask those same questions about food.The answer is, yes, innovation is an excellent thing. That "profiteering" you mention is just a loaded word for "profit". And profit is just the sum of the desires of all the people in the country. So if 1,000,000 people think it is worth $10 to improve their life by getting rid of heartburn, yes, someone will attempt to profit from that $10M market. What's the alternative? Hope that a wise federal bureaucrat decides that those people's heartburn is worth it?For the problem of denying care to those who cannot afford it, there are lots of ways to do that without destroying the free market. The simplest is some combination of state and local poverty programs. You give vouchers for physicals and preventative care to the very poor, and basic policies for people who can't afford it. They shop for the best value. The problem of keeping people alive longer than rational is exactly the type of problem that free markets solve quickly, much more effectively than central planning. Central planning's solution is, basically, death panels: you all live or all die, based on a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic dictate. A much better solution is to remove the barriers to flexible, affordable policies, and let people decide which one they want: the basic plan that gives up once you have less than 3 months to live, or the Cadillac plan that gives endless care, to the last minute. Each person pays the price for their decision; no federal bureaucrats get between you and your loved ones.So yes, making a profit off health care is absolutely the most moral system, because it is by far the most effective, efficient way to direct resources where they will do the most good. We should try it sometime. It's a question of bread lines vs 300 types of gourmet bread easily available.

[gobears 0]

USA Today Article on some folks that have been helped by the new health law.USA Today Editorial

[hblask 1]

USA Today Article on some folks that have been helped by the new health law.USA Today Editorial

It's not surprising that a law filled with handouts and mandates helps *some* people, the question is number of people helped vs harmed, in both the long and short term.

[hblask 1]

So I've been keeping this list of the wonders of socialized medicine and post it every so often for people to see. So the guy who runs the top libertarian blog in the UK noticed it, and re-posted my list:UK LibertarianI know, it's sad that I think this is fun.

[Balloon guy 158]

So I've been keeping this list of the wonders of socialized medicine and post it every so often for people to see. So the guy who runs the top libertarian blog in the UK noticed it, and re-posted my list:UK LibertarianI know, it's sad that I think this is fun.

Testament to your intelligence Henry

[CaneBrain 95]

So I've been keeping this list of the wonders of socialized medicine and post it every so often for people to see. So the guy who runs the top libertarian blog in the UK noticed it, and re-posted my list:UK LibertarianI know, it's sad that I think this is fun.

lol at the tags--Tags: bullshit, hblask, links, NHS, socialised medicine

[brvheart 1,752]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may...ng-times-longer

[AmScray 355]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may...ng-times-longer

So, people have to wait longer for their free checkups and preventative health care. Meanwhile, here in the US, we have people dying and suffering with grave illnesses because they have no primary care whatsoever, or, shipping 100% of their earned wealth because inevitably, when human life becomes the business, for profit heath care devolves into a racket. Tough call, what one's worse there.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

So, people have to wait longer for their free checkups and preventative health care. Meanwhile, here in the US, we have people dying and suffering with grave illnesses because they have no primary care whatsoever, or, shipping 100% of their earned wealth because inevitably, when human life becomes the business, for profit heath care devolves into a racket. Tough call, what one's worse there.

But , the market, Socialism,

[ShakeZuma 585]

here in the US, we have people dying and suffering with grave illnesses because they have no primary care whatsoever, or, shipping 100% of their earned wealth

so?

[hblask 1]

Meanwhile, here in the US, we have people dying and suffering with grave illnesses because they have no primary care whatsoever

Except that anyone who can't afford care can get all the free care they want in the US. No, they won't come knock your door down and drag you to the clinic. It takes a tiny bit of initiative. You, of all people, should understand that the vast majority of our social problems here are not from lack of access but instead from lack of initiative.For over a decade I've asked for a list of 50 people nationwide who meet all these criteria:1. Can't afford health care/health insurance2. Actively sought care from community and government groups.3. Was unable to get care from those groups4. Ended up worse off than necessary due to inability to access care.So far, the list is up to zero.

[mrdannyg 274]

Except that anyone who can't afford care can get all the free care they want in the US. No, they won't come knock your door down and drag you to the clinic. It takes a tiny bit of initiative. You, of all people, should understand that the vast majority of our social problems here are not from lack of access but instead from lack of initiative.For over a decade I've asked for a list of 50 people nationwide who meet all these criteria:1. Can't afford health care/health insurance2. Actively sought care from community and government groups.3. Was unable to get care from those groups4. Ended up worse off than necessary due to inability to access care.So far, the list is up to zero.

Really? Sweet. Glad that no one is negatively effected, unless they want to be. Thanks for looking into that for all of us. Guess Obama will be announcing sometime on Monday that no one actually needs the government's help, so he's pulling all that Obamacare mess off the table.

[AmScray 355]

Except that anyone who can't afford care can get all the free care they want in the US.

The qualifier here is what constitutes "can afford it" and unfortunately, this isn't being adequately discussed in the Tard vs. Tard ideological debates being held between the left and the right. Pursuant to the game laid out by a for-profit healthcare racket, "affording it" would be anyone who can mortgage their house into oblivion, go homeless, live in a box and work 60 hours a week for the rest of their life to pay off the bill... and why is this? Because when life is the commodity being bought and sold by a company whose only consideration is profit (after all, that's pretty much all a company is supposed to consider), the seller has the power to financially ruin individual patients for the sake of enriching profit margins- and that's precisely what they do. A free-market asprin costs me 0.02. A corporate controlled health care asprin in a hospital costs me $1.75, and why is this? Because much like any critical infrastructure, the only two enterprises capable of building a hospital are governments and corporations. One answers to the electorate, the other, shareholders. Shareholders are perfectly cool with that $1.75 asprin. Governments, at the end of the day, have no incentive to do this and actually bring net costs down, since they become a retrograding force on margins- and this is for the benefit of every single human being in that country, no different than the roads, bridges or railways that we all support funding. Health Care is critical infrastructure, no different. In your world, every road would be managed by General Road Corp. and there would be $5 toll booths every 200 yards. I realize you're an ideologue to the point of being functionally retarded and that's OK- in our own ways, we're all that way, to one degree or another- but if you're seriously so inexperienced at understanding how life works, how corporations work and what's apt to happen when ruthless, for-profit enterprises are charged with managing human life (and the essential services associated with maintaining it), then there's nothing I can explain to you that will help you get it, save to say that if you dig a bit deeper on this issue (protip: a good starting point would be googling the words "medical bankruptcy"), you will soon see that the issue isn't as much about the absolute, 360 degree denial of care as much as it is the grotesque and immoral price gouging racket the for profit healthcare industry has become and how completely destroying peoples financial lives has become a routine.

[CaneBrain 95]

I've been pointing out that over half of all personal bankruptcies are related to medical expenses for years and no one cares, Scram. Universal healthcare is about access AND affordability but for some reason the debate always centers just on the access part. I don't get it either.

[AmScray 355]

But , the market, Socialism,

List Of Things We Will Confiscate When We Invade Canada:1) All Minerals and naturally occurring resources (timber, water, etc)2) The Women3) Agricultural Lands (save for the province of Quebec, which shall be reserved for future use as a prison/gulag/medical waste dump/nuclear testing facility) 4) Your Doctors And Medical Infrastructure...Don't you worry, sir. Americans will have free health care and it will be CANADIANS that pay for it.

[hblask 1]

Pursuant to the game laid out by a for-profit healthcare racket, "affording it" would be anyone who can mortgage their house into oblivion, go homeless, live in a box and work 60 hours a week for the rest of their life to pay off the bill... and why is this?

Or maybe just make sensible choices so that health insurance is affordable. The govt will help you out even if you make over $50K. That's plenty enough for a decent house AND to buy your own insurance. No, you can't live in a gated community and have three cars and six TVs, but is that really the goal of federal policy? I have no problem telling people who have designer shoes and who go out to fancy restaurants three times a week but claim that they can't afford insurance that they are full of shit and poor financial managers, and they need to make better choices or face the consequences of those poor choices. The alternative (to condone and subsidize those choices) is immoral.

Because when life is the commodity being bought and sold by a company whose only consideration is profit (after all, that's pretty much all a company is supposed to consider), the seller has the power to financially ruin individual patients for the sake of enriching profit margins- and that's precisely what they do.

See, but that's just a leftist soundbite. The reality is that there are contractual obligations that come with an insurance policy, and if those aren't met, there are legal ramifications. To the extent that that process has failed is mainly due to corporate cronyism with well-connected politicians. Companies defaulting on their contractual obligations isn't a problem in groceries (which are more necessary for life than health insurance) or in clothing, or anything else -- just in the most regulated industry. Probably just a coincidence, though, that the most regulated industries have highest prices and the most loopholes.

A free-market asprin costs me 0.02. A corporate controlled health care asprin in a hospital costs me $1.75, and why is this? Because much like any critical infrastructure, the only two enterprises capable of building a hospital are governments and corporations.

LOL, you should check the laws, both federal and state. A private company just tried building a new healthcare megacomplex in the suburb next to ours. It was to be a sort of McHealthStop, with emergency care, hospital, day-surgery centers, and all the specialties. Why didn't it get built? Because the existing hospitals went to the state and said it would harm existing patients by harming this critical infrastructure that you are talking about. So apparently, the theory is that we can't let private companies build health care facilities because then we wouldn't have enough health care facilities. It makes no sense. Why should existing hospitals get a say? In most states, they do.

One answers to the electorate, ...

LOL, sure they are. Call up your legislator, and see how useful your input is. If you don't like it, you can go to a competitor. Oh wait, the federal govt doesn't allow competitors. Oh well, all you have to do is give more suitcases of campaign contributions than mega-corporations, and I'm sure your legislator will listen attentively to you.

]I realize you're an ideologue to the point of being functionally retarded

If you believe this, you haven't read much of what I've written here. I can justify every position with data, theory, and/or real world examples.

if you're seriously so inexperienced at understanding how life works, how corporations work and what's apt to happen when ruthless, for-profit enterprises are charged with managing human life (and the essential services associated with maintaining it), then there's nothing I can explain to you that will help you get it, save to say that if you dig a bit deeper on this issue (protip: a good starting point would be googling the words "medical bankruptcy"), you will soon see that the issue isn't as much about the absolute, 360 degree denial of care as much as it is the grotesque and immoral price gouging racket the for profit healthcare industry has become and how completely destroying peoples financial lives has become a routine.

I read extensively on how the medical markets work. There are many many problems with it, and they've been covered many times in this thread. It starts with a tax code that basically requires us to buy Cadillac insurance that makes us insensitive to pricing pressures. Only 5% of medical care is paid for by the patient, the rest is by 3rd parties. EXCEPT in a few portions of the industry, and in those parts, prices keep going down and quality up. You mentioned free market aspirin, and compared it to state-controlled hospital aspirin, and used that as an example of how free markets fail... and then call me an ideologue? LOL.Reality matters. Where free markets exist in health care, quality is high and prices are low. Where it doesn't, prices are high and access is poor.

[hblask 1]

I've been pointing out that over half of all personal bankruptcies are related to medical expenses for years and no one cares, Scram. Universal healthcare is about access AND affordability but for some reason the debate always centers just on the access part. I don't get it either.

See, and I thought it would be due to purchases of marshmallows. Who'd have thunk the things that cause the most financial problems for people are things that cost a lot!!!!

[AmScray 355]

Or maybe just make sensible choices so that health insurance is affordable. The govt will help you out even if you make over $50K. That's plenty enough for a decent house AND to buy your own insurance. No, you can't live in a gated community and have three cars and six TVs, but is that really the goal of federal policy? I have no problem telling people who have designer shoes and who go out to fancy restaurants three times a week but claim that they can't afford insurance that they are full of shit and poor financial managers, and they need to make better choices or face the consequences of those poor choices. The alternative (to condone and subsidize those choices) is immoral

That's the typical ideologue talking points, but it just isn't an accurate characterization. If what you were saying is true, then the term "medical bankruptcy" wouldn't exist, yet it does. We agree that there are cases of financial mismanagement, but there are a whole host of people who sincerely cannot afford private insurance, or, are uninsurable due to existing/pre-existing health conditions... or, are insurable, but for $1900 a month, when they net $1200 a month.

See, but that's just a leftist soundbite. The reality is that there are contractual obligations that come with an insurance policy, and if those aren't met, there are legal ramifications. To the extent that that process has failed is mainly due to corporate cronyism with well-connected politicians. Companies defaulting on their contractual obligations isn't a problem in groceries (which are more necessary for life than health insurance) or in clothing, or anything else -- just in the most regulated industry. Probably just a coincidence, though, that the most regulated industries have highest prices and the most loopholes.

This sounds vaguely like "Communism works fine... It just hasn't been implemented correctly yet". Let me know when you get around to a working example we can reference.

LOL, you should check the laws, both federal and state. A private company just tried building a new healthcare megacomplex in the suburb next to ours. It was to be a sort of McHealthStop, with emergency care, hospital, day-surgery centers, and all the specialties. Why didn't it get built? Because the existing hospitals went to the state and said it would harm existing patients by harming this critical infrastructure that you are talking about. So apparently, the theory is that we can't let private companies build health care facilities because then we wouldn't have enough health care facilities. It makes no sense. Why should existing hospitals get a say? In most states, they do.

I don't know enough about the insanely isolated, local anecdote you're talking about to have an opinion one way or the other.From my vantage, everything I said still holds true. There are two entities that can build hospitals, or roads, or bridges. Governments or private, for profit industry. The debate is whether public health is a "public issue". You seem to think not. OK.

LOL, sure they are. Call up your legislator, and see how useful your input is. If you don't like it, you can go to a competitor. Oh wait, the federal govt doesn't allow competitors. Oh well, all you have to do is give more suitcases of campaign contributions than mega-corporations, and I'm sure your legislator will listen attentively to you.

Again, retarded, ideologue talking points. This is why debates with people like you are usually pointless; because 90% of the dialog is spent answering to rhetorical bullshit like this, rather than advancing the discussion. Actually, yes, politicians do answer to the electorate. That doesn't mean anyone who demands an audience with the president will be given one but at the end of the day, they have to generally balance the public affairs so they aren't angering the rabble. Corporations answer to no one but themselves and their shareholders, which for some concerns is a beautiful thing. There are some things that corporations do much, much better than a government ever could.Making shoes and growing food, mining minerals, managing office space... There are a whole host of concerns that are best managed by private industry and shareholders pursuing their own selfish interests. Matter of fact, I would argue that the VAST MAJORITY of such concerns are best managed by private industry... Here's where your mindless libertarianism goes completely off the rails and really, illustrates the very problem that has crept into the minds of the American electorate. Sometimes, the answer to a question isn't holding it liable to a particular ideology as a suicide pact and running it off the cliff of the 'furthest degree'. There are indeed some affairs that *are* a matter of public interest and thusly, can only be managed by people who answer to the public; that there are dynamics of the human condition which necessitate decision makers having to answer to the people whose lives are impacted by their decisions. This is absent in private health. All we get is maximized, parasitic cost and severely diminished access. I've read enough of your posts to infer that you really don't understand how macro capital formation works. I wish you did, as this is the part of the discussion where that (and its interplay with standard of living) becomes a very important issue.

If you believe this, you haven't read much of what I've written here. I can justify every position with data, theory, and/or real world examples.

No.

Reality matters. Where free markets exist in health care, quality is high and prices are low. Where it doesn't, prices are high and access is poor.

Reality does matter. That's why we can reference the second sentence there and, by comparing it to every single other country on earth, realize it's ideological dross that just isn't true.I'm guessing you've never left the North American continent...

[brvheart 1,752]

Reality does matter. That's why we can reference the second sentence there and, by comparing it to every single other country on earth, realize it's ideological dross that just isn't true.I'm guessing you've never left the North American continent...

Do you know of a country with deregulated free-market health care, that allows you to so confidently dismiss it?