CDZ Nationalized Healthcare

[anotherlife]

This brings up an issue. Doctors have to hire people to research different policies from different insurance companies.
What is not covered, what is covered, how much is the coverage, etc.. This adds to the cost of health care.

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

Plus, the administration cost of single payer is about 3%. For private insurance it is more like 25% to 30%. And there are many other costs to private insurance.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

People ask "how are you going to pay for it?" Well, it will be less than we are paying now.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

How can a non communist country impose a wage freeze? A government can't tell private business exactly how much to pay workers. In Europe, they are now trying to do wage freezes with moving tax brackets, but that too is just an approximate wage freeze, not exactly a freeze.

we have a federal republic like Venezuela. Thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.

What do you mean? Venezuela is a former oil export banana republic that froze its price of gas for the past 40 years. So, are you advocating a central government control of everybody's bank account, and from there to calculate how much debt to assign onto each citizen per year? The evil of FDR and all the socialists is not gone.

 

[danielpalos]

low wage jobs are costing us money as well. we cannot afford to subsidize capitalists with cheap labor in a First World economy.

The capitalists control the world economy far enough that if you are not cheap enough like free, then they will simply import a million Latinos to do your job.

with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage?

Minimum wage is simply an inflationary source, but yes, as is, the day laborers in New York work for $100 a day of 8 hours, calculates to about that.

we want an Institutional upward pressure on wages not Individual. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. capital should seek gains from efficiency not Cheap labor in any First World.

No, because taxes are a morally bankrupt idea in the 21st century. Everybody knows that taxes are no longer collected to sponsor public services but to control your behavior instead. A socialist liberal achievement. Bravo.

And by the way, the only place where you can collect true taxes is just the workers household. That is where all taxes are passed down to as business expenses. Then taxation becomes also unstable because every worker is constantly inched towards unemployment as they keep getting replaced by technology. Hehehe.

we can improve the "collection method". Taxes are necessary to the extent lousy capitalists are managing our economy. We should be making money not losing money with public policies wherever possible.

 

[danielpalos]

Yep. The way we're using insurance undermines the market and introduce lots of inefficiency. When I was a kid, doctors didn't even deal with the insurance company - patients did that, after the fact. But that was before employer provided "group" insurance became the norm, which isn't really insurance at all, but a kind of employer provided health care.

There are always efficiencies that can be realized with authoritarian control. The question is whether the efficiencies are worth the loss of liberty entailed.

That's actually a good point, and I won't argue that a free market will always be more efficient than a command economy. I'm not arguing that the single payer would be bad because we can't afford it. It would be bad because it would concentrate control over everyone's health care under a single authority.

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

How can a non communist country impose a wage freeze? A government can't tell private business exactly how much to pay workers. In Europe, they are now trying to do wage freezes with moving tax brackets, but that too is just an approximate wage freeze, not exactly a freeze.

we have a federal republic like Venezuela. Thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.

What do you mean? Venezuela is a former oil export banana republic that froze its price of gas for the past 40 years. So, are you advocating a central government control of everybody's bank account, and from there to calculate how much debt to assign onto each citizen per year? The evil of FDR and all the socialists is not gone.

Venezuela is a federal republic, like the US. Management should make all the difference.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Commerce Clause is sufficient nationalization, in our Case.

Why not solve simple poverty so that market participants can purchase some form of insurance.

 

[anotherlife]

The capitalists control the world economy far enough that if you are not cheap enough like free, then they will simply import a million Latinos to do your job.

with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage?

Minimum wage is simply an inflationary source, but yes, as is, the day laborers in New York work for $100 a day of 8 hours, calculates to about that.

we want an Institutional upward pressure on wages not Individual. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. capital should seek gains from efficiency not Cheap labor in any First World.

No, because taxes are a morally bankrupt idea in the 21st century. Everybody knows that taxes are no longer collected to sponsor public services but to control your behavior instead. A socialist liberal achievement. Bravo.

And by the way, the only place where you can collect true taxes is just the workers household. That is where all taxes are passed down to as business expenses. Then taxation becomes also unstable because every worker is constantly inched towards unemployment as they keep getting replaced by technology. Hehehe.

we can improve the "collection method". Taxes are necessary to the extent lousy capitalists are managing our economy. We should be making money not losing money with public policies wherever possible.

And how do you improve those collection methods? Like the Europeans do? The Maffia can't dream of better collection methods. Be careful what you wish for. In your socialist mind, happiness is when they shake down everyone but you. Too bad, then they come to shake it down on you too. As the soviets found out the hard way. It should be a crime to import such socialist righteousness into a decent country such as the USA.

 

[anotherlife]

Your point about employee-provided health insurance reminded me of something. Didn't a huge aluminum company [can't remember the name offhand] come up with that during or right after WWII? One the West Coast?
Kaiser or something?

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

How can a non communist country impose a wage freeze? A government can't tell private business exactly how much to pay workers. In Europe, they are now trying to do wage freezes with moving tax brackets, but that too is just an approximate wage freeze, not exactly a freeze.

we have a federal republic like Venezuela. Thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.

What do you mean? Venezuela is a former oil export banana republic that froze its price of gas for the past 40 years. So, are you advocating a central government control of everybody's bank account, and from there to calculate how much debt to assign onto each citizen per year? The evil of FDR and all the socialists is not gone.

Venezuela is a federal republic, like the US. Management should make all the difference.

I begin to think that you want that government to manage your life because you don't plan to work for what you have. Once you learn how much effort work requires of you every day, then you will think twice before handing over your hard earned assets to a government, especially a government greedy in socialism.

 

[The Purge]

Easy healthcare rrmedy....

Dr. Josh Umbehr Explains How to Get Quality, Economical Health Care and Undermine ...
The Objective Standard › 2013/08 › dr-j...
Aug 20, 2013 · Josh Umber, a family-practice doctor working in Wichita, Kansas (whom I ... health—rather than on filing insurance claims with bureaucrats and

 

[longknife]

Canada among highest health-care spenders,

yet ranks near bottom on number of doctors, hospital beds and wait times

Another example of a less-than-sterling health care system.

VANCOUVER—Despite spending more on health care than the majority of developed countries with universal coverage, Canada has a relatively short supply of doctors and hospital beds—and the longest wait times, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“There is a clear imbalance between the high cost of Canada’s health-care system and the value Canadians receive,” said Bacchus Barua, associate director of health policy studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Comparing Performance of Universal Health Care Countries, 2018.

More @ Canada among highest health-care spenders yet ranks near bottom on number of doctors, hospital beds

 

[danielpalos]

with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage?

Minimum wage is simply an inflationary source, but yes, as is, the day laborers in New York work for $100 a day of 8 hours, calculates to about that.

we want an Institutional upward pressure on wages not Individual. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. capital should seek gains from efficiency not Cheap labor in any First World.

No, because taxes are a morally bankrupt idea in the 21st century. Everybody knows that taxes are no longer collected to sponsor public services but to control your behavior instead. A socialist liberal achievement. Bravo.

And by the way, the only place where you can collect true taxes is just the workers household. That is where all taxes are passed down to as business expenses. Then taxation becomes also unstable because every worker is constantly inched towards unemployment as they keep getting replaced by technology. Hehehe.

we can improve the "collection method". Taxes are necessary to the extent lousy capitalists are managing our economy. We should be making money not losing money with public policies wherever possible.

And how do you improve those collection methods? Like the Europeans do? The Maffia can't dream of better collection methods. Be careful what you wish for. In your socialist mind, happiness is when they shake down everyone but you. Too bad, then they come to shake it down on you too. As the soviets found out the hard way. It should be a crime to import such socialist righteousness into a decent country such as the USA.

The most efficient manner possible. The method should ensure capital circulates to engender a positive multiplier effect.

 

[danielpalos]

There was a wage freeze so companies started to induce employment with health care. I don't know who started it.

How can a non communist country impose a wage freeze? A government can't tell private business exactly how much to pay workers. In Europe, they are now trying to do wage freezes with moving tax brackets, but that too is just an approximate wage freeze, not exactly a freeze.

we have a federal republic like Venezuela. Thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.

What do you mean? Venezuela is a former oil export banana republic that froze its price of gas for the past 40 years. So, are you advocating a central government control of everybody's bank account, and from there to calculate how much debt to assign onto each citizen per year? The evil of FDR and all the socialists is not gone.

Venezuela is a federal republic, like the US. Management should make all the difference.

I begin to think that you want that government to manage your life because you don't plan to work for what you have. Once you learn how much effort work requires of you every day, then you will think twice before handing over your hard earned assets to a government, especially a government greedy in socialism.

Lousy management is only good for margin calls.

 

[Toronado3800]

The worst thing about nationalized healthcare is what has happened in countries that have it - bureaucrats and politicians taking away the ability of physicians to provide the best care for their patients. Lengthy delays or outright unavailability of necessary procedures.

I think what most people are going for is a system where everyone pays for health insurance, not pure socialism.

A capitalistic healthcare system doesn't work because most Americans and really most doctors and nurses won't demand payment by yourself or your insurance before treating you. So we end up with this blended system that we've had since hospitals became worth going to.

So, I loved Obamacare, it was evil. If some freeloader didn't pay for insurance because they were counting on kindhearted Americans to bail them out and treat them if they needed hospitalization, no insurance, we're taking part of your tax return! It was evil. I loved it.

Could some math and regulations be fixed sure. Was it Constitutional? Man, maybe-ish. That law got out of control. I know with all the customers forced to buy insurance we needed some regulations on the insurance companies. I could have lived with a ten page bill reading "cover pre-existings, here come a bunch of formerly un-insured custoemrs" with a plan to fix problems as they arrived. And yeah, I think it needs to be national.

 

[dblack]

The worst thing about nationalized healthcare is what has happened in countries that have it - bureaucrats and politicians taking away the ability of physicians to provide the best care for their patients. Lengthy delays or outright unavailability of necessary procedures.

I think what most people are going for is a system where everyone pays for health insurance, not pure socialism.

And this is where you're kidding yourself. Forcing everyone to buy insurance from state-approved vendors is no better than socializing it outright - arguably it's much worse. It employs government coercion in the service of private profits.

A capitalistic healthcare system doesn't work because most Americans and really most doctors and nurses won't demand payment by yourself or your insurance before treating you. So we end up with this blended system that we've had since hospitals became worth going to.

If we actually practiced free market principles with health care, what we'd end up with is a voluntary system where people decide for themselves how to pay for their health care. They'd decide which insurance companies and hospitals they want to do business with, and which they want to avoid. They might even decide there are better ways to finance health care than insurance.

The problem with the existing system isn't that it needs more regulation and oversight. The problem is that there's already too much. Too many fingers in the pie. Too many interest groups vying for control over your health care.

So, I loved Obamacare, it was evil. If some freeloader didn't pay for insurance because they were counting on kindhearted Americans to bail them out and treat them if they needed hospitalization, no insurance, we're taking part of your tax return! It was evil. I loved it.

Not sure what you're going for here.

Could some math and regulations be fixed sure. Was it Constitutional? Man, maybe-ish. That law got out of control. I know with all the customers forced to buy insurance we needed some regulations on the insurance companies. I could have lived with a ten page bill reading "cover pre-existings, here come a bunch of formerly un-insured custoemrs" with a plan to fix problems as they arrived. And yeah, I think it needs to be national.

Why? Why do we need Dr. Trump running our health care?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

1. Why it is necessary
2. How would we pay for it

Thank you

1. What is more important, good health or ?

2. Easy, stop engaging in wars of choice, set priorities, and include in #1 education on how to be healthy.

 

[Toronado3800]

The worst thing about nationalized healthcare is what has happened in countries that have it - bureaucrats and politicians taking away the ability of physicians to provide the best care for their patients. Lengthy delays or outright unavailability of necessary procedures.

I think what most people are going for is a system where everyone pays for health insurance, not pure socialism.

And this is where you're kidding yourself. Forcing everyone to buy insurance from state-approved vendors is no better than socializing it outright - arguably it's much worse. It employs government coercion in the service of private profits.

A capitalistic healthcare system doesn't work because most Americans and really most doctors and nurses won't demand payment by yourself or your insurance before treating you. So we end up with this blended system that we've had since hospitals became worth going to.

If we actually practiced free market principles with health care, what we'd end up with is a voluntary system where people decide for themselves how to pay for their health care. They'd decide which insurance companies and hospitals they want to do business with, and which they want to avoid. They might even decide there are better ways to finance health care than insurance.

The problem with the existing system isn't that it needs more regulation and oversight. The problem is that there's already too much. Too many fingers in the pie. Too many interest groups vying for control over your health care.

So, I loved Obamacare, it was evil. If some freeloader didn't pay for insurance because they were counting on kindhearted Americans to bail them out and treat them if they needed hospitalization, no insurance, we're taking part of your tax return! It was evil. I loved it.

Not sure what you're going for here.

Could some math and regulations be fixed sure. Was it Constitutional? Man, maybe-ish. That law got out of control. I know with all the customers forced to buy insurance we needed some regulations on the insurance companies. I could have lived with a ten page bill reading "cover pre-existings, here come a bunch of formerly un-insured custoemrs" with a plan to fix problems as they arrived. And yeah, I think it needs to be national.

Why? Why do we need Dr. Trump running our health care?

Thanks for thelong detailed reply. I'm on the cell now so...

Capitalism running healthcare ends up with no one wanting to pay for Spot or Fighto's treatment

Do you think we can have a capitalistic system as long as folks aren't getting thrown intonthe streets to die like in the time of Jesus?

 

[ScorpioRising007]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

1. Why it is necessary
2. How would we pay for it

Thank you

If other countries can do it so can we. Now that we got the democrats controlling the house we are one step closer to it. It is necessary because even low income families should have access to it. Healthcare needs to be a right not a privilege.

Pay for it through higher taxes on rich and upper middle classes. I believe in Robin Hood Economics, take from the rich and give it to the poor.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

1. Why it is necessary
2. How would we pay for it

Thank you

If other countries can do it so can we. Now that we got the democrats controlling the house we are one step closer to it. It is necessary because even low income families should have access to it. Healthcare needs to be a right not a privilege.

Pay for it through higher taxes on rich and upper middle classes. I believe in Robin Hood Economics, take from the rich and give it to the poor.

Be nice if the real world worked that way. What really happens is that you take from people who support themselves to give to a growing class of dependents. It never just siphons off the 'rich' people. It attacks everyone that earns an income either directly or indirectly.

1. It is not necessary. It is common sense to just help those who need it, medicaid and food stamps. There is absolutely no reason to create a bloated monster that pretends to cover all the ills of all the people. That is asinine.

2. You couldn't pay for the monster. Not even communist economists (oxymoron?) can come up with a magic trick to make it work. The whole gut the military and soak the rich mantra doesn't even come close. It is pure fantasy to trick people into giving the government even more control of their lives.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

1. Why it is necessary
2. How would we pay for it

Thank you

If other countries can do it so can we. Now that we got the democrats controlling the house we are one step closer to it. It is necessary because even low income families should have access to it. Healthcare needs to be a right not a privilege.

Pay for it through higher taxes on rich and upper middle classes. I believe in Robin Hood Economics, take from the rich and give it to the poor.

Isn’t food a right and not a privilege? Why should food not be free? Why should successful people pay for less successful people? Will YOU pay more so those that don’t want to work can get free healthcare?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Is not feasible. Would proponents please explain:

1. Why it is necessary
2. How would we pay for it

Thank you

If other countries can do it so can we. Now that we got the democrats controlling the house we are one step closer to it. It is necessary because even low income families should have access to it. Healthcare needs to be a right not a privilege.

Pay for it through higher taxes on rich and upper middle classes. I believe in Robin Hood Economics, take from the rich and give it to the poor.

Be nice if the real world worked that way. What really happens is that you take from people who support themselves to give to a growing class of dependents. It never just siphons off the 'rich' people. It attacks everyone that earns an income either directly or indirectly.

1. It is not necessary. It is common sense to just help those who need it, medicaid and food stamps. There is absolutely no reason to create a bloated monster that pretends to cover all the ills of all the people. That is asinine.

2. You couldn't pay for the monster. Not even communist economists (oxymoron?) can come up with a magic trick to make it work. The whole gut the military and soak the rich mantra doesn't even come close. It is pure fantasy to trick people into giving the government even more control of their lives.

Agree

Why isn’t food free? It’s a right and not a privilege.

 

[dblack]

Robin Hood Economics, take from the rich and give it to the poor.

And when you run out of rich? It doesn't sound like you've really thought this through.

It reminds of when my eight year old asked why the government couldn't just give everyone $10k a month so that no one would have to be poor. Except that, when I explained it to him, he got it.

 

[anotherlife]

Minimum wage is simply an inflationary source, but yes, as is, the day laborers in New York work for $100 a day of 8 hours, calculates to about that.

we want an Institutional upward pressure on wages not Individual. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. capital should seek gains from efficiency not Cheap labor in any First World.

No, because taxes are a morally bankrupt idea in the 21st century. Everybody knows that taxes are no longer collected to sponsor public services but to control your behavior instead. A socialist liberal achievement. Bravo.

And by the way, the only place where you can collect true taxes is just the workers household. That is where all taxes are passed down to as business expenses. Then taxation becomes also unstable because every worker is constantly inched towards unemployment as they keep getting replaced by technology. Hehehe.

we can improve the "collection method". Taxes are necessary to the extent lousy capitalists are managing our economy. We should be making money not losing money with public policies wherever possible.

And how do you improve those collection methods? Like the Europeans do? The Maffia can't dream of better collection methods. Be careful what you wish for. In your socialist mind, happiness is when they shake down everyone but you. Too bad, then they come to shake it down on you too. As the soviets found out the hard way. It should be a crime to import such socialist righteousness into a decent country such as the USA.

The most efficient manner possible. The method should ensure capital circulates to engender a positive multiplier effect.

That is self confessed robbery. Also eager at that. The most efficient way to collect taxes is to never let you have money to begin with. The Soviet Union has implemented this successfully by outlawing the idea of private property, and by reducing wages to day allowances.