Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[sangha]

I don't dispute what we pay per capita or the numbers you posted. I dispute the insistance that a government solution to those issues is the best solution.

You haven't "disputed" anything. You have asserted a claim that a govt solution is a bad solution, but you haven't posted any facts to back up your assertion. In fact, you havent even posted an argument (ie an assertion thats backed up by facts)

We have no facts proving the government solution is a good solution. We do have facts that show the government does a bad job at many things. Take the George Bush presidency, some argue that is a great example of government doing a bad job. Now we have the same government stating they can run a better health care system. Prices have gone up and people are dropped now and its barely even gotten started.

Speak for yourself. If this thread proves anything it's that YOU have no facts. The FACTS show that the nations with the best healthcare systems (ex France, Great Britain, Canada) all have "govt solutions"

You can't refute the facts, so you have to lie and deny that the facts exist

 

[sangha]

The facts are clear. The nations with the best health care systems, as measured by outcomes, have "government solutions" (as you call them). They not only deliver better care overall, but they do so at a cost substantially lower than what it costs us to deliver lower quality health care.

Basically, reality has proven that your solutions (less regulation, more out of pocket expenses) leads to a more expensive, and less effective, health care system.

Again you are only looking at the cost to the consumer. You simply can not consider that the defining factor of what constitutes a good health care system. You keep glossing over how these wonder systems of yours are funded and the reality is they are heavily subsidized and are STILL under funded. Claiming the do it at a lower cost is a bit of a red herring when you consider that lower cost is artificially mandated either by government mandating how much they will pay for resources are simply the inability to fund them.

Look at France again. There doctors make about half of what ours make. And their government STILL can't pay for all of the resources. This is has been going on for about the last 5 years or so in France and is not projected to get any better. Their government is now being forced to make decisions about how much it will reimburse and what procedures it will pay for. The way France has chosen to pay for health care does not meet the cost of the demand on resources. THAT is the definition of unsustainable. Market forces are immutabele. They take over eventually. The actions France is having to take is proving that. They may have started out with a system that cost the taxpayers little money and meat their demands but that is slowly being eroded away as the government does away with paying for certain things.

Bern can't help but lie. I include ALL of the costs

And once again, bern claims that a program that runs a deficit is "unsustainable" but he runs away whenever I challenge him on this point. He still hasn't explained how the Dept of Defense, which has ALWAYS had a deficit, is "unsustainable"

Bern thinks that he can just make stuff up

 

[Bern80]

You haven't "disputed" anything. You have asserted a claim that a govt solution is a bad solution, but you haven't posted any facts to back up your assertion. In fact, you havent even posted an argument (ie an assertion thats backed up by facts)

We have no facts proving the government solution is a good solution. We do have facts that show the government does a bad job at many things. Take the George Bush presidency, some argue that is a great example of government doing a bad job. Now we have the same government stating they can run a better health care system. Prices have gone up and people are dropped now and its barely even gotten started.

Speak for yourself. If this thread proves anything it's that YOU have no facts. The FACTS show that the nations with the best healthcare systems (ex France, Great Britain, Canada) all have "govt solutions"

You can't refute the facts, so you have to lie and deny that the facts exist

No Sangha, The problem is with your definition of best. And your definition of best is what costs the customer the least and that's about it.

 

[sangha]

We have no facts proving the government solution is a good solution. We do have facts that show the government does a bad job at many things. Take the George Bush presidency, some argue that is a great example of government doing a bad job. Now we have the same government stating they can run a better health care system. Prices have gone up and people are dropped now and its barely even gotten started.

Speak for yourself. If this thread proves anything it's that YOU have no facts. The FACTS show that the nations with the best healthcare systems (ex France, Great Britain, Canada) all have "govt solutions"

You can't refute the facts, so you have to lie and deny that the facts exist

No Sangha, The problem is with your definition of best. And your definition of best is what costs the customer the least and that's about it.

Once again, bern has to lie because he thinks it's better for americans to pay more for lower quality health care

 

[Bern80]

The facts are clear. The nations with the best health care systems, as measured by outcomes, have "government solutions" (as you call them). They not only deliver better care overall, but they do so at a cost substantially lower than what it costs us to deliver lower quality health care.

Basically, reality has proven that your solutions (less regulation, more out of pocket expenses) leads to a more expensive, and less effective, health care system.

Again you are only looking at the cost to the consumer. You simply can not consider that the defining factor of what constitutes a good health care system. You keep glossing over how these wonder systems of yours are funded and the reality is they are heavily subsidized and are STILL under funded. Claiming the do it at a lower cost is a bit of a red herring when you consider that lower cost is artificially mandated either by government mandating how much they will pay for resources are simply the inability to fund them.

Look at France again. There doctors make about half of what ours make. And their government STILL can't pay for all of the resources. This is has been going on for about the last 5 years or so in France and is not projected to get any better. Their government is now being forced to make decisions about how much it will reimburse and what procedures it will pay for. The way France has chosen to pay for health care does not meet the cost of the demand on resources. THAT is the definition of unsustainable. Market forces are immutabele. They take over eventually. The actions France is having to take is proving that. They may have started out with a system that cost the taxpayers little money and meat their demands but that is slowly being eroded away as the government does away with paying for certain things.

Bern can't help but lie. I include ALL of the costs

And once again, bern claims that a program that runs a deficit is "unsustainable" but he runs away whenever I challenge him on this point. He still hasn't explained how the Dept of Defense, which has ALWAYS had a deficit, is "unsustainable"

Bern thinks that he can just make stuff up

I wonder how mature I would look if I replied to Sangha in the third person through the remainder of this post...........

No you dream up costs. You are the one who claimed the DoL figures can't possibly be accurate yet can't explain what they left out. And just as you would not debate what percent of income means with out accurate stats I am not going to debate the dept of defenses budget without FACTS.

We can however talk about the concept of sustainability. The best analogy to look at this from is look at it like your credit card. I know what you're getting at, that one can carry over debt almost indefinatley. Well the key word there is 'almost'. Just like the way government spends money, most americans with credit cards keep a running balance on their cards. That is the don't pay their whole balance each month. They pay the minimum or something less than the full balance. Now the credit card company isn't going to come after you as long as you keep paying your minimums, nor will our countries debtors. It's cash flow for them. So people tell themselves they're not in trouble because they're paying their 20 bucks or whatever that they are required to and just kind of forget that they owe another $10,000. Again the credit card company will let you do that for a long time. BUT at some point you WILL have to pay that $10,000.

And there are all kinds of unintended consequences of that that people don't think of. People don't just make one purchase on the credit card, they make many purchases. They keep adding to that $10,000 they owe or make little head way in paying it down. Another unintended consequence is the interest. As the saying goes, people who understand interest earn it, people who don't pay it. The interest makes whatever you purchase cost more than it's stated price. You go to Best Buy and purchase a TV with your credit card for $1000. You tell people the TV cost you $1000. Well no it didn't if you're not paying your card. Can you tell me how much that TV really cost you if you leave it on your card with a 20% interest rate and pay only the minimums.

NOW can you really tell me it's just not a problem for an individual or government to spend that way? Sure maybe you can make the monthly payments and do it for a long time. What you don't see is that unless you start bringng in more money, the power of interest and continued spending is just going to make that debt bigger and bigger and bigger and at some point someone is going to demand they be paid what's owed.

 

[Gadawg73]

The facts are clear. The nations with the best health care systems, as measured by outcomes, have "government solutions" (as you call them). They not only deliver better care overall, but they do so at a cost substantially lower than what it costs us to deliver lower quality health care.

Basically, reality has proven that your solutions (less regulation, more out of pocket expenses) leads to a more expensive, and less effective, health care system.

Again you are only looking at the cost to the consumer. You simply can not consider that the defining factor of what constitutes a good health care system. You keep glossing over how these wonder systems of yours are funded and the reality is they are heavily subsidized and are STILL under funded. Claiming the do it at a lower cost is a bit of a red herring when you consider that lower cost is artificially mandated either by government mandating how much they will pay for resources are simply the inability to fund them.

Look at France again. There doctors make about half of what ours make. And their government STILL can't pay for all of the resources. This is has been going on for about the last 5 years or so in France and is not projected to get any better. Their government is now being forced to make decisions about how much it will reimburse and what procedures it will pay for. The way France has chosen to pay for health care does not meet the cost of the demand on resources. THAT is the definition of unsustainable. Market forces are immutabele. They take over eventually. The actions France is having to take is proving that. They may have started out with a system that cost the taxpayers little money and meat their demands but that is slowly being eroded away as the government does away with paying for certain things.

Bern can't help but lie. I include ALL of the costs

And once again, bern claims that a program that runs a deficit is "unsustainable" but he runs away whenever I challenge him on this point. He still hasn't explained how the Dept of Defense, which has ALWAYS had a deficit, is "unsustainable"

Bern thinks that he can just make stuff up

Does the Department of Defense grow at 15% a year, every year?
Is DOD a private sector entity?
When Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are 85% of the entire budget in 2 decades or less how is that sustainable?

 

[sangha]

Again you are only looking at the cost to the consumer. You simply can not consider that the defining factor of what constitutes a good health care system. You keep glossing over how these wonder systems of yours are funded and the reality is they are heavily subsidized and are STILL under funded. Claiming the do it at a lower cost is a bit of a red herring when you consider that lower cost is artificially mandated either by government mandating how much they will pay for resources are simply the inability to fund them.

Look at France again. There doctors make about half of what ours make. And their government STILL can't pay for all of the resources. This is has been going on for about the last 5 years or so in France and is not projected to get any better. Their government is now being forced to make decisions about how much it will reimburse and what procedures it will pay for. The way France has chosen to pay for health care does not meet the cost of the demand on resources. THAT is the definition of unsustainable. Market forces are immutabele. They take over eventually. The actions France is having to take is proving that. They may have started out with a system that cost the taxpayers little money and meat their demands but that is slowly being eroded away as the government does away with paying for certain things.

Bern can't help but lie. I include ALL of the costs

And once again, bern claims that a program that runs a deficit is "unsustainable" but he runs away whenever I challenge him on this point. He still hasn't explained how the Dept of Defense, which has ALWAYS had a deficit, is "unsustainable"

Bern thinks that he can just make stuff up

I wonder how mature I would look if I replied to Sangha in the third person through the remainder of this post...........

No you dream up costs. You are the one who claimed the DoL figures can't possibly be accurate yet can't explain what they left out. And just as you would not debate what percent of income means with out accurate stats I am not going to debate the dept of defenses budget without FACTS.

We can however talk about the concept of sustainability. The best analogy to look at this from is look at it like your credit card. I know what you're getting at, that one can carry over debt almost indefinatley. Well the key word there is 'almost'. Just like the way government spends money, most americans with credit cards keep a running balance on their cards. That is the don't pay their whole balance each month. They pay the minimum or something less than the full balance. Now the credit card company isn't going to come after you as long as you keep paying your minimums. So people tell themselves they're not in trouble because they're paying their 20 bucks or whatever that they are required to and just kind of forget that they owe other $10,000. Again the credit card company will let you do that for a long time. BUT at some point you WILL have to pay that $10,000.

And there are all kinds of unintended consequences of that that people don't think of. People don't just make one purchase on the credit card, they make many purchases. They keep adding to that $10,000 they owe or make little head way in paying it down. Another unintended consequence is the interest. As the saying goes, people who understand interest earn it, people who don't pay it. The interest makes whatever you purchase cost more than it's stated price. You go to Best Buy and purchase a TV with your credit card for $1000. You tell people the TV cost you $1000. Well no it didn't if you're not paying your card. Can you tell me how much that TV really cost you if you leave it on your card with a 20% interest rate and pay only the minimums.

NOW can you really tell me it's just not a problem for an individual or government to spend that way? Sure maybe you can make the monthly payments and do it for a long time. What you don't see is that unless you start bringng in more money, the power of interest and continued spending is just going to make that debt bigger and bigger and bigger and at some point someone is going to demand they be paid what's owed.

Once again, bern80 runs away from a challenge. I asked him to explain how the Dod, which has been running deficits for centuries, is unsustainable. Instead of responding, bern wants to argue that the DoD is running budget surpluses

The military budget is $548.9 billion for 2011. Please explain when the DoD will have to pay back that $548.9 billion

 

[sangha]

Again you are only looking at the cost to the consumer. You simply can not consider that the defining factor of what constitutes a good health care system. You keep glossing over how these wonder systems of yours are funded and the reality is they are heavily subsidized and are STILL under funded. Claiming the do it at a lower cost is a bit of a red herring when you consider that lower cost is artificially mandated either by government mandating how much they will pay for resources are simply the inability to fund them.

Look at France again. There doctors make about half of what ours make. And their government STILL can't pay for all of the resources. This is has been going on for about the last 5 years or so in France and is not projected to get any better. Their government is now being forced to make decisions about how much it will reimburse and what procedures it will pay for. The way France has chosen to pay for health care does not meet the cost of the demand on resources. THAT is the definition of unsustainable. Market forces are immutabele. They take over eventually. The actions France is having to take is proving that. They may have started out with a system that cost the taxpayers little money and meat their demands but that is slowly being eroded away as the government does away with paying for certain things.

Bern can't help but lie. I include ALL of the costs

And once again, bern claims that a program that runs a deficit is "unsustainable" but he runs away whenever I challenge him on this point. He still hasn't explained how the Dept of Defense, which has ALWAYS had a deficit, is "unsustainable"

Bern thinks that he can just make stuff up

Does the Department of Defense grow at 15% a year, every year?
Is DOD a private sector entity?
When Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are 85% of the entire budget in 2 decades or less how is that sustainable?

Frances costs for health care don't grow 15% a year, every year
France's health care is not a private sector entity
France does not spend 86% of it's budget on health care

 

[Bern80]

Speak for yourself. If this thread proves anything it's that YOU have no facts. The FACTS show that the nations with the best healthcare systems (ex France, Great Britain, Canada) all have "govt solutions"

You can't refute the facts, so you have to lie and deny that the facts exist

No Sangha, The problem is with your definition of best. And your definition of best is what costs the customer the least and that's about it.

Once again, bern has to lie because he thinks it's better for americans to pay more for lower quality health care

Calling someone a liar then lieing yourself is rarely a good debate strategy.

 

[sangha]

No you dream up costs.

U.S. Still Spends More on Health Care than Any Other Country
I guess John Hopkins School of Public Health had the same dream I did

 

[Bern80]

Once again, bern80 runs away from a challenge. I asked him to explain how the Dod, which has been running deficits for centuries, is unsustainable. Instead of responding, bern wants to argue that the DoD is running budget surpluses

So are you chicken shit. If you don't understand the concept of sustainability having explained it to you twice now, you never will

The military budget is $548.9 billion for 2011. Please explain when the DoD will have to pay back that $548.9 billion

I have no idea. I have no idea what the difference is in the budget and what they can pay for. I have no idea who financed the difference. I have no idea over what period of time that difference will be financed over or at what rate. I DO know at some point someone is going to want all of their money back with interest.

 

[Bern80]

No you dream up costs.

U.S. Still Spends More on Health Care than Any Other Country
I guess John Hopkins School of Public Health had the same dream I did

I was referring to you calling the DoL numbers bogus.

 

[sangha]

Once again, bern80 runs away from a challenge. I asked him to explain how the Dod, which has been running deficits for centuries, is unsustainable. Instead of responding, bern wants to argue that the DoD is running budget surpluses

So are you chicken shit. If you don't understand the concept of sustainability having explained it to you twice now, you never will

According to your "explanation", the DoD will have to someday pay back all the money it borrowed from tax revenues

But for some reason, you won't explain HOW or even WHEN the DoD will have to pay this money back. It seems you think that Frances' health care program is the only program that is not allowed to run a deficit.

The military budget is $548.9 billion for 2011. Please explain when

the DoD will have to pay back that $548.9 billion

I have no idea. I have no idea what the difference is in the budget and what they can pay for. I have no idea who financed the difference. I have no idea over what period of time that difference will be financed over or at what rate. I DO know at some point someone is going to want all of their money back with interest.

[/quote]

Of course you have no idea. You're just too stupid and ignorant to realize that Frances' health care and the US military budget are financed in the same way. They both use taxpayer revenues taken from their treasury. That's why neither the US military budget nor Frances' health care system is in any danger of going bankrupt.

But keep on telling us about how someday, some unnamed people are going to DEMAND THEIR MONEY back from the US Dept of Defense

 

[sangha]

No you dream up costs.

U.S. Still Spends More on Health Care than Any Other Country
I guess John Hopkins School of Public Health had the same dream I did

I was referring to you calling the DoL numbers bogus.

You said (but I'm sure you'll deny saying it) that you wouldn't believe that France spent less on health care until I showed you the #'s.

I just did, but you still won't believe it. You only believe what you already believe. You are immune to facts, which is why you think the US DoD will someday have to pay money back (WITH INTEREST!!!!!!!) to some unnamed people

 

[Bern80]

Of course you have no idea. You're just too stupid and ignorant to realize that Frances' health care and the US military budget are financed in the same way. They both use taxpayer revenues taken from their treasury. That's why neither the US military budget nor Frances' health care system is in any danger of going bankrupt.

But keep on telling us about how someday, some unnamed people are going to DEMAND THEIR MONEY back from the US Dept of Defense

Umm yes, idiot. I would think anyone who borrows money to someone regardless of who it is is going to want to be repaid. I'm pretty sure no one is giving money to the dept of defense knowing their never going to get it back.

And I understand completely that France's heath care and DoD are funded at a defecit. My point is in both cases they will have to pay someone eventually. Just like you will someday have to payoff the entirety of the balance on your credit card (well unless you leave to your kids of course).

 

[Bern80]

U.S. Still Spends More on Health Care than Any Other Country
I guess John Hopkins School of Public Health had the same dream I did

I was referring to you calling the DoL numbers bogus.

You said (but I'm sure you'll deny saying it) that you wouldn't believe that France spent less on health care until I showed you the #'s.

I just did, but you still won't believe it. You only believe what you already believe. You are immune to facts, which is why you think the US DoD will someday have to pay money back (WITH INTEREST!!!!!!!) to some unnamed people

No I didn't ever say that mainly because it's a rather vague statement. Less how? Less per capita, less in total dollars spent on health care, less as a % of GDP, less as a percent of income? I don't speak in vagueries, you do.

It's a fact now that the DoD will not have to pay back what it borrows. Interesting. Prove it. Find for me the institutin that is giving the DoD money that supposedly doesn't knows and doesn't care if it gets its money back. I'll wait.

 

[sangha]

Of course you have no idea. You're just too stupid and ignorant to realize that Frances' health care and the US military budget are financed in the same way. They both use taxpayer revenues taken from their treasury. That's why neither the US military budget nor Frances' health care system is in any danger of going bankrupt.

But keep on telling us about how someday, some unnamed people are going to DEMAND THEIR MONEY back from the US Dept of Defense

Umm yes, idiot. I would think anyone who borrows money to someone regardless of who it is is going to want to be repaid. I'm pretty sure no one is giving money to the dept of defense knowing their never going to get it back.

And I understand completely that France's heath care and DoD are funded at a defecit. My point is in both cases they will have to pay someone eventually. Just like you will someday have to payoff the entirety of the balance on your credit card (well unless you leave to your kids of course).

Ummm, you must be too stupid to realize that neither the DoD or Frances health care system gets its' money from borrowing.

I'm pretty sure no one is giving money to the dept of defense knowing their never going to get it back.

Every year, every taxpayer sends money to the DoD knowing they will never get it back

Correction - not every taxpayer knows they're not getting the money back. Idiots like you think your tax payment was a loan

 

[sangha]

I was referring to you calling the DoL numbers bogus.

You said (but I'm sure you'll deny saying it) that you wouldn't believe that France spent less on health care until I showed you the #'s.

I just did, but you still won't believe it. You only believe what you already believe. You are immune to facts, which is why you think the US DoD will someday have to pay money back (WITH INTEREST!!!!!!!) to some unnamed people

No I didn't ever say that mainly because it's a rather vague statement. Less how? Less per capita, less in total dollars spent on health care, less as a % of GDP, less as a percent of income? I don't speak in vagueries, you do.

It's a fact now that the DoD will not have to pay back what it borrows. Interesting. Prove it. Find for me the institutin that is giving the DoD money that supposedly doesn't knows and doesn't care if it gets its money back. I'll wait.

Less how? You really must be stupid if you don't know that we spend more PER CAPITA than any other nation, and more IN TOTAL, than any other nation. We spend a higher % of GDP on health care than France, and we receive a lower level of care than France does.

In other words, they spend less IN EVERY WAY YOU MENTIONED with the only possible exception being "as a percent of income" because those #'s are not available.

 

[Bern80]

You said (but I'm sure you'll deny saying it) that you wouldn't believe that France spent less on health care until I showed you the #'s.

I just did, but you still won't believe it. You only believe what you already believe. You are immune to facts, which is why you think the US DoD will someday have to pay money back (WITH INTEREST!!!!!!!) to some unnamed people

No I didn't ever say that mainly because it's a rather vague statement. Less how? Less per capita, less in total dollars spent on health care, less as a % of GDP, less as a percent of income? I don't speak in vagueries, you do.

It's a fact now that the DoD will not have to pay back what it borrows. Interesting. Prove it. Find for me the institutin that is giving the DoD money that supposedly doesn't knows and doesn't care if it gets its money back. I'll wait.

Less how? You really must be stupid if you don't know that we spend more PER CAPITA than any other nation, and more IN TOTAL, than any other nation. We spend a higher % of GDP on health care than France, and we receive a lower level of care than France does.

In other words, they spend less IN EVERY WAY YOU MENTIONED with the only possible exception being "as a percent of income" because those #'s are not available.

......and they can't actually pay for it. You keep proving my point about you lazy ass liberals. You don't care how it gets paid for as long as it ain't you. If someone else has to go in debt to do it, fine. If the bill has get passed on generation to generation who gives a shit as long as I (you) don't have to deal with it right?

 

[Bern80]

Ummm, you must be too stupid to realize that neither the DoD or Frances health care system gets its' money from borrowing.

Where do they get it then smart guy?

Every year, every taxpayer sends money to the DoD knowing they will never get it back

Correction - not every taxpayer knows they're not getting the money back. Idiots like you think your tax payment was a loan

Why would I think I'm going to get what I pay in taxes back?