that new health care bill

Implying everyone else dismisses other views out of hand. Pretty condescending of you to state that. It also seems like you think your answer is the right answer. God forbid someone doesn't see things your way, they must be dismissing the opposing point of view without so much as a thought.

Shrug. I thought your argument arbitrary and demonstrated that by way of paraphrase.


And you would chastise me for "arguing like TMS"? Beg your pardon, but this helping of fanciful hyperbole is no better.



I might as well hand your challenge back to you, and ask you to argue the point without emotional appeals, such as "THE PEOPLE". THE PEOPLE are an artificial construct. There is no such way as giving things to "THE PEOPLE". "THE PEOPLE" can never act unmediatedly and directly, there always needs to and will be a middle man. It's about picking your poison, i.e. choosing which middle man you wish to have put in place.
You can have clans, corporations, parties, or bureaucracy taking care of it - but you must choose your master. You can't just expect a task as gargantuan as health care to run on emotional appeals.

HR4872 is a bill that was constructed by the very people the politicians used as a scape goat to encourage this "reform" as they would like to call it. Americans who can't afford health care insurance are now being forced to hand over even more of their income. We are currently in the depths of of the largest and most severe economic crisis in American since the Great Depression. It is bad economic policy to force the citizens of a country who are already struggling with debt and unemployment to have to hand over large quantities of money per month to private companies without giving the citizens a choice whether or not to purchase the product or service.

Our government has already been running in debt for the last thirty plus years barring the surplus during the Clinton Administration. Forcing the American citizens to pay for services they can't afford will result in either 1).Americans falling into more debt which can mean more foreclosures or similar effects or 2). the government having to saddle the burden of people who were unable to pay for the mandatory insurance. So either Americans go into debt or America itself goes further into debt. Either way forcing one of the worlds largest economic demands into increased debt will only bode poorly for the world economy as a whole.

The "health care crisis" could have been fixed with a few tweaks to the regulations.


1). The role of government in the insurance reform should have been to create a new market place where individual citizens have the power to control their own policies. As it currently stands large corporations such as Wal-mart, IBM, Microsoft, Google,etc are the driving force in the market place. Insurance companies think of individual policies as simple pepper on their main course. Sure, it's a nice addition to a meal but, ultimately it's not needed.

2). Such as removing "pre-existing conditions" from people's medical records. Which is similar to the one positive effect of this bill. People with previous condition can buy insurance at the same cost as a healthy person.

3). Preventing lifetime or annual caps on medical care by insurance companies.

4). We should have increased market competition which has stagnated due to government regulations forcing some states to only have two insurance providers for the entire state. Free market capitalism greatest achievement is how competition will drive prices down. So, the solution to the monopolies of the insurance giants would be to allow new comers into the game and allow them to sell over state lines.

5). The relaxation of "minimum standards" for insurance policies. The policies themselves should be modular in a sense I can pick and choose what treatments I want to pay for. If I don't need hair plug treatment then I shouldn't have to pay for it. If a woman would never have an abortion through personal decisions or religious conviction she shouldn't have to pay for that service.

6). If the protections of preexisting conditions results in negative economic effects would could have the weakest amongst us, such as the elderly, children or the desperately poor into the medicaid and medicare systems. Allowing the sickest, poorest and weakest to receive treatment.

New customer centered market,Increased free market aspects of competition while increasing consumer protections and help for the weakest amongst us would have been a better option. Younger adults like us would have the option to decline spending the insurance premiums out of our monthly budget and paying expenses out of pocket if we so desired (I'm self employed. I could afford insurance if I want but, I choose not too so I can save the money for later such as for retirement).

Another criticism of Government controlled health care is our social security system. Currently, our social security system is on the verge of destroying America. As of this year, Social security will pay out more than it takes in. There is absolutely no reserve money because greedy politicians kept bleeding the program of its surplus money which was supposed to stay locked away like a savings account. So now we have a lock box full of I.O.U's and increasing expenses for the next fifty years. Current estimation for S.S. costing as much as 80% of the entire U.S. government budget range from 2015 to 2040.

We're swimming in so much debt that even China is shying away from buying it up anymore. So it's illogical to stack more spending on top of a heavy debt riddled government.

Additional criticisms in America come from the political game every election where Democrats dust off the playbook of fear mongering. Every election they claim that Republicans want to take away social security even if the republican platform that year is simple reform in the tax structure so the program won't go into the red. With government controlled health care we will with every election have the same thing. "Evil conservatives want people to die in the streets because they don't want government control in health care". I've already been personally accused of this over the last two years so I know it'll be the same in the political arena.

If I want to travel outside the U.S. I can draw evidence from the National Health Service of the U.K. I certainly don't need to bring those up as they are all well published. Everything from dirty bedsheets simply being "turned over" to keep costs down,or 999 patients being left to wait in ambulances in car parks and holding bays, or in hospital corridors – in some cases for more than five hours – before they can even join the queue for urgent treatment. This is done in order to meet Government targets to treat people within fours hours of admitting them. There is also the well published story of women being forced to give birth in unusual areas because N.H.S. would not send an ambulance.

On to Canada where Brain Tumor patients can wait weeks if not months to see a specialist. Something that would take a week to see a specialist in America.

Not to mention this



So in conclusion, I believe the American medical system should remain privatized, and subject to free market forces with the government taking the mantle of consumer protection architect so everyone can receive inexpensive care. While at the same time maintaining the superior level of care for all citizens.

Edit: No middlemen, no masters. Demand. Supply. Regulation.

Edit@

I feel as if this tread got out of hand... oh well
i think health care is a privilege not a right and i don't mean that poor people shouldn't have health care (because then i wouldn't have health care) but the government shouldn't take money from hard working people and give it to us poor people. I mean it's not that i enjoy not having health insurance but my father always told me never to accept charities and work for my money. So if i ever have health care i want to pay for it not have it given to me; i think it was Hoover who said something along the lines of " As soon as America finds out they can vote for free money America is over"

While I agree with anti-cyclic budget policy, I don't agree with making something as incredibly important to the state as health care a matter of voluntary participation. Because voluntary participation subjects the entire system to charity, and charity has been known to not work since the darkest epoch of western civilization - the middle ages. Which depended very much on charity and voluntary participation by the wealthy and mighty.



The american economy runs on debts. This is nothing new; this is, prima facie, not necessarily something bad. Debts themselves can be multi-faceted; Debt in the individual citizen is rarely enjoyable. For an individual, debt is to be avoided at all cost, because different rules, different laws apply; because an individual can not sling around the huge sums for the same favourable conditions a business can; thus, to an individual, debts often turn into a crushing problem.
On the other hand, debts (or loans) in business can be a very good thing - oftentimes it is preferable to run a small debt for a short while, loaning money for favourable rates, while the corporation's capital is bound in high-return investments.
Now, the most enjoyable debt is national debt. The world's largest debitor nations are, in absolute numbers, the U.S. (with $9600 billion), and Japan. However, this is absolutely fine, because, contrary to libertarian voodoo beliefs, a nation should not be run the same way as a small family with kids; it befits a nation well to be in debt, because that can be an efficient way of mobilizing cheap money - and because a nation is not to turn a monetary profit, it is to benefit its citizens.

National debt in the case of America, is a wondrous thing. It is only the personal experience of "oh my, if I overdraft my account, things will go wrong" that makes people draw the conclusion that national debt is bad.
It isn't:
The role of the U.S. in today's globalized economy is to be a black hole. The U.S. predominantly exist to devour the goods the rest of the world produces, and to supply money, by way of heaping up debts, in return. It works fairly easily: The U.S. import goods from China, the Chinese take the money and re-invest it into dollar bonds, etc., thereby supplying money back to the U.S.
Oh, I know. You're worried about the U.S. meeting the fate of Argentina, but really, you honestly think the IMF (a U.S. puppet) will ever take measures against the U.S.?
Didn't think so.

So, you have nothing to fear from the IMF, and you will be doing the world economy (and your own) some good. Hooray for debt! Debt, in a nutshell, IS the American way of life. From the individual American, to the average American business, to the national economy, everything hinges on debt. It lubricates the machine of capitalism.





All that hinges on the assumption that the free market works, which in my view it does not. The idea of a self-regulatory free market only assumes there to be a positive competition, and convieniently ignores the parallel negative competition, which drives the spiral of any given free market towards oligo- or monopolic structures and market-corrosive behaviour.



Whereas for the current range it costs you 21%, with defense and War on Turr taking up about as much combined, not counting the current wars which are extrabudgetary affairs :D!
So, I think, you're getting away rather cheaply, actually.



China is shying away because they want to keep the Renminbi at where it's at now.




Should I really have to comment on this one? SHOULD I? Sometimes, such as this specific paragraph, I'm never sure whether you're actually being a hilarious troll and stringing me along.




Indeed. Better not to mention it:


I'll rather withhold what I am itching to say at this point, in the best interest of civility.


What superior level?


So, you got the insurance companies, and government regulation. And market places that supposedly organize all that. Makes for plenty of middle men, plenty of masters.

I was (and will be) debating with F_PoD whether the USA should adopt a state run or a privatized health-care scheme.

However what you wrote about "Debt" is utter bullshit. I could go on and on why, but:
1. I'm not an economist.
2. People already did this in concise and good manner:







...finally the very pedantic and libertarian (as far as their action plan goes) but in its assessment correct, "Money as Debt":



This isn't stictly health-care related, but it is the very foundation upon which a pension and health-care system is based. When it has been plundered by the super-rich - inflation is the result of fiscal policy and actions of the participants, and is an invisible tax on everybody's wealth - both of those are in jeopardy.

I'm not going to get into a whole lot of stuff, but car insurance and health insurance are polar opposite type of insurances.


Car insurance covers you in case you wreck and damage somebody else's car, or worse, physically hurt them. That way your insurance company can pay for the damage and the hospital bills.

You can't hurt anyone by not having health insurance. Why should it be demanded that you must have it or else? Am I putting others at risk?

To me you can't compare the two.

No, I agree.

I just mean I'm sure there were a lot of people were against the idea of being forced into getting car insurance. Despite what we may be led to believe, there are a lot of safe drivers out there who waste so much money paying car insurance payments and never get into a traffic collision.

It should be optional just as any other insurance policy. Granted if you don't get car insurance, then you should have to pay the full extent. That will be enough reason for many drivers to get insurance, but if you are a generally save driver you can save those thousands of dollars per year.

Of course I also understand the logistical nightmare of those without insurance trying to scam their way out of not paying for a traffic collision. *shrugs*

Charity or extortion. Hmmm, Charity gives people choice. I'm going to go with Charity. The government is using its power of incarceration to force people to hand money over to a third party. Money these citizens can't afford. Before you draw a comparison between this and a social program like road or food stamps just skip it to save us time. You won't win that argument unless you have a very convincing argument to justify state sanctioned extortion.

I'm sure you'd be irate if your government suddenly demanded that you had to hand over 8+% of your gross income over to ExxonMobil, AIG, Citigroup,etc for a service that you may or may not use. Especially, when they have been shafting the entire population of your country with state sanctioned monopolies.



Frankly, your "view" has no scientific merit. Yes, economics are complex and generally drive toward oligo or monopolistic structures which is what we currently have. Status quo won't affect those monopolies in a negative fashion. Adding legitimate competitors like for example Wal-mart. Yes, just about everyone hates wal-mart but, nobody can argue against the fact that they are the driving force behind the low cost of generic prescriptions and the addition of cheap clinic for the poor in America. Our current system of regulations preserves these monopolies and preserves the exploitation of the American citizens. Government monopoly is no better than a corporate monopoly. Forcing citizens to hand money over to these companies won't stop the monopoly but, actually encourage it since the regulatory aspect of this bill is so weak that flaccid counts as a compliment.





So what if it costs us 21% now? We were predicted to go in the hole with S.S. in 2016 and yet here we are and we're in the hole six years early. In less than a decade it'll cost us 50-80% of our entire GDP. Leaving the rest of the federal programs up to the "charity" of other countries. So having nearly the entire gdp taken up by a single entitlement program forcing the government to take out extreme amounts of debt is getting away cheaply. Don't even get me started on Medicaid and how soon it'll go broke which will add additional drag onto the economy. It's time to leave Wonderland, Alice.

The American government can not handle a budget. Handing something as important as the health of the entire nation into their hands is asking for trouble.


So several European countries and china have decided to stop or reduce the amount of our debt they wish to buy. How long should the world prop up the American Government? How long should America be able to black mail the rest of the world into funding our fiscal irresponsibility?

I'll agree that some levels of debt are fine but, a country shouldn't be habitually in debt but, that's just "libertarian voodoo".




I know right? Criticizing "free medicine" I mean, c'mon what am I thinking That's all just propaganda pushed by the U.K. media in order to trick those stupid Americans into only hurting themselves in the long run. Lol those were just isolated incidents amirite?

Oh wait. Those incidents weren't isolated. There is a mountain of evidence that supports that N.H.S. isn't a good medical system and is in fact harming the British population and dragging down their economy. Socialized medicine is perfect, so any criticism is obviously a lie perpetrated by ultra-right wing lunatics. I mean who cares about that pesky notion of *evidence* right?






I'm sorry about that. I forgot that conservative is an offensive word to some people. Should I link you to a source from your side of the political aisle? Would you feel better if I provided a reputable Liberal source that proves the same thing? What about a Canadian or American government study? How about we just skip the partisan politics and deal with the facts. In 2008 wait times for Canadians were above acceptable time constraints. As it currently stands the average wait time is 4 weeks. Let me run that by you again the AVERAGE to begin treatment is 4 weeks.

You've got to hand it to the Canadians, they socialized their medicine and it didn't result in an abomination like the N.H.S. and they didn't drop their level of quality too much and only extended the wait times for an average of 4 weeks. At least it's fre...oh wait...




Our level of Care is superior to the U.k's system and we have higher success rates for treatments such as Cancer than the Canadians. Depending on the particular illness the differences can be anywhere from 2 to 20%. The only thing their systems have done "better" is get more people covered. This can be achieved in the American system by finding a way to drive the cost down. One way I suggested was increased competition such as Wal-mart with their $4 prescriptions and 10$ prescription drug plans for 90days of medication. A simple price change from wal-mart caused the entire pharmacy industry ranging from wal-greens, Rite-Aid,etc to reduce their prices which helped millions of Americans where required prescription drugs.

Side note: I can't compare the Germany, Australian or other systems because I can't find any information on them.



How is there a master in this scenario? I'm the one in control. I can choose where I buy my insurance and the government is in the role of protecting me. In your system, the government is your master, they control your health. My system puts me in control of my health even if I have to use the tool of government to maintain that companies adhere to market principles.

I'm just trying to get out of high school so I couldn't put my full attention to a bunch of stupid shit happening between Obama and the Government who has been ass rapping the American People years before he got into the office. I think he's desperate for change because we haven't had a good President since Truman(or Kennedy).

And for the Insurance, as I said I don't know much about what they've been doing, but I do know when it all comes down to it I'd gladly pay a set amount of money to help anybody else in need, because right now in this world nobody cares for anyone but themselves. Capitalism needs work is all I'm saying, even though it's the best means of a system.

I owe you a rep for being young and interested in politics.



That line sets you apart from what I call the "average American".

Side note; You can blame the current "capitalism" on some people trying to push a "godless" capitalism or a capitalism without a basic underlying morality.

F_PoD, you're bringing me around, not on the issue whether state run health-care is bad (or good) but on the notion that for America it won't help either and as is, the current scheme doesn't solve anything.

However I'd like to point out two things:

First: In the current privatized insurance based system no party is really interested in lowering prices. At first glance one would say insurance companies are - since with cheaper procedures and medication they could cut their costs - however it's not that simple. What they're interested in is maximizing profit. As long as they can push these costs onto the insurer or build it into their prices - and their clients paying (since typically this is another big business they can shoulder a lot) - they won't do anything radical. I think has a lot to do with what I'll address second. Furthermore since medical expenses can be used to generate tax-free "expanses" (kinda like what's done with employee life insurance) the actually insurance buyers might also be interested in "expensive" schemes if it allows them to siphon out money from the company tax-free.

Second: For a free market to function, the number of participants has to be high enough (ergo no monopolies or oligopolies) that their singular production influences the supply-demand. Also entry capital has to be low enough that new participants can enter the market.

You keep bringing up Wal-Mart as the epitome of a "good" monopoly. This is very deceptive. Although their prices are very low, you still pay a lot for those products... and often in more sinister ways than you'd think at a glance. Wal-Mart can keep their prices low, since they literally employ the cheapest labor available. Often times this means their labor is not in the US. This means that although prices will be cheaper, American workers won't earn as much as these jobs are effectively lost. Also this production externalities further costs in wasteful transportation and toxic waste - you usually don't have to pay for these, but such thing have a tendency to still come around and bit you in the ass.

So yeah, Wal-Mart is cheap, but to get their it had to take away your well paying job first. It keeps happening with the various *Marts of business. So far only blue collar jobs were exported, now even areas like IT and R&D are being moved overseas and white collar people finding themselves pumping gas or handling a *mart counter. (...and only 20-30 hours a week, since they won't employ you full time, as then they'd have to pay a lot more benefits after you... so you'll likely still need *another* job, working close to 50-70 hours a week).

Meanwhile corps are turning on the vice and you'll need to do more hours anyway in any job - without more pay (so in effect your wage was just cut) and with your benefits cut.

I'm for *free market*, but for free market to exist you need strong state regulation. Not intervention, regulation. However it seems the corporations have taken over the state... and no, primarily I'm not talking about the Congress or White House. The FED - that's where the real stinking fish is.

I haven't been really able to look into what the new health care bill entails, so I do not think I am able to make a judgement on it. That being said, the less government involvement, the better things usually are (beyond the obvious exceptions, of course). I mean, just imagine if the federal govenment had to pick up your garbage every week, think of how much bureaucracy would be involved. So usually I think things are better off left to more local governments or the private sector, whenever possible. This issue, however, is slightly different. I like some of the provisions that have been passed, especially the one that allows children to remain on their parents' plan until they are 26, since I am not 26 yet and my parents have a good insurance plan, this works out to my benefit, also the idea of the exchange markets is not a bad idea since it allows for competition between private providers.

I would prefer that we do away with insurance all together (except catastrophic care) but, that's not practical at this point in time. I would prefer transparency of the industry across the whole spectrum. I remember a gentlemen explaining how we could change the market to a more individual specific model but, I'm not even going to begin to try to pull that from memory as I'll just butcher it and push people away from the idea. The bullet points are putting the insurer in charge of the money so they'll look for the best bang for the buck. He compared three clinics and a hospital in a large city in Florida and compared the prices. One of the clinics charged 1/3rd of the price for the same procedure as a hospital. The only difference is the hospital had a shinier machine. Further in his speech he gave an example of how an uninsured patient can actually get a cheaper rate than a insured person. The trick was you save the doctor the hassle of jumping through all the hoops for medicare or insurance paper work so they'll knock off 10+% for it.

The problem of getting more people into the market isn't something I have found a solution to.

What you pointed out is exactly why I support the idea of reform. We certainly needed it but, HR 7248 wasn't the way to go.



Lets be clear, I don't think there is any "Good" monopoly. Monopolies are generally bad and should be done away with. Some exceptions occur like power companies since it's impractical to have power lines for two dozen power companies running everywhere.

The rest is stuff I am already aware of and are reasons I'm not too fond of wal-mart. I was simply applauding how wal-mart created free/cheap check up clinics and made the entire industry adopt the same strategy. They also made huge impact on the prescription drug industry with their dirt cheap generics which really helps the poor and elderly.

Their hiring and wage practices are something you and I could write a book on.



Next time you find yourself in America, we should meet up for a beer or something. I know a few good places. Anyways, I'm finding myself shifting towards Ordoliberal..istic point of view when it comes to the economy and regulation but, I don't trust the pack of monkey's we currently have in office with the power of regulation. I am somewhere between laissez faire and Ordoliberal. Let the market work on it's own which means no subsidies or tax breaks to "encourage" certain behavior and the governments role in regulation is to make sure companies adhere to the market principles and to protect consumers from unfair practices (while leaving room for people to make stupid decisions).

How can you trust someone who votes for a bill they don't even read?*

*I find this Hilarious, the congressmen didn't read the health care bill and accidentally removed themselves from their cushy health care plan. Apparently there is a god and he has a fabulous sense of humor.

Edit:

Hot Air.com

New york times.

I had a good laugh at that as well. I have never trusted politicians, and that made me trust them even less.

YAY! Complete summary of exactly what is up. I agree with every single thing you said, word for word. This bill is so not right, I can't believe we FORCED TO BUY SOMETHING regardless if we can afford it or want it. I think once people get letters in the mail notifying them the are going to be fined, then letters notifying them they are going to go to jail for not paying teir fines, all hell will break loose.

Although I agree with F_PoD's assessment that the reform is unlivable and won't solve the problem, I can't endorse any program that promotes "opting out" of health care.

My reason is simple: health care is not a luxury but a basic human need.
If we completely privatize health-care we will inevitably make it unavailable for the most poor. Especially in America a lot of damage has been done to institutional health-care.

I don't say that each and every person should be eligible for each and every medical procedure to preserve and extend his life. If it were merely a question of will then YES, I'd say that that should be the case. Unfortunately medical expenses have risen dramatically over the last couple of decades. NO, unfortunately, not all of it is due legal or fiscal reasons, a great portion of the price rise is also due the sheer complexity and material use of modern medicine.

So for the next couple of decades society as a whole won't be able to finance (not as in, finance as a public program through taxes, but finance as pay it et all) the health-care of everyone.

However *SOME* health-care SHOULD be provided. Things like vaccination (a lot of damages was done over the years by nut-jobs and idiots - thanks to them diphtheria and polio are about to reappear), basic dental-care (amalgam dental fillings are cheap and good enough for most people - I have them too) and basic life saving operations (trauma care, appendectomy, setting bones, etc).

As is, a lot of people can't even afford these, when in fact the country should be more than able to finance these things and loosing people to such ailment is actually a drain on the national budget (since dead or crippled people pay no taxes and produce no goods).

A good part of this has to do with the insane greed and callousness of the super-rich.

No, not a direct "killing of the poor", but a conscious and unrepentant promotion of selfishness and wealth accumulation through under any cost through whatever means. The adoration, idealization of winning and winners closely ties into this.

I have nothing against rich people but the mere possession of wealth - be it an insane fortune that shadows the GDP of some countries - is no whatsoever guarantee for a person's human decency.

The later takes a lot more and is more about what you do for others than for yourself. It might also do a lot with classical puritan values like modesty, sacrifice and hard working. Americans are quick to proclaim these ideas (as well as how pious they are), but in actually following them I find it harder and harder to see actual examples.

Ever since Reagenomics, success (as in financial success) has been pushed as the ultimate goal and the embodiment of the American dream even at the detriment of these values.

Winning is everything, regardless how you got there and cheating is fine as long as you're not caught. If you dare speak out against this cult of "success", or what's (and what kind of stuff is) done to achieve it, you're labeled a looser, for only losers whine, winners are all smiles. If you're annoying you're told to "move on", "get over it" (read: get out of my fucking face!).

Bit by bit, most Americans have convinced themselves, that they're the one at fault, that it's their fault that they're not rich and famous. It was only their own shortcomings that condemned them to poverty and toil.

Every person in America regardless if they are legal citizen, illegal alien or an unlucky visitor can receive health care. If you can't pay for the treatment then everyone else is forced to pay the tab. This leads to an increase in cost of running hospitals as medicine isn't free, neither are emergency rooms or the staff. So these costs are passed onto everyone else. Another side effect of this "free" health care is waiting times in hospitals E.R.'s has increased. We should be looking at cost reduction methods to bring about affordable health care.

I continue to stand against Government mandated insurance. As I said earlier, Americans who are already saddled with crippling levels of debt simply can't afford to spend this money. Unless you qualify for an exemption you're screwed and won't get a subsidy or any similar benefit. So we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Force Americans into ruin or force the country to saddle even more debt which will result in decreased entitlement benefits and higher taxes. Increased personal or business taxes will stall any economic recovery.

The Massachusetts health care is the basic foundation to the current bill and it's crippling the state's economy. this article explains it better.

I really need access to data on Germany's health care system or any other country that has mandatory insurance and how they managed to get it to work.

Side note; At least we somewhat agree on the issue. We differ on the delivery.

Edit: why healthcare costs so much.

I feel honored that you'd place me apart from the average American, because I'm defiantly not average lol.