Time to get health care right once and for all

[dblack]

Capitalist market, use OPM's and file bankruptcy, make sure you are a S corp or INC. first to protect yourself. Trump was so far in debt , he was too big to fail. The days of MOM and POP shops are pretty near gone, look at Icahn, he has gobbled up everything he can, and Aetna threatened to leave the ACA if the DOJ didn't approve their merger with Human. That is why we need to tell them to get on the exchanges or die a slow death and cap their prices. I am sickened by the greed at the top. its got out of hand.

Me too. And now they wanna take over health care.

 

[Political Junky]

Capitalist market, use OPM's and file bankruptcy, make sure you are a S corp or INC. first to protect yourself. Trump was so far in debt , he was too big to fail. The days of MOM and POP shops are pretty near gone, look at Icahn, he has gobbled up everything he can, and Aetna threatened to leave the ACA if the DOJ didn't approve their merger with Human. That is why we need to tell them to get on the exchanges or die a slow death and cap their prices. I am sickened by the greed at the top. its got out of hand.

Me too. And now they wanna take over health care.

Did you really listen to Ryan? He complained that the well are paying for the sick .. that describes private insurance.

 

[dblack]

Capitalist market, use OPM's and file bankruptcy, make sure you are a S corp or INC. first to protect yourself. Trump was so far in debt , he was too big to fail. The days of MOM and POP shops are pretty near gone, look at Icahn, he has gobbled up everything he can, and Aetna threatened to leave the ACA if the DOJ didn't approve their merger with Human. That is why we need to tell them to get on the exchanges or die a slow death and cap their prices. I am sickened by the greed at the top. its got out of hand.

Me too. And now they wanna take over health care.

Did you really listen to Ryan?...

As a rule, no.

 

[Winston]

Tell me, in a free market the market is free from what?

Coercion.

No, not it. That would be a symptom of a market that was not free. Free markets are free from rent seeking. Adam Smith believed government played a key role in enforcing contracts, granting patents and copyrights to protect intellectual property, and even in public works, like roads, canals, and bridges. In the area of drug companies, they spend very little on research compared to what they spend seeking rents. And the income they get from "rents" is, by definition, UNEARNED. It is the excess profit that would not exist if the market were free. So, if the market was really "free", the government could negotiate volume pricing for the prescriptions it pays for. The difference between the amount they would pay under that scenario, and the price they pay now, without the savings from volume discounts, is called RENT.

 

[debbiedowner]

Your reasoning is off.
The same drugs from the same manufacturer are sold cheaper in other countries. Under Bush they were not allowed to bargain with drug companies on prices.

My reasoning isn't off. Drugs are sold cheaper in other countries because other countries don't have the leviathan of federal drug regulations and mandates, nor do they have the lobby-driven protectionist policies to pick winners and losers through collusion between government and business.

Under Bush they were not allowed to bargain with drug companies on prices.

Who is "they" here? I don't know what you're talking about. But again, it appears you're pointing at MORE government interference with the free market. That's WHY the free market isn't working. You have to get the government out of the equation. All I see is liberal lefties hollering for MORE government interference. You're going the wrong direction. As long as you give government more and more power, there will be those who exploit that to their advantage and the consumer will suffer.

As a matter of fact under the Bush Medicare Act of 2003 it is forbidden to negotiate lower drug prices and that has not changed until this day.

 

[debbiedowner]

Capitalist market, use OPM's and file bankruptcy, make sure you are a S corp or INC. first to protect yourself. Trump was so far in debt , he was too big to fail. The days of MOM and POP shops are pretty near gone, look at Icahn, he has gobbled up everything he can, and Aetna threatened to leave the ACA if the DOJ didn't approve their merger with Human. That is why we need to tell them to get on the exchanges or die a slow death and cap their prices. I am sickened by the greed at the top. its got out of hand.

Me too. And now they wanna take over health care.

Did you really listen to Ryan? He complained that the well are paying for the sick .. that describes private insurance.

Yes, just spreading the risk just like it's always been.

 

[Pop23]

The only way to truly get health care cost down, while retaining excellent care, is to make health insurance illegal.

Period.

 

[dblack]

Tell me, in a free market the market is free from what?

Coercion.

No, not it.

Yeah, it is. Unless you're just making up meanings for words at random.

 

[Boss]

Tell me, in a free market the market is free from what?

Coercion.

No, not it. That would be a symptom of a market that was not free. Free markets are free from rent seeking. Adam Smith believed government played a key role in enforcing contracts, granting patents and copyrights to protect intellectual property, and even in public works, like roads, canals, and bridges. In the area of drug companies, they spend very little on research compared to what they spend seeking rents. And the income they get from "rents" is, by definition, UNEARNED. It is the excess profit that would not exist if the market were free. So, if the market was really "free", the government could negotiate volume pricing for the prescriptions it pays for. The difference between the amount they would pay under that scenario, and the price they pay now, without the savings from volume discounts, is called RENT.

And the rent seeking is only possible because government has too much power and influence. That's the point Socialists often overlook. Large centralized bodies of power are magnets for collusion and corruption. Big Pharma spends millions lobbying politicians so they get the special favors and advantages from government. This is not free market capitalism. This is called cronyism. You don't FIX this problem by adding more government power through more regulations. It's like trying to fix the mold problem in your basement by adding more water. You have to remove the source of the rent seeking... the government power (and regulations) which are being exploited.

 

[Boss]

The campaign to demonize regulations has been very successful. Instead of the logical solution of adjusting regulations after they have fulfilled an original intent, the mantra has become to deregulate everything so the "free market" can solve all problems.

That's because SOME of us realize the free market solves ALL problems. It's the best possible system for delivering the best quality, the best price, meeting the needs of the consumer, than anything anyone has ever come up with.

It is the regulations and government interfering in the free market that messes things up. It happens every single time with every single thing the government touches. Do you realize that every major drug manufacturer has an entire internal department with as many as a hundred employees JUST to handle compliance with regulations? That's their only job, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. They have to keep lawyers on constant retainer... they have to undergo routine audits... they have to meet all kinds of certification requirements. It's a never-ending thing that simply runs up the cost of their product to the consumer.

In the midst of this insanity, we have libtards screaming for MORE REGULATIONS! As if we're suddenly going to institute Regulation # 1,450,547... and BOOM, the price of drugs is going to become reasonable again! That's NOT how this works.

Good luck! The govt has been up to its eyeballs in the involvement of our healthcare for a hundred years,

medicare, medicaid, the VA, CHIP- child health care, the tax deductions for employers buying it for employees, our tax deductions, health savings accounts, free clinics, mandatory emergency services regardless of means to pay, the FDA, making it illegal to negotiate bulk discounts with PHARMA...., paying for medical schools, grants for students becoming docs or nurses and sooooo much more, paying universities for R&D, mandatory vaccinations, developing flu vaccine shots

there is no 'free market'' in health care, and never will be...

medical care and advancement technologies, is not a widget!

Well this should tell you that the solution is certainly NOT MORE government!

IF we're on a road trip and we're supposed to be going to California from New York... and after traveling for days and days, you notice that we're somewhere up in Canada... the solution is not to continue traveling north. The excuse that we've been traveling north for days is not a valid reason to continue doing it. You can say, well good luck with getting to California now... we've been traveling north for days and days... That doesn't get us any closer to California and it never will.

YES... Government IS involved in health care up to it's eyeballs.... and this is a classic reason we should never allow government to touch anything! Free market capitalism does a much better job and it works every time.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Winston]

Tell me, in a free market the market is free from what?

Coercion.

No, not it. That would be a symptom of a market that was not free. Free markets are free from rent seeking. Adam Smith believed government played a key role in enforcing contracts, granting patents and copyrights to protect intellectual property, and even in public works, like roads, canals, and bridges. In the area of drug companies, they spend very little on research compared to what they spend seeking rents. And the income they get from "rents" is, by definition, UNEARNED. It is the excess profit that would not exist if the market were free. So, if the market was really "free", the government could negotiate volume pricing for the prescriptions it pays for. The difference between the amount they would pay under that scenario, and the price they pay now, without the savings from volume discounts, is called RENT.

And the rent seeking is only possible because government has too much power and influence. That's the point Socialists often overlook. Large centralized bodies of power are magnets for collusion and corruption. Big Pharma spends millions lobbying politicians so they get the special favors and advantages from government. This is not free market capitalism. This is called cronyism. You don't FIX this problem by adding more government power through more regulations. It's like trying to fix the mold problem in your basement by adding more water. You have to remove the source of the rent seeking... the government power (and regulations) which are being exploited.

Not all rent seeking uses government to extract money from ordinary citizens. The private sector can excel on its own, extracting rents from the public, for instance, through monopolistic practices and exploiting those who are less informed and educated, exemplified by the banks’ predatory lending. CEOs can use their control of the corporation to garner for themselves a larger fraction of the firms’ revenues. Here, though, the government too plays a role, by not doing what it should: by not stopping these activities, by not making them illegal, or by not enforcing laws that exist.

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/detail.aspx?id=4294967848

 

[Slyhunter]

I didn't vote for Trump because of health care. I'll be happy if they just got rid of it and didn't replace it.
I just want him to deport my illegal ex-wife.

 

[Boss]

Not all rent seeking uses government to extract money from ordinary citizens. The private sector can excel on its own, extracting rents from the public, for instance, through monopolistic practices and exploiting those who are less informed and educated, exemplified by the banks’ predatory lending. CEOs can use their control of the corporation to garner for themselves a larger fraction of the firms’ revenues. Here, though, the government too plays a role, by not doing what it should: by not stopping these activities, by not making them illegal, or by not enforcing laws that exist.

The Price of Inequality | W. W. Norton & Company

Banks are highly regulated by the government and they are also protected from failure by the government.... this is not free market. Monopolies generally don't exist in free markets without assistance from governments. CEOs are hired by a board of directors responsible to the stockholders. If the board wants to fire the CEO, they can do so... the CEO isn't a dictator.

The problem is not that the government isn't doing enough. That's the dangerous way of thinking with this. Aside from some rudimentary laws and regulations protecting consumers from fraud, ensuring public safety or the environment from exploitation, the government should not be involved. The free market, when allowed to function, works brilliantly and efficiently. There's really no better system.

 

[Winston]

Not all rent seeking uses government to extract money from ordinary citizens. The private sector can excel on its own, extracting rents from the public, for instance, through monopolistic practices and exploiting those who are less informed and educated, exemplified by the banks’ predatory lending. CEOs can use their control of the corporation to garner for themselves a larger fraction of the firms’ revenues. Here, though, the government too plays a role, by not doing what it should: by not stopping these activities, by not making them illegal, or by not enforcing laws that exist.

The Price of Inequality | W. W. Norton & Company

Banks are highly regulated by the government and they are also protected from failure by the government.... this is not free market. Monopolies generally don't exist in free markets without assistance from governments. CEOs are hired by a board of directors responsible to the stockholders. If the board wants to fire the CEO, they can do so... the CEO isn't a dictator.

The problem is not that the government isn't doing enough. That's the dangerous way of thinking with this. Aside from some rudimentary laws and regulations protecting consumers from fraud, ensuring public safety or the environment from exploitation, the government should not be involved. The free market, when allowed to function, works brilliantly and efficiently. There's really no better system.

It is very dangerous to believe that government is the source of all rent seeking. Yes, it is true, the government can be used to seek rents. In fact, in the current environment, it is the number one way to seek rents. The danger comes in refusing to understand the critical role government plays in maintaining a market free from rent seeking activities.

Take banking. You must be operating under the assumption that regulations on banking have increased. That is not the case. I am old enough to remember attending a town meeting in regards to rather the community would approve a new bank. Sure, I was a kid tagging along with my father. But it happened. The town had one bank, and another bank could not locate there without government approval. It was not regulation, but deregulation that spurred the rent seeking among the banks.

Look, a market free from regulation can only be free from rent seeking if it meets certain criteria. Barriers to entry, lack of substitution, inelastic demand, collusion, market segmentation, vertical integration---all those "problems" can spring up in a market free from regulation and all of them can be used to extort "rents".

I can make this easy. A market is free when everyone seeks additional profits by producing more pie. But as soon as some yahoos start figuring out ways to expand profits by getting more of the pie that is already there, by taking it from someone else without improving quality or lowering costs, then the market is no longer "free".

An example, Martin Shkreli and Daraprim. He bought up the rights to Daraprim and, with no "substitution" available, promptly increased the price from $13.50 to $750. Since a life saving drug has virtually no price elasticity, well he got away with it. At least until the public howled. He did not improve the quality of Daraprim. He did not improve access. Nothing. It was the same tablet that sold for hundreds of dollars less. Instead of making more pie, he is taking away from the pie that is already there, literally food off the table from those that depended upon Daraprim, and sales from the stores that would have sold them that food. Rent seeking SUCKS THE ECONOMY DRY. And it is rent seeking that is dragging this economy, at least two to three FULL POINTS on yearly GDP growth.

 

[yiostheoy]

Obongo-aid only works for a few and the rest of us has to pay for them and all leftist that control it - they are ticks...
'Repeal and Replace' Obamacare -- With the Free Market
Time to get health care right once and for all.
January 5, 2017
Larry Elder

One of President-elect Donald Trump's major campaign promises is to "repeal and replace" Obamacare.

Vice President Joe Biden recently dared him to do so. Biden knows that 20 million Americans have health insurance that didn't before Obamacare, and they represent 20 million stories on CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times — in the entire "health care is a right" crowd — when and if Trump follows through.

Sure, despite President Barack Obama's promises to the contrary, some people lost their health care coverage and some people lost their doctors. And no, the average family did not save $2,500 per year as Obama insisted would be the case. And yes, health insurance premiums, copays and deductibles are going up even though Obama promised that his plan would "bend the cost curve" down.

All that matters to the anti-Trump media is that there is now an entire class of people to exert pressure against the repeal of Obamacare. Many Republicans say they want to keep "the good parts of Obamacare," specifically the prohibition against denying insurance based on a pre-existing condition and forcing insurance carriers to keep a "child" on his or her parents' policy until the child is 26. Republicans promised to not only repeal but to "replace" Obamacare. How can they do this — and replace it with what?

Republicans, despite their unanimous opposition against Obamacare, bought into at least two premises that its proponents argued. The first is that health care is a right — or, if not a right, at least something whose costs the federal government should reduce. The second is that, having made the decision to intervene in health care, the federal government possesses the knowledge, wisdom and judgment to reduce its costs to make it "affordable." The feds, promised Obamacare advocates, can even make health care affordable without reducing quality.

For Obamacare to "work," it is particularly important for young people to "buy in," because while they are forced to spend on health care insurance they are unlikely to consume health care services. Obamacare transfers money from the pockets of young people (with a net worth smaller than that of seniors, by the way) into the pockets of older, health care consuming Americans.

If the goal were truly to make health care more affordable, Obamacare would be as laughably wrongheaded as other Obama boondoggles like "cash for caulkers" or "cash for clunkers." No, the real goal is taxpayer-paid health care. Both ex-DNC chair Howard Dean and ex-Senate leader Harry Reid said so.

To reduce costs in health care, or, for that matter, in any commodity, is to unleash the free market. Health care is particularly shackled by restrictions and regulations too numerous to mention. Here is just one example.

In the biographical movie "Hacksaw Ridge," a World War II medic, Private Desmond Doss, a pacifist, refused to carry a rifle. In the midst of the carnage, during the Battle of Okinawa, Doss carried wounded soldiers and rappelled them down a cliff face to safety then treated them alongside the medics. He was awarded a Medal of Honor for saving scores of lives.

...

If Congressional Republicans were serious about making health care affordable, they should sell the voters on the free market. Where's the slogan for that?

'Repeal and Replace' Obamacare -- With the Free Market

If I had to handicap the possibilities, I would say NO CHANGES to the current ACA law is most likely.

The GOP seems to be split on this. And so they don't have enough votes.

What Ryan has come up with is merely refundable tax credits. They are not even means tested. So everybody gets a tax refund.

Ryan's plan is pure foolishness.

And the far right T-party wants to repeal it all and go back to what we had before which was nothing. That would lose the midterm election in 2018. As much as I despise the social irresponsibility of the GOP, I would like to see them last at least 4 years. But no party in a long time has had control longer than 2 years.

R.B. Ginsberg needs to be replaced first before the GOP is swept out of office by the DEM's again.

 

[yiostheoy]

Lots of nonsense replies to this thread so far.

 

[JQPublic1]

Tell me, in a free market the market is free from what?

Coercion.

No, not it. That would be a symptom of a market that was not free. Free markets are free from rent seeking. Adam Smith believed government played a key role in enforcing contracts, granting patents and copyrights to protect intellectual property, and even in public works, like roads, canals, and bridges. In the area of drug companies, they spend very little on research compared to what they spend seeking rents. And the income they get from "rents" is, by definition, UNEARNED. It is the excess profit that would not exist if the market were free. So, if the market was really "free", the government could negotiate volume pricing for the prescriptions it pays for. The difference between the amount they would pay under that scenario, and the price they pay now, without the savings from volume discounts, is called RENT.

And the rent seeking is only possible because government has too much power and influence. That's the point Socialists often overlook. Large centralized bodies of power are magnets for collusion and corruption. Big Pharma spends millions lobbying politicians so they get the special favors and advantages from government. This is not free market capitalism. This is called cronyism. You don't FIX this problem by adding more government power through more regulations. It's like trying to fix the mold problem in your basement by adding more water. You have to remove the source of the rent seeking... the government power (and regulations) which are being exploited.

I don't know how socialists think but as a Christian American I see some parallels between socialism and the teachings of Jesus. I can't dispute the cronyism and corruption inherent in lobbying etc.

On the other side of the coin, government is essential for acting as a buffer between the average Joe and corporate power. Whenever some enterprise is deregulated common people suffer whether it is environmental or financial deregulation.

 

[Boss]

I don't know how socialists think but as a Christian American I see some parallels between socialism and the teachings of Jesus. I can't dispute the cronyism and corruption inherent in lobbying etc.

On the other side of the coin, government is essential for acting as a buffer between the average Joe and corporate power. Whenever some enterprise is deregulated common people suffer whether it is environmental or financial deregulation.

I've always thought this was curious how some people equate Jesus teachings with Socialism. Especially after reading Karl Marx who explicitly details how all religion and belief in God needs to be quelled in order for the masses to rest faith in the state. Do you think Jesus would have endorsed Marx's ideas?

No, Jesus did not teach people to go out there and lobby to take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor... that was Robin Hood. Jesus was big on self-responsibility. Not relying on Caesar and power of state but getting up off your ass and helping your neighbor in need.

Government doesn't act as a buffer between corporate power and average Joe. What happens is, government becomes an accomplice with corporations who have enough money to buy influence. "Regulation" is very often their tricky little way of fooling you into thinking they are doing something great and wonderful when what they actually are doing is tilting tables in favor of their corporate partners in crime. Not always, we have to be careful with generalities because some regulation is good. And subsequently, some deregulation would be bad. This isn't a black or white argument... lots of grey area.

Where I personally come down on this is the Constitutional obligations in Article I Sec. 8. Anything that ventures beyond that is excess government power and that's usually a bad thing over time because it becomes corrupted and exploited. Our system was established on the idea of free enterprise, free market economics, constitutional protections and individual liberty. When those things are encouraged, enabled, empowered and allowed to flourish, we have tremendous success and our record shows that.

 

[JQPublic1]

've always thought this was curious how some people equate Jesus teachings with Socialism. Especially after reading Karl Marx who explicitly details how all religion and belief in God needs to be quelled in order for the masses to rest faith in the state. Do you think Jesus would have endorsed Marx's ideas?

No, Jesus did not teach people to go out there and lobby to take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor... that was Robin Hood. Jesus was big on self-responsibility. Not relying on Caesar and power of state but getting up off your ass and helping your neighbor in need.

I think you've got it Bass Ackwards. Jesus was here almost 2000 years before Karl Marx was. If one influenced the other in any way, Marx would have been influenced by Jesus. But religiosity wasn't part of the dynamic I was referring too in the comparison between socialism and Jesus' teachings. My focus was on the intrinsic similarities involving human compassion and altruism. Besides Marx is credited as being the founder of Communism, not the quasi capitalist hybrid system we know as Socialism. The difference is startling. Christianity is deeply entrenched in all of the Socialist countries I can think of. It would seem your premise falls short in sight of the teeming masses of Europe. The same Europe where magnificent cathedrals and ancient artifacts speak to the marriage of Socialism and Christianity. AMEN!

Government doesn't act as a buffer between corporate power and average Joe. What happens is, government becomes an accomplice with corporations who have enough money to buy influence. "Regulation" is very often their tricky little way of fooling you into thinking they are doing something great and wonderful when what they actually are doing is tilting tables in favor of their corporate partners in crime. Not always, we have to be careful with generalities because some regulation is good. And subsequently, some deregulation would be bad. This isn't a black or white argument... lots of grey area.

You started off on the wrong foot but you didn't fall. You recovered nicely. I agree with the latter part of your narrative because it validates the "buffer" I was speaking about. Yes, Corporations can buy political influence but the informed voter can make a difference there too. That is why the free press may be the most important factor in brining the average Joe into the political arena in significant enough numbers to act as a unit.

Where I personally come down on this is the Constitutional obligations in Article I Sec. 8. Anything that ventures beyond that is excess government power and that's usually a bad thing over time because it becomes corrupted and exploited. Our system was established on the idea of free enterprise, free market economics, constitutional protections and individual liberty. When those things are encouraged, enabled, empowered and allowed to flourish, we have tremendous success and our record shows that.

But Art 1. Sec. 8 Does not address that pesky Bill of Rights which is cited elsewhere in the Constitution, somewhere in that thar Amendment Section. I am especially fond of the 9th and 10th Amendments, aren't you? Looking past the popular mention of state's rights contained therein, I want to highlight the fact that both Amendments mention the undefined or obscure rights of We the People not enumerated in the Constitution. How can those obscure rights be identified, accessed and applied without government intervention?

If our system was founded on the idea of free enterprise, free market economics, constitutional protections and individual liberty, that model failed miserably. The stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression is the starkest example and the Economic Recession of 2009 was the another. Free market systems produced Billy Sol Estes, Charles Keating and Bernie Madoff. Yes, they flourished at the expense of Average Joe!
The record shows that too!