Random News Observations

[hblask 1]

How about a list of 300 people who 1) Could not afford health care2) Needed health care but were otherwise uninsurable. 3) Sought health care through a hospital4) Were provided with health care through hospital5) Were financially ruined due to the $9 ibuprofen and $275/hr "specialists" that are unique to free market health care profiteering. 6) Had to declare bankruptcy and lose everything they worked for in their lives because a few ideologically smug, self-righteous douchebags believe that maintaining a high minded concept about free markets is more important than ensuring critical national industries aren't hijacked and employed as a racket. Sane capitalism has a line, free market healthcare is a pretty good example of where it crosses.

So is your theory that it is better to be dead under the empty promises of universal care than have to declare bankruptcy under our system? Because that seems to be where you are going, and the only possible explanation for where you are going with this.Also, since we don't have free markets in medicine, I'm not going to defend our pricing system -- except in the areas of medicine where we do have free markets, where prices have DROPPED reliably for over 30 years. See, that's the thing -- your $9 Ibuprofen is a symptom of central planning, not free markets. If free markets charged $9 for Ibuprofen, it would be that much at the grocery store, Target, and Walgreens, too. Why do you think those places DON'T charge that much?As for free markets being more important, no, but actual care IS more important than empty promises of universal care.

[AmScray 355]

So is your theory that it is better to be dead under the empty promises of universal care than have to declare bankruptcy under our system? Because that seems to be where you are going, and the only possible explanation for where you are going with this.

No. That position relies on the premise that single payer Universal Healthcare leads to "empty promises" rather than "care for sick people". That is amusing, given, ya know... Every single example of a first world country that actually has it. (protip- isolated anecdotes involving complaints or terribly long lines in a State Health Service waiting room on January 18th, 2008 does not mean anything)

See, that's the thing -- your $9 Ibuprofen is a symptom of central planning, not free markets. If free markets charged $9 for Ibuprofen, it would be that much at the grocery store, Target, and Walgreens, too. Why do you think those places DON'T charge that much?

Nope. You're trying to employ the "Communists Lament" - wherever a clear failing of your preferred system is ascribed to it "not being implemented right". For example, if you need emergency saline, the IV bag and pure saline might be billed at $110, whereas it would cost you $8 to purchase it on your own. Please, propose the "free market" alternative? Just hold on a minute, Doctor, I'm having a stroke but don't use that Coumadin just yet, let me first try to slur out a phone call a relative and have them run down to the free market health supply store to shop for an alternative?I mean, just how far up your ass will your head fit?The for-profit healthcare system exploits moral precepts unique to human life that don't translate into free-market transacting of a commodity product. If your idealism is so thick you can't understand this, then there's really no 'explaining' it to you.

[brvheart 1,752]

Thanks for quoting me in your signature but it's making you look silly. What I said is definitively true. Rights are only rights when we define them as such and decide that it's illegal for someone to violate them.

...

[akoff 0]

Like Iraq?Thats a pretty laughable explanation for why they oppose it now. Newt was still pimping the mandate in 2009. Mitch McConnell mad it clear: the goal is to beat Obama not to, you know, do stuff for Americans.Btw, nothing about the current GOP argument against the mandate has anything to do with its effectiveness. DJ, they didn't oppose it or call it unconstitutional but they did try for more (single payer system).

to beat Obama would do more for Americans than most presidents do in a full term...the last thing we need is our government doing more stuff for us.

[timwakefield 68]

...

Was my example of women's suffrage not good enough?

[Balloon guy 158]

A good example of the future of liberalism.The government is now wanting to begin a new program designed to encourage people to get a job instead of collect unemployment.So they start a program to help paycheck to paycheck people for a few weeks between jobs.They expand it aggressively until now its 99 weeks.The math shows up and they realize they can't just keep on expanding the program, because now people are just staying on unemployment and taking a 2 year vacation paid for by the government.So now they are thinking about paying people unemployment while they are working, TO SEE IF THEY LIKE THE JOB.Nanny state, thy name is democrats

[akoff 0]

A good example of the future of liberalism.The government is now wanting to begin a new program designed to encourage people to get a job instead of collect unemployment.So they start a program to help paycheck to paycheck people for a few weeks between jobs.They expand it aggressively until now its 99 weeks.The math shows up and they realize they can't just keep on expanding the program, because now people are just staying on unemployment and taking a 2 year vacation paid for by the government.So now they are thinking about paying people unemployment while they are working, TO SEE IF THEY LIKE THE JOB.Nanny state, thy name is democrats

you can't fix stupid

[Balloon guy 158]

Obama was a boy, living in Indonesia, who was served dog meat. Romney was a grown ass adult who stowed the family pet on the roof of a moving car.That alone tells me what kind of gigantic ****tard he is.(and you're wrong on healthcare)

!

[Balloon guy 158]

[InternetExplorer 2,609]

I didn't know obama was asian.

[Balloon guy 158]

I didn't know obama was asian.

The people of Kenya started that rumor when his popularity numbers plummeted.

[phlegm 6]

Obama was a boy, living in Indonesia, who was served dog meat. Romney was a grown ass adult who stowed the family pet on the roof of a moving car.That alone tells me what kind of gigantic ****tard he is.(and you're wrong on healthcare)

So which one are you calling a f ucktard?Or are you suggesting that a dog eating indo kid is more in touch with how things should work, than a guy who made himself rich?

[DJ Vu 176]

So which one are you calling a f ucktard?Or are you suggesting that a dog eating indo kid is more in touch with how things should work, than a guy who made himself rich?

Hoooly fuck.Colonel Feathers, you're off the hook now.

[AmScray 355]

Or are you suggesting that a dog eating indo kid is more in touch with how things should work, than a guy who made himself rich?

That certainly is an incisive, accurate characterization of what's in-play here...

[hblask 1]

No. That position relies on the premise that single payer Universal Healthcare leads to "empty promises" rather than "care for sick people". That is amusing, given, ya know... Every single example of a first world country that actually has it. (protip- isolated anecdotes involving complaints or terribly long lines in a State Health Service waiting room on January 18th, 2008 does not mean anything)

Except I already provided extensive documentation showing this is false. Nobody has provided ANY documentation to me showing that the US has a problem that even affects 1 in a million people.See, you can try to dismiss all those links are mere anecdotes, but I intentionally broke them up into anecdotal evidence and system evidence to preempt that exact objection. The list of systemic evidence is longer, and well-studied and documented.Nice try though.

Nope. You're trying to employ the "Communists Lament" - wherever a clear failing of your preferred system is ascribed to it "not being implemented right". For example, if you need emergency saline, the IV bag and pure saline might be billed at $110, whereas it would cost you $8 to purchase it on your own. Please, propose the "free market" alternative?

The free market alternative is that people who see this happening are allowed to build hospitals. Insurance companies are forced to compete across state lines and are free to not use specific providers.Since emergency treatment is less than 2% of our entire health care budget, the conscious choices made by the 98% will easily swamp any lingering effects of "emergency profiteering". Why don't ambulances charge a million dollars for a ride? Because they have competition. Why aren't prices for vision correction going up -- in fact they are dropping rapidly -- at the rate of other medical care? The training and equipment is basically similar. Shouldn't they, in the midst of surgery, just start saying "oh, we have to add these extra costs or you will go blind!"? Why don't they do that?

I mean, just how far up your ass will your head fit?

Not far enough to believe that the <2% of costs is a driver for the other 98%.

The for-profit healthcare system exploits moral precepts unique to human life that don't translate into free-market transacting of a commodity product. If your idealism is so thick you can't understand this, then there's really no 'explaining' it to you.

So answer the question: why doesn't Target charge $12 per Ibuprofin? Why don't hospitals just charge $1,000,000 for an Ibuprofen?You are just conveniently ignoring so much data while blindly accepting insane leftist dogma. Usually you are smarter than this, I'm not sure why you are so naive on this one.

[vbnautilus 48]

The left bases all their political decisions on feelings.

I know you say this a lot as one of your "trolls that you really believe", but...This has been quite an active topic in moral psychology over the last few years, and there is now pretty good evidence: both liberals and conservatives base their political decisions on feelings -- deep intuitions that they cannot explain except by referring to "their gut". However, different feelings are important to conservatives vs. liberals. Jon Haidt's TED talk is worth watching about this: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on...moral_mind.html

[hblask 1]

I know you say this a lot as one of your "trolls that you really believe", but...This has been quite an active topic in moral psychology over the last few years, and there is now pretty good evidence: both liberals and conservatives base their political decisions on feelings -- deep intuitions that they cannot explain except by referring to "their gut". However, different feelings are important to conservatives vs. liberals. Jon Haidt's TED talk is worth watching about this: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on...moral_mind.html

This guy's website is an important contribution to the discussion.

[Balloon guy 158]

I know you say this a lot as one of your "trolls that you really believe", but...This has been quite an active topic in moral psychology over the last few years, and there is now pretty good evidence: both liberals and conservatives base their political decisions on feelings -- deep intuitions that they cannot explain except by referring to "their gut". However, different feelings are important to conservatives vs. liberals. Jon Haidt's TED talk is worth watching about this: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on...moral_mind.html

So liberals are feelings based thinkers.That's what I said

[vbnautilus 48]

This guy's website is an important contribution to the discussion.

That's the same guy.

[brvheart 1,752]

That's the same guy.

I read his statement as "This guy's website...", as in he looked up the website of the guy you were talking about and liked his site. But I could be wrong.

[ShakeZuma 585]

typical brvblask

[hblask 1]

That's the same guy.

I read his statement as "This guy's website...", as in he looked up the website of the guy you were talking about and liked his site. But I could be wrong.

brv is correct; I had read his stuff before and found it fascinating, and was just pointing out that he had a website with more details for anyone who is interested.

[AmScray 355]

See, you can try to dismiss all those links are mere anecdotes, but I intentionally broke them up into anecdotal evidence and system evidence to preempt that exact objection. The list of systemic evidence is longer, and well-studied and documented.

An example of what's classified as "systemic evidence" in your list:"Canadian Dies In Waiting Room""Lack of Drug Availability Endangers Preemies"It's pretty hard to take you seriously.

The free market alternative is that people who see this happening are allowed to build hospitals. Insurance companies are forced to compete across state lines and are free to not use specific providers.

There's a lot of truth in this and I do believe this would answer 50% of the question. Special interests (and in turn, shitty laws drafted to benefit grotesquely narrow interest groups) have seriously impacted the way we do things. As far as the other 50%: There are some things free markets do well, other things, they might do well from a profit maximization standpoint, but the human condition is a lot more nuanced than profit maximization and there are some things where that isn't the optimal outcome. Sane capitalism acknowledges this, insane capitalism chants dogmas and holds out hope that 'it will all work out in the end...We still have the whole problem of uninsurable persons. We have the problem of uninsured persons, medical bankruptcy, etc. You can't simply theorize them away because they're HUGE ****ing problems, right here, right now, and demand practical solutions. Proposing an counter-ideology and claiming that if we had done that all along things may have turned out differently is self congratulatory bullshit that doesn't solve problems. Libertarians do it on the right just as hard-core liberals do it on the left. Academicians are the most worthless breed of human on earth.

Since emergency treatment is less than 2% of our entire health care budget...

Emergency Care was just one example, one battle. Pretty reasonable (and brief enough) write ups on more generalized health care profiteering:http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/07/1...-and-hospitals/http://www.lectlaw.com/files/ant07.htm

So answer the question: why doesn't Target charge $12 per Ibuprofin? Why don't hospitals just charge $1,000,000 for an Ibuprofen?

That doesn't answer the question. That poses another question.

[hblask 1]

We still have the whole problem of uninsurable persons. We have the problem of uninsured persons, medical bankruptcy, etc. You can't simply theorize them away because they're HUGE ****ing problems, right here, right now, and demand practical solutions. Proposing an counter-ideology and claiming that if we had done that all along things may have turned out differently is self congratulatory bullshit that doesn't solve problems. Libertarians do it on the right just as hard-core liberals do it on the left.

Here's the answer to "uninsurable" people: Move to free markets. Remove insurance from employers, and give the tax break to individuals. Make insurance companies compete across state lines. That solves the affordability problem. Then you create a two year window where insurance companies have to let everyone on. Maybe the state subsidies it, or actuaries just have to work a little harder. At the end of that two year window, everyone is one their own. All insurance is renewable at customer request in the same risk pool as when they first signed up for it. Kids, when they turn 18 (or 21, or 26) get their own policy at the parent's rate.Anyone who can't afford insurance can apply for benefits, showing income. They have to take drug tests, show attempts to get a job, and agree to live a healthy lifestyle. Yes, it's invasive, but if you want to live on my dollar, you get some rules with it. Anyone who goes without insurance after that two year window deserves bankruptcy.

Emergency Care was just one example, one battle. Pretty reasonable (and brief enough) write ups on more generalized health care profiteering:http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/07/1...-and-hospitals/http://www.lectlaw.com/files/ant07.htm

These problems occur because consumers don't care about prices, because something like 98% of costs are covered by 3rd parties. Remove the incentives to have other people buy expensive insurance for all employees, and people would start to ask why they have insurance for low-cost routine things like physicals and x-rays. The price gouging goes away.

That doesn't answer the question. That poses another question.

That's the point: if you can't answer my question, then you can't understand why hospitals can get away with it.

[CaneBrain 95]

Hef on the GOP: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/hefner...-124403766.html