Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not working well and you have no proof it is. Unless you think long wait times are no big deal.
A wait of some sort for a non-urgent matter is better than having no service to wait for. Perhaps Americans don't have long waits, but they sure do have medical cost-induced bankruptcies.
Quote:
Government has been involved in healthcare for the last 40 years and the costs have risen dramatically. Socialized medicine is the exact opposite of being efficient. When their is no competition quality suffers. That is a given.
But the costs haven't risen nearly as much in those evil excrement-grubbing socialist "people's states". They're spending less, both in terms of dollars per capita and percentage of GDP, and getting more.
Quote:
It doesn't matter what the execs make.
It does if they are being overcompensated above and beyond their actual contribution to the production of health care. The free market dogmatist notion that executives as irreplaceable rock star athletes who deserve extraordinary compensation at the expense of the rest of society has proven itself to be bankrupt numerous times.
Quote:
Well spent advertising is no big deal.
Convincing people to use Facility A instead of Facility B does not reduce the cost of providing treatment. It just wastes money.
Quote:
Besides that, it's good to see you pointed out the excess costs that all related to government getting involved in the healthcare system.
Could you elaborate on that? Which of those costs are novel relative to the current system?
Quote:
So I ask again, since government is the main culprit in the rising costs of healthcare coverage why do you want them involved?
A true, laissez-faire capitalist free market would do an awful job of providing the health care that people need because health care is not a simple widget that people can do without. It would result in the unnecessary deaths and suffering of tens of millions of people. You can live without a television and you can shop around for a better price at your leisure. Health care doesn't work that way. Therefore, the government is needed to serve the rational selfish interests of the populace.
And before you prattle on about how unregulated private insurance under true laissez-faire capitalism would provide coverage for insureds who get sick, consider that a 1000 page insurance contract would probably contain numerous clauses buried in tiny print that would allow insurance companies to find ways to rescind people's coverage at will; it's "freedom of contract".
Last edited by Bhaalspawn; 02-06-2016 at 02:36 AM..
There is no conservative argument for single payer since single payer isn't a conservative ideal. We want less government not more.
All one has to do is look at The VA and they can see single payer is a disgrace.
What does your ideal health care system or non-system look like? Under your system, would people die from treatable diseases and health conditions as a result of lack of treatment? What happens to people with diseases like cancer under your ideal system?
1] Scarcity of physical resources and a perceived need for their allocation
2] Waiting lists and long waiting times
3] Denial of treatment
4] Discrimination between patients regardless of need
...and health care would also be rationed under a laissez-faire system.
Quote:
Those jobs will be shifted to State/federal government.
That depends on the system that's in place and how it's structured. It's difficult to imagine a system that could be more inefficient than what we currently have. Those even socialist "people's states" seem to be able to provide 100% coverage while having life spans that are just as long or longer than Americans' and while spending a smaller percentage of GDP on health care.
Quote:
Private insurance will still exist.
For the top 10% who want luxury treatment, sure.
Quote:
You forgot about the giant expansion in government.
...coupled with a massive contraction in the current insurance-based bureaucracy. To hear you tell it, the European nations should be spending 25% of their GDP on health care, but the numbers don't bear that out.
Quote:
It took 60,000 new IRS agents just for Obamacare. How many new IRS agents will have to be added for your single payer system?
Obamacare (aka "Republicare") is not a health care system, but merely a tiny rule change that failed to fundamentally modify the health care system.
Every other affluent nation has single payer / universal health care and none of them would ever revert to our system. We spend more on health care as a percent of federal budget then any nation with universal healthcare and yet have millions without insurance. That's bad math.
The free market dogmatists response to the data is similar to how the evil socialists responded to John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. "We couldn't have heard it." "We don't have to believe it." "It couldn't have been real."
I'd like to hear from Trump fans about this. So far, they seem keen to avoid this topic.
I won't speak for other Trump supporters, but one of the reasons I like Trump is that he can see the benefits of some policies that aren't strictly dyed-in-the-wool conservative. I lean towards the left on some issues, and lean right on most. I haven't found any one candidate that I align with 100%, but Trump comes close on enough issues that are important in my life, so he has my support.
There is no reason why American citizens have to be without healthcare in this country, or go bankrupt due to a health related event. If we had someone in charge who would oversee the process and keep a firm control over waste and abuse, I would be very much in favor of single payer health care. When folks on Medicaid are getting all their health needs addressed while many in the working class go without healthcare due to costs, something is very wrong with this picture.
The problem with most of the other candidates is they are firmly in the pocket of big business and will do nothing that would reduce their profits, even if making changes will benefit the American public. Trump is the only one who seems to care about the welfare of the working stiff.
It's not a difficult question. Did you vote for him?
I just got through telling you who I voted for in 2008 and 2012. If you were not playing silly games you would have asked me if I specifically voted for someone and you would have named that person.
And no I wont be a sellout and vote for Sanders or any of the other big government candidates.
A wait of some sort for a non-urgent matter is better than having no service to wait for. Perhaps Americans don't have long waits, but they sure do have medical cost-induced bankruptcies.
because of government involvement which has raised the costs dramatically. What part of that don't you get?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
But the costs haven't risen nearly as much in those evil excrement-grubbing socialist "people's states". They're spending less, both in terms of dollars per capita and percentage of GDP, and getting more.
GDP is a meaningless figure unless one wants to compare from year to year of the same country.
Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, an insurer in the United States pays, on average, $215 per customer. Yet the same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23. Government-enforced monopolies of HMOs and pharmaceutical companies.
Efficiency isn't just tied into costs. Quality and availability. America doesn't suffer from quality as far as the actual work. Availability is there except when you get to single payers which you like. The VA is horrific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
It does if they are being overcompensated above and beyond their actual contribution to the production of health care. The free market dogmatist notion that executives as irreplaceable rock star athletes who deserve extraordinary compensation at the expense of the rest of society has proven itself to be bankrupt numerous times.
The free market says otherwise. Everyones replaceable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
Convincing people to use Facility A instead of Facility B does not reduce the cost of providing treatment. It just wastes money.
No it doesn't. It's a basic economic premise. If you advertise and get more people your costs will go down. If you don't understand basic economic principles then wehy discuss it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
Could you elaborate on that? Which of those costs are novel relative to the current system?
Government-enforced monopolies of HMOs and pharmaceutical companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
A true, laissez-faire capitalist free market would do an awful job of providing the health care that people need because health care is not a simple widget that people can do without. It would result in the unnecessary deaths and suffering of tens of millions of people. You can live without a television and you can shop around for a better price at your leisure. Health care doesn't work that way. Therefore, the government is needed to serve the rational selfish interests of the populace.
You have no proof of this. Your drama queen notion that people will get turned away is absurd. Show proof of the unnecessary deaths and suffering of tens of millions of people we had before Obamacare. Rhetorical you can't because you made it all up
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
And before you prattle on about how unregulated private insurance under true laissez-faire capitalism would provide coverage for insureds who get sick, consider that a 1000 page insurance contract would probably contain numerous clauses buried in tiny print that would allow insurance companies to find ways to rescind people's coverage at will; it's "freedom of contract".
Again You have no proof of this. Your drama queen notion that people will get screwed is absurd. Hospitals estimate 30 percent of their cots are administrative. How's that for paperwork or it doesn't matte when government is the cause of it?
I'll repeat this one more time in hopes you'll finally quit yammering on like a gossipy neighbor. How is the single payer working for our Veterans? How is the "free health care" working for those in other countries? Any back log? Thought so.
"I want people taken care of. I have a heart," Trump said. "If somebody has no money and they're lying in the middle of the street and they're dying, I'm going to take care of that person."
If he is honestly talking about socialized medicine, that puts him to the LEFT of Hillary Clinton on the issue of healthcare. Trumpets: Do you support this?
Yes. Trump is my GOP choice and Sanders is my Dem choice, because they
are not beholden to the special interests. I'd rather see old people be able
to afford their medications and I'd rather see young people have coverage
if they are injured. I couldn't care less about the HMOs,the pharmaceutical
fat cats, the insurance companies or the nursing home thieves.
F THEM and F any candidate who works for them. It's time for Americans
to grow up and demand medical care like the rest of the developed world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
