Universal Health Care

[Chris]

Chris' (kirk's) big pharma boogy man rears it's ugly head.

Chris believes we can get rid of the big bad drug companies and little Brazilian witch doctors in the rain forest will cure us all of everything....at a minimal cost .


does every western democracy really have a single payer system and do they all pay half of what we pay?

fact check please?

Do you know what industry has the highest profit margin?

Higher than the oil companies?

 

[Andrew2382]

Do you know what industry has the highest profit margin?

Higher than the oil companies?

not the healthcare or pharmecutical companies you numbnuts

The answer is Hedge funds, you know the ones you'reprecious al gore is involved with and what not

At least it was prior to the collapse with a profit margin of 90%

 

[Chris]

not the healthcare or pharmecutical companies you numbnuts

The answer is Hedge funds, you know the ones you'reprecious al gore is involved with and what not

At least it was prior to the collapse with a profit margin of 90%

Nice try at deflection.

Pharmaceutical companies have the highest profit margin.

Hedge funds were a Ponzi scheme, a criminal enterprize.

Why didn't you just say the Mafia has a higher profit margin?

 

[Andrew2382]

bvut weren't you the same *** that 7 months ago said profit margins were meaningless since oil companies only have a 8-9% margin?


Now they are important and meaningful cause they benefit your idiotic theories

please stick your head in an oven Chris

 

[t_samford]

bvut weren't you the same *** that 7 months ago said profit margins were meaningless since oil companies only have a 8-9% margin?


Now they are important and meaningful cause they benefit your idiotic theories

please stick your head in an oven Chris

 

[editec]

This is true to a marginal extent.

No that is true to a MAJOR extent. When was the last time you went to the Doctor and he told you you needed an apendectomy, and you decided that since you couldn't afford that you'd get a hangnail removed instead?


For that matter when was the last time you shopped around for a surgeon, or dis a comparison pricing of MDs?

But really the argument for having UHC is BASED on supply and demand.

Okay, I'll play the theoretical econ game for a while. Let's see how well you do it.

What you are looking at in terms of supply and demand curve is that equilibrium has not been met.

I'd say that's true.

Plenty of people are demanding health care. they are just demanding it at a lower cost then the industry is supplying it at.

True.

Stated in economic terms that is the basic argument for UHC, that people would use it if they could afford it, which in turn says that if we adopt UHC and thus price reduced demand will indeed go up.

Well that's the argument, but the argument is begging the question, isn't it?

What makes you think that UHC will reduce pricing? Nothing in the historical record suggest that increasing demand decreased price in HC to date.

Since when is a lack of a medium of exchange a defining characteristic of a free market? This is a completely faulty premise ed.

You really do NOT understand what it takes to have a CAPITALIST SYSTEM, do you?

Why do they call it CAPITALism, amigo?

Because there needs to be a representation of wealth (CAPITAL) that is used as a medium of exchange.

And what does it take to turn some object into a TOOL we call capital?

Here's a clue...a government to IMPOSE that worthless marker into something we can agree has value.

And the very moment that it takes a GOVERNMENT to make the system work?

There is no such thing as a FREE MARKET.

But there can be a completely totally FREE market....

That economic system is called BARTER.

It's not good system, of course, which is exactly why every society on earth today has created something called CAPITAL as their medium of exchange.

Because that tool, called capital is a much more effecient way to promote the exchange of goods and services.

 

[t_samford]

This is true to a marginal extent.

No that is true to a MAJOR extent. When was the last time you went to the Doctor and he told you you needed an apendectomy, and you decided that since you couldn't afford that you'd get a hangnail removed instead?


For that matter when was the last time you shopped around for a surgeon, or dis a comparison pricing of MDs?




Okay, I'll play the theoretical econ game for a while. Let's see how well you do it.



I'd say that's true.





True.




Well that's the argument, but the argument is begging the question, isn't it?

What makes you think that UHC will reduce pricing? Nothing in the historical record suggest that increasing demand decreased price in HC to date.



You really do NOT understand what it takes to have a CAPITALIST SYSTEM, do you?

Why do they call it CAPITALism, amigo?

Because there needs to be a representation of wealth (CAPITAL) that is used as a medium of exchange.

And what does it take to turn some object into a TOOL we call capital?

Here's a clue...a government to IMPOSE that worthless marker into something we can agree has value.

And the very moment that it takes a GOVERNMENT to make the system work?

There is no such thing as a FREE MARKET.

But there can be a completely totally FREE market....

That economic system is called BARTER.

It's not good system, of course, which is exactly why every society on earth today has created something called CAPITAL as their medium of exchange.

Because that tool, called capital is a much more effecient way to promote the exchange of goods and services.

 

[michiganFats]

I would rather see some minor changes made in the way providers operate as opposed to a major overhaul in the system. I think the insurance industry is the cause of many problems in this country today, and not just the health insurance companies. I believe we have serious abuses occurring in all facets of the insurance industry. I have posted a couple of things regarding the economic realities facing people at the user level. No need for me to rehash them. But, there is a bigger issue in play here. Is healthcare a right? I believe it is. Having accepted that it is, I also have to accept that the government now has a right to get involved. The two beliefs have to go together. At this point, the debate moves away from economics, because once you have public money in play, economics doesn't really matter. The main reason I am against UHC as it has been discussed to this point is that I don't believe it has anything to do with delivering quality healthcare to all. In my opinion, it's about government control, and creating one hell of a huge political football for current and future politicians to play with. If the government wants to establish and attempt to manage individual accounts for every American, I think the task is just too big for them and will not be responsive to the needs of individuals. I have a better idea. Handle healthcare the same way we handle education loans. If someone needs expensive care, have them get a subsidized loan and/or a grant. Some people will default on the loans, but most will probably pay, and the government pays off on the default amount. It's not cheap, but it's better in my opinion than establishing another huge government bureacracy. I will now stop so others among you can once again explain to me why I'm colossal moron. (Damn that was a lot of typing, I don't know how some of you do this all day long)

 

[editec]

This is true to a marginal extent.

Well..you obviously.

Otherwise why bother to respond at all?

Now run along and play, kid.

The adults are talking now.

 

[Dante]

DevNell, Here it is in English. The health care providers in this country are bidding for doctor exclusivity. They pay no attention whatsoever to the real cost of any procedure. Doctors who want to be paid by the HC providers have to submit an invoice requesting that they be paid according to the fee schedule of the HC provider. A $50 X-ray becomes a $175 X-ray because if the doctor submits a request for anything less, regardless of what he would charge a customer who is paying cash, he will not be paid. If you don't believe me, ask your doctor. When you have HC providers deliberately overpaying doctors in order to get the doctor to freeze out other HC providers from their practices, maybe that explains why costs are high?

is this in every state? how prevalent is this?

And as I have already pointed out in this thread, there is no real consumer choice when it comes to obtaining health coverage in this nation. I honestly believe that if we change those two practices, we will see costs come down and we will see more diversity in the plans offered.

consumer choice in what...health care, insurance, doctor?

did you see the Frontline episode or read the links to it? How 5 capitalist democracies do it?

 

[Dante]

Do you know what industry has the highest profit margin?

Higher than the oil companies?

profit margins are another subject all together. it is a losing argument. arguing over the profit margin has never been an argument that won over the other side or those on the fence. all it does it make people feel smug and superior.

stop being a progressive nitwit. on this one subject you actually do have something to say---when you get your head out of your fat ass.

 

[editec]

I would rather see some minor changes made in the way providers operate as opposed to a major overhaul in the system.

Okay...like what for instance?

I think the insurance industry is the cause of many problems in this country today, and not just the health insurance companies.

Totally agree.

I believe we have serious abuses occurring in all facets of the insurance industry. I have posted a couple of things regarding the economic realities facing people at the user level. No need for me to rehash them.

Agreed.

But, there is a bigger issue in play here. Is healthcare a right? I believe it is.

Well...if health care is a right, then you're putting yourself and all of us on a slippery slope where the government, having assumed responisiblity for your health, also has a legitmate excuse to tell you HOW to live, too.

So be careful what you wish for.

Having accepted that it is, I also have to accept that the government now has a right to get involved. The two beliefs have to go together.

Yeah, I think you're right about that, too. You have to start from the presupposition that health care is a right if you're going to support the government getting involved.

But then, you have to accept that those who do NOT think it's a right can, starting from THEIR presupposition, ALSO have logical arguments for why this is a bad idea, too.

It ALL depends on those presuppositions about HC, doesn't it?

At this point, the debate moves away from economics, because once you have public money in play, economics doesn't really matter.

No it doesn't. Or perhaps I am failing to understand the point.

The main reason I am against UHC as it has been discussed to this point is that I don't believe it has anything to do with delivering quality healthcare to all.

Politically, you mean? Of course it doesn't.

In my opinion, it's about government control, and creating one hell of a huge political football for current and future politicians to play with.

Yup.

If the government wants to establish and attempt to manage individual accounts for every American, I think the task is just too big for them and will not be responsive to the needs of individuals.

I don't think anyone has susggested such a plan, have they?

I have a better idea. Handle healthcare the same way we handle education loans. If someone needs expensive care, have them get a subsidized loan and/or a grant.

That will STILL drive up the cost of HC. And when it does, the cost of HC will rise to capture those extra dollars while slowly but inevitably NOT solving out problem, I think.

Some people will default on the loans, but most will probably pay, and the government pays off on the default amount.

MOST people will not pay off their loans. First of all most of the money spent on HC now is spend on people in the last year of their life, so you won't be able to get them to pay.

Secondly the cost of last year of life HC exceeds the net lifetime incomes of most people, so it won't be like you can take their estates to pay for that HC, either.

It's not cheap, but it's better in my opinion than establishing another huge government bureacracy. I will now stop so others among you can once again explain to me why I'm colossal moron. (Damn that was a lot of typing, I don't know how some of you do this all day long)

I do NOT think you're a moron.

I just don't think you realize how expensive HC really is.

My mother was a working class woman who worked from the time she was 14 until she was about 70.

So for two years she died by inches, right?

In that time Medicade spend more keeping her dying than she's made in her ENTIRE LIFE. Just her Oxygen tanks every month cost more than she was making on Social security.

My mother's example is NOT an uncommon example of the problem we are truly facing.


Her case really exemplifies the imbalance between what most most people are making and how expensive HC had become.


The average FAMILY income is about $50,000 a year.

Any idea how much it costs to die from cancer?

L:et me tell you, no working class person can save enough to pay for that end of life care, and THAT is the problem.

 

[Dante]

not the healthcare or pharmecutical companies you numbnuts

The answer is Hedge funds, you know the ones you'reprecious al gore is involved with and what not

At least it was prior to the collapse with a profit margin of 90%

why do you hate Hedge Funds? did you actually have any money in them?


and who gives two shits about Al Gore?


wingnut alert!

 

[Dante]

I would rather see some minor changes made in the way providers operate as opposed to a major overhaul in the system.

minor changes is what we've had in the past. It won't work much.

I think the insurance industry is the cause of many problems in this country today, and not just the health insurance companies. I believe we have serious abuses occurring in all facets of the insurance industry.

you'll get very few rational and credible arguments that will hold water on this one.

insurance is the issue most people are talking about when they mention health care in America.

the quality of health care in America is superb. access is one issue than can be addressed quite easily but cost...cost...cost...

I have posted a couple of things regarding the economic realities facing people at the user level. No need for me to rehash them. But, there is a bigger issue in play here. Is healthcare a right? I believe it is. Having accepted that it is, I also have to accept that the government now has a right to get involved. The two beliefs have to go together. At this point, the debate moves away from economics, because once you have public money in play, economics doesn't really matter.

this is weird. public money has always been involved in the health care industry/system...from scholarships and grants to students, schools, research labs, etc...from tax breaks and incentives to industries, to public monies for start ups and incubator sectors (new science industries/companies...) ... to medicare/medicaid, free fund pools, the poor...

The main reason I am against UHC as it has been discussed to this point is that I don't believe it has anything to do with delivering quality healthcare to all. In my opinion, it's about government control, and creating one hell of a huge political football for current and future politicians to play with. If the government wants to establish and attempt to manage individual accounts for every American, I think the task is just too big for them and will not be responsive to the needs of individuals.

no one has proposed what you say you are against. you are using straw man arguments, do you know that?

your belief that the push for UHC has nothing to do with delivering quality health care for all is mistaken and unworthy of serious debate.

read the links I provided earlier on how 5 capitalist democracies do it. It offers no perfect plan, just examples we can use as frames of reference for intelligent discussion. why reinvent the wheel? other nations with similar structures to ours have tried and failed and succeeded in areas we may want to look at.y

I have a better idea. Handle healthcare the same way we handle education loans. If someone needs expensive care, have them get a subsidized loan and/or a grant. Some people will default on the loans, but most will probably pay, and the government pays off on the default amount. It's not cheap, but it's better in my opinion than establishing another huge government bureacracy. I will now stop so others among you can once again explain to me why I'm colossal moron. (Damn that was a lot of typing, I don't know how some of you do this all day long)

your better idea sounds a bit convoluted and impractical. a bit eccentric too.

 

[sealybobo]

I would rather see some minor changes made in the way providers operate as opposed to a major overhaul in the system. I think the insurance industry is the cause of many problems in this country today, and not just the health insurance companies. I believe we have serious abuses occurring in all facets of the insurance industry. I have posted a couple of things regarding the economic realities facing people at the user level. No need for me to rehash them. But, there is a bigger issue in play here. Is healthcare a right? I believe it is. Having accepted that it is, I also have to accept that the government now has a right to get involved. The two beliefs have to go together. At this point, the debate moves away from economics, because once you have public money in play, economics doesn't really matter. The main reason I am against UHC as it has been discussed to this point is that I don't believe it has anything to do with delivering quality healthcare to all. In my opinion, it's about government control, and creating one hell of a huge political football for current and future politicians to play with. If the government wants to establish and attempt to manage individual accounts for every American, I think the task is just too big for them and will not be responsive to the needs of individuals. I have a better idea. Handle healthcare the same way we handle education loans. If someone needs expensive care, have them get a subsidized loan and/or a grant. Some people will default on the loans, but most will probably pay, and the government pays off on the default amount. It's not cheap, but it's better in my opinion than establishing another huge government bureacracy. I will now stop so others among you can once again explain to me why I'm colossal moron. (Damn that was a lot of typing, I don't know how some of you do this all day long)

Did you hear SCHIP passed? Bush veto'ed it 2 times and Obama will sign it.

And I say we socialize medicine. **** tweeking it. And here's why. We are the only industrialized country that doesn't offer its citizens free healthcare.

So, if FREE TRADE and open borders are the way of the future, and we have to compete with these countries, then I think it is only fair our corporations don't have to pay for healthcare when companies in other countries don't have to worry about this expense.

 

[michiganFats]

Sealybobo said: So, if FREE TRADE and open borders are the way of the future, and we have to compete with these countries, then I think it is only fair our corporations don't have to pay for healthcare when companies in other countries don't have to worry about this expense.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I think it's ridiculous that employers are involved in the financing of employee health coverage, all it does is limit choice and raise costs. I made that point in my first post on this thread.

 

[Dante]

Sealybobo said:

So, if FREE TRADE and open borders are the way of the future, and we have to compete with these countries, then I think it is only fair our corporations don't have to pay for healthcare when companies in other countries don't have to worry about this expense.

I agree. I think it's ridiculous that employers are involved in the financing of employee health coverage, all it does is limit choice and raise costs. I made that point in my first post on this thread.

how did employers get in the position that they are doing so?


taking things out of context make for poor arguments. did it always limit choice? gawd, you're off the rails here.

and other countries pay for health care and tax companies to death...and that pays for employee health care.

your ideological constipation is getting in the way of seeing clearly.

did you even check out the link: FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS

I bet you didn't, because your stuck on your own insane rants that are never going to be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealybobo said:



how did employers get in the position that they are doing so?


taking things out of context make for poor arguments. did it always limit choice? gawd, you're off the rails here.

and other countries pay for health care and tax companies to death...and that pays for employee health care.

your ideological constipation is getting in the way of seeing clearly.

did you even check out the link: FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS

I bet you didn't, because your stuck on your own insane rants that are never going to be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

Michigan Fats argues with both sides, so maybe it is you that doesn't keep an open mind.

Taking things out of context is your MO.

We don't have to do it like those other countries do it. Every country handles every major issue differently, because you can never compare two countries as if they are apples to apples. Look at the best country that does universal health vs the worst. Why doesn't the worst just do what the best does? Because they can't, apparently, for many reasons.

For every one story you showing me why we can't, I can show you 2 on why we can. And I already know we can save money if we change the status quo. You for some reason defend the status quo.

And it isn't like you have an alternative idea. You ONLY want to cock block us on making any progress, on anything.

Why? Because the way it is now, you have the profits privatized and the losses socialized. Our way the government gets some of the profits too.

Any business that has the government taking on your losses need to share some of your profits with them. Under GOP rule, that'll never happen. And they'll lie on why it is wrong to give the government some of the profits. Meanwhile the treasury is empty and the rich have all gotten richer.

And you aren't rich, you ******* fool.

You defended staying in iraq because your companies were making money at the tax payers expense. Why leave if you are the corporations? That's why war for profit is bad you stupid idiot!!!

Maybe if you got your head out of your ass, the country wouldn't be in shambles. But when we have to argue with 30% of the population that the earth is round, the politicians know if they can just keep you chicken hawks defending them, then they can get away with anything....

and that includes invading iraq for a ******* lie. Stupid fool.

 

[michiganFats]

Sealy, why the attack? First of all, I don't know why you have assumed that I'm GOP voter, because I'm not. Second of all, I don't recall posting anything that defends the actions of large corporations. Third, a lot of what you just posted doesn't seem to jibe with any post I've made on this board in any thread at all. If you want to fight with me, OK, but at least throw my own words back at me first.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy, why the attack? First of all, I don't know why you have assumed that I'm GOP voter, because I'm not. Second of all, I don't recall posting anything that defends the actions of large corporations. Third, a lot of what you just posted doesn't seem to jibe with any post I've made on this board in any thread at all. If you want to fight with me, OK, but at least throw my own words back at me first.

Oops! That was for DevNell.

I was defending you.