Universal Healthcare?

[Shogun]

What does We the People have to do with roads in the first place? Our system of taxing for roads is the most efficient one there is regardless of how often you use them. Your tax dollars aren't going to pay for every road so that argument is moot. That is why we have country roads, state roads, and federal roads. Federal taxes pay for the federal roads, the interestates which yes are vital to commerce. Your state taxes or possibly gas taxes are used to fund your state roads. since it would be silly to have a toll on every little road to get them paid for that is the next best option.

It illustrates the focus of the Constitution is the people rather than the roads. Yousee, I can use the same talking points against something that you accept as a government responsibility. Your statement regarding taxing for roads is a personal opinion not a fact. Just like, "we need UHC" is an opinion and not a fact. And, in fact, you can't prove that local people only pay for local roads so the point stands. Indeed, I pay taxes for MISSOURI roads, not just the ones I drive on. How do my state taxes NOT get put into the same state pot that pays for roads 150 miles from me? Again, Commerce is not the prerequisite for Constitutional consideration. I can make the same arguement that you can against UHC regarding PRIVATE toll roads. Again, "silly" is an opinion on par with "our current health care system is a complete failure for the poor" so, who gets to decide whose opinion stands? Cause, if you put it to a vote you'll notice that the PEOPLE don't rationalize free market tool roads and, chances are, they will vote for a similar government solutions to health care.

 

[Shogun]

Yes you are so far ahead of the curve. 'Progressive' is it? I agree whole heartedly that something needs to be done about health care expenses and how there paid for, but if you think government will be this great solution you are sadly mistaken.

no more mistaken than those3 who claim that free market capitolism is the panacea for everything commerical.

you know, with the evidence of the current clusterfuck that only benefits those who can afford outlandish healthcare. Capitolism doesn't operate on benevolence.

 

[Bern80]

no more mistaken than those3 who claim that free market capitolism is the panacea for everything commerical.

you know, with the evidence of the current clusterfuck that only benefits those who can afford outlandish healthcare. Capitolism doesn't operate on benevolence.

It operates on whoever provides the best service at the best price. People point to our society and say 'look capitalism isn't working' w/o actually asking if we're operating in such a system in reality in the first place.

 

[jillian]

It operates on whoever provides the best service at the best price. People point to our society and say 'look capitalism isn't working' w/o actually asking if we're operating in such a system in reality in the first place.

Free market does no such thing. Corporations don't and aren't supposed to act in the public interest.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The current healthcare system is broken. We pay more per person than any other industiralized nation, but rank 37th in overall quality.

What are the alternatives? Staying the course is not one of them unless you are a doctor or a pharmaceutical company

 

[Shogun]

It operates on whoever provides the best service at the best price. People point to our society and say 'look capitalism isn't working' w/o actually asking if we're operating in such a system in reality in the first place.

indeed, every turn in history where free market capitolism is allowed to rear it's head we get things like monopolies, child labor, unsafe work environments, share cropping and the "let them eat cake" routine.


Be clear about what exactly you want to deregulate before using this as an excuse for the failures of capitolism. Like I asked earlier, when has deregulation EVER resulted in a price drop for consumers instead of a larger profit margin? A margin that uses investor 40k programs as an excuse to hoard funds instead of releasing it into a lower price for consumers, no less.

 

[Bern80]

It illustrates the focus of the Constitution is the people rather than the roads. Yousee, I can use the same talking points against something that you accept as a government responsibility. Your statement regarding taxing for roads is a personal opinion not a fact. Just like, "we need UHC" is an opinion and not a fact. And, in fact, you can't prove that local people only pay for local roads so the point stands. Indeed, I pay taxes for MISSOURI roads, not just the ones I drive on. How do my state taxes NOT get put into the same state pot that pays for roads 150 miles from me? Again, Commerce is not the prerequisite for Constitutional consideration. I can make the same arguement that you can against UHC regarding PRIVATE toll roads. Again, "silly" is an opinion on par with "our current health care system is a complete failure for the poor" so, who gets to decide whose opinion stands? Cause, if you put it to a vote you'll notice that the PEOPLE don't rationalize free market tool roads and, chances are, they will vote for a similar government solutions to health care.

So the statement we don't need roads would also be an opinion?

As far as what people will choose as I've stated before the people will usually choose the easiest most painless option. Politicians know this so they say things like we'll provide healthcare to everyone WHOOPEEE!. And of course the vast majority don't think about what the ramifications woudl be of government running our healthcare.

 

[Bern80]

indeed, every turn in history where free market capitolism is allowed to rear it's head we get things like monopolies, child labor, unsafe work environments, share cropping and the "let them eat cake" routine.

And yet our country is the closest thing to free market capitalism there is and we have none of those things where countries like China and Taiwan do. Explain.

Be clear about what exactly you want to deregulate before using this as an excuse for the failures of capitolism. Like I asked earlier, when has deregulation EVER resulted in a price drop for consumers instead of a larger profit margin? A margin that uses investor 40k programs as an excuse to hoard funds instead of releasing it into a lower price for consumers, no less.

When hasn't it? As far as a shift is concerned government has pretty much only regulated things more and more, not less. Banking is one of the few that come to mind which was beneficial

http://www.answers.com/topic/deregulation?cat=biz-fin

 

[Bern80]

Free market does no such thing. Corporations don't and aren't supposed to act in the public interest.

What I said has nothing to do with the public interest. Corporations exist to make a profit which they accomplish through providing the best good or service at the best price (among other things).

 

[mattskramer]

What I said has nothing to do with the public interest. Corporations exist to make a profit which they accomplish through providing the best good or service at the best price (among other things).

They also sometimes make profits via collusion and fraud.

 

[Shogun]

So the statement we don't need roads would also be an opinion?

As far as what people will choose as I've stated before the people will usually choose the easiest most painless option. Politicians know this so they say things like we'll provide healthcare to everyone WHOOPEEE!. And of course the vast majority don't think about what the ramifications woudl be of government running our healthcare.

certainly not TAX FUNDED roads.

toll roads promotes the entrepreneurial spirit, eh?

indeed, and thus I've tried to consider a compromise or an alternate system that works for those who want a basic health care and those who want to pay for their own.

 

[Bern80]

They also sometimes make profits via collusion and fraud.

Certainly. Unless you think that's a rule rather than an exception, what's your point?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1. Relegate insurance companies to the business of insuring against severe financial loss rather than meddling in basic health maintenance. Perhaps an annual deductable of say...$5,000. For those that can afford it, you pay a premium to the insurance company just like you do for auto, home, life insurance etc. And you also pay your own healthcare related costs up to the deductable. Costs exceeding your deductable are picked up by the insurance provider. So for example if you get cancer and require $200,000 for chemo, it's covered. You also allow the free markets to dictate pricing.

2. Those that can't afford to pay get subsidized by the government.


I know it's a bit oversimplified, but why can't a concept like this work?

Because democrat socialists do not want it to work.

Yours is basically the same idea I've been a proponent of in prior health care discussions. Basic, everyday care would go back to being paid for by the consumer directly to the clinics and doctors, providing a competitive market which would result in lower costs for everybody. Third parties would be relegated to a minimum interference. Insurance companies would go back to dealing with catastrophic situations and essentially get out of health care management. The individual would win and control his own health care.

The kicker is two-fold:

1. Socialized health care proponents claim this would result in a two-tier health system - one private and one government. I find this laughable since it seems they think the private system would outperform the government system for the poor.

2. Socialists have the overriding, unspoken goal of control. Control a man's health care and you control the man.

 

[Bern80]

certainly not TAX FUNDED roads.

toll roads promotes the entrepreneurial spirit, eh?

Yo're skirting your original point which was that it is an opinion to say we need roads.

indeed, and thus I've tried to consider a compromise or an alternate system that works for those who want a basic health care and those who want to pay for their own.

I think we're there already. What about what I've proposed do you disagree with.

 

[Shogun]

And yet our country is the closest thing to free market capitalism there is and we have none of those things where countries like China and Taiwan do. Explain.



When hasn't it? As far as a shift is concerned government has pretty much only regulated things more and more, not less. Banking is one of the few that come to mind which was beneficial

http://www.answers.com/topic/deregulation?cat=biz-fin

yea, we have none of those things BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. What created our child labor laws? OSHA? a plethora of other regulations that keeps capitolists from making profit at any cost? I'm not defending china's standard of living even though they FEED off of our capitolism.


When has banking deregulations causes lower prices for consumers again? I'm looking for specifics. From this angle, it seems the second excuse to use after deregulation is the profit motive of investors. We see this same cycle happening with oil companies lately. We could deregulate the oil industry and the prices for gas still wont go down.

 

[mattskramer]

Certainly. Unless you think that's a rule rather than an exception, what's your point?

It was just a passing comment. There are many things that influence how profits are made. There are many variables.

 

[manifold]

Because democrat socialists do not want it to work.

Yours is basically the same idea I've been a proponent of in prior health care discussions. Basic, everyday care would go back to being paid for by the consumer directly to the clinics and doctors, providing a competitive market which would result in lower costs for everybody. Third parties would be relegated to a minimum interference. Insurance companies would go back to dealing with catastrophic situations and essentially get out of health care management. The individual would win and control his own health care.

The kicker is two-fold:

1. Socialized health care proponents claim this would result in a two-tier health system - one private and one government. I find this laughable since it seems they think the private system would outperform the government system for the poor.

2. Socialists have the overriding, unspoken goal of control. Control a man's health care and you control the man.

OK, maybe you weren't the best choice for me to use as the subject of my joke in the humor section.

Edit: And btw: Republican socialists don't won't it to work either.

 

[Shogun]

What I said has nothing to do with the public interest. Corporations exist to make a profit which they accomplish through providing the best good or service at the best price (among other things).

TO MAKE PROFIT. not reduce any consumer prices post-deregulation.

These, good sir, ARE the flaws of free market capitolism.

 

[Shogun]

Yo're skirting your original point which was that it is an opinion to say we need roads.



I think we're there already. What about what I've proposed do you disagree with.

NO, my original point was that it is an opinion that we need roads paid for with TAXES. scroll up. This illustrates my point exactly. YOU think that roads paid with taxes is acceptable and an entrepreneur can say that such is a socialist effort to control commercial ventures into the potential toll road industry. With every excuse youve given about better quality, no less.

I think we'd have to make another thread entirely for a compromise solution. I'll toss ideas back and forth like we did with the education thread but i'm pretty sure it would be gobbled up among the noise.

Im all for reasonable deregulation, dude. But, i'd have to know exactly what it is we are trying to deregulate.

 

[manifold]

TO MAKE PROFIT. not reduce any consumer prices post-deregulation.

These, good sir, ARE the flaws of free market capitolism.

psst. I hate to be mr. persnickety english professor, but it's spelled capitalism. And seeing it with an "o" over and over is like fingernails on the chalkboard of my brain.