You mean one of the most expensive in the world that provide diminished returns for that money? Or the one that leaves millions of people uninsured or underinsured? How about the one that causes over half of bankruptcies in the country? If it's such a good system, why does it dump the high risk people to a public funded system that both you and I have to pay for?
Is life just for those that can afford to stay alive? This is the very first question we need to answer.
Then we can discuss how to improve the status quo. But don't come telling me the status quo is fine and dandy.
Will you please get off that soapbox and be constructive, rather than just ranting and raving?
This is a free nation. People are free to form a corporation. If you think there is a better way, then put your money where your mouth is rather than being an authoritarian , telling people what to do with their money.
How about you answer the questions instead of deflecting them?
Why does it has to be through a corporation? Why couldn't it be through, say, a cooperative? Plenty of non-profits out there that 'put their money where their mouth is'.
Explain to me how non-profits are 'authoritarian' and 'tell people what to do with their money'...
You missed my point.
Stop complaining about the corporations. If you don't like how they operate, put in your own money with like minded individuals, and start your own non-profit. Stop trying to tell others how to operate. It's simple If you can make a more cost effective health care operation, you can put the others out of business, or force them to lower their costs.
Compe ion works!
I'm not saying non-profits are authoritarian. I'm saying you are!
Works so well that we have one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world that has diminished results to show for it.
It's so great that we have millions of people excluded from proper coverage!
If the free market is so great, why do they need to dump old people that are most likely to require the most coverage to a public funded system?
Perhaps the Free Market doesn't work that well for healthcare?
You can keep on singing the Free Market praises, but we have decades of history that prove you wrong as far as healthcare is concerned.
Is life just for those that can afford to stay alive? This is the very first question we need to answer.
And there are non-profits that attempted to compete. But corporations know how to dump prices temporarily to gain a market or drive compe ion out of business. The healthcare pie is too big to just walk away from it. That's exactly why you see the amount of lobbying that you see. Short of government intervention, you're not going to take these people out of the business.
I repeat, I don't like the current proposition any more than you do. But for real reform, we need to contemplate the fact that the currently for-profit corporation run system compounds the healthcare costs problem, not help it.
If that's what's stopping the non-profits, then simply pe ion congress making it illegal to sell health services at a loss.
"Compe ion works"
In some markets, but not in for-profit health insurance.
"make a more cost effective health care operation"
barriers to entry are too high. That's why half-measures like insurance exchanges, restricted to within a state regulation jurisdiction, are doomed. They can't obtain the critical mass to cover even the no-profit low overheads.
A national public option for all (including employees free to stop their group insurance, rather than being forced to have the group plans "crammed down their throats"with a pool of tens of millions with a year, and over 100M in a couple of years.
To make a national public option compe ive with for-profit employer group plans, 75% of the public option premiums are payable before tax, just like group plans. Why a tax break for-profit insurance but no tax-break for no-profit public option?
America loves self-starting entrepreneurs (a ing myth) but self-employed entrepreneurs pay 18% more for the individual insurance vs same coverage for a group plan, AND pay for health insurance after taxes.
That tax policy exposes the entrepreneurial myth: "don't be sucker working for yourself, go work in some corp as a wage slave".
So now you want government regulation? Make up your mind.
I never said some regulations weren't necessary. Selling a service below cost to break compe ion is an unscrupulous practice that I have no problem putting a stop to.
Thing is, I have never heard of what you speak of. I assume you're being honest, but for all I know, you're making it up.
What ever you want as a solution, I will not accept one that harms legitimate business practices. If you say a non-profit is the way to go, then look for solutions to that end instead of excuses why it cannot be done.
"Selling a service below cost to break compe ion is an unscrupulous practice that I have no problem putting a stop to."
"Killing" the compe ion is as American as apple pie, as is killing, wars, and guns in general. In fact, it's every businessman's wet dream, to run a monopoly like Bill Gates' (Gates used a dirty trick to kill DR-DOS).
What's unscrupulous about a large corp selling at or below cost to kill the compe ion? dog-eat-dog predation is The Great American Way.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-07-2010 at 02:33 PM.
Legitimate business practices makes sense where legitimate business make sense.
You diligently skipped over the part of my post where the free market has been historically unable to provide better care or lower costs for the amount spent on those business. What they have been able to do, however, is to show their profit growth year after year. So, as far as free market business go, they're doing real well. The thing is, unless you're a shareholder, do you care about their profits or you care about affordable and accesible care?
Again, you keep avoiding the question, but this is what this really amounts to:
Is life only for those that can afford to stay alive?
I suspect that your answer to this question is a resounding Yes, but you don't really have the balls to publicly say it. And this is intrinsically where we differ.
Your knowledge of the Digital Research issues is obviously flawed. That said, I don't like Micro Soft, or their practices. However, you portrayal is wrong, and again you prove yourself a fool.
P.S...
I was using CPM in the late 80's.
That's because you want an absolute answer to a question that isn't that simple. I have stated several facets of this in the past. You refuse to acknowledge that lawsuits and regulations make the USA system one of the most expensive, and that those under foreign government care don't have the same legal recourse.
I will say this. I honestly believe that private, for profit systems, are more cost effective than a USA government bureaucracy administering the same care, under the same regulations and threat of suit.
I'm sorry you don't care about others. I do. I don't know is any of my mutual funds carry any significant health care stocks, but I would never be unconcerned to the stock profits of others, just because I didn't have any. You continually take stances that are against the heart of America. How about moving back to your home nation. Take some of the other liberals here with you.
In some cases, yes. If we are just prolonging the natural process of death, then why should it come from others? If individuals who can pay for it, do, then fine. However, should others pay the cost, just because people are afraid of the next life?
It is yes. Thing is, I don't see health care as a right. I believe as a people, we have the morality to help others, but there is still only so much we can do, and nothing should be imposed on those who don't want to help others. What's next after your dream of covering everyone with 100% of all medical procedures available?
Buy everyone their own island?
To me, what you desire is about as practical as giving every US citizen 20 ounces of gold. There isn't enough in the world to do that.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-07-2010 at 03:31 PM.
"Your knowledge of the Digital Research issues is obviously flawed. "
you go first with how Bill Gates and his lawyer father destroyed the OS compe ion. You're ideological bull is always entertaining.
Once the OS was selected by IBM, game over. It became the industrial standard. This isn't that same as health care. Can we be done with this tangent now? If you wish to continue, start a new thread. These are my last words on the topic in this thread.
It's been repeatedly shown to you that lawsuits and payments to such lawsuits only account for 6% of the total spending on care. Furthermore, what you tout as the savior has already been implemented in the state of Texas, and has not produced the savings you claim.
That you keep ignoring the facts is really irrelevant. Your proposed solutions to the problem have been attempted and do not work.
You say it, and I honestly think you believe it. But reality does not agree with you. Then again, it doesn't have to be for-profit or the government. Not everything is black or white. Perhaps there's a private non-profit way to do this, or some other combination.
We simply care about different things. The last thing I'm concerned about is the stock profits of others. I am concerned, however, that those who are not as fortunate as you or I can be healthy and be productive members of this nation. That a temporary illness won't set them back 10 or 15 years.
And honestly, I'm going to do exactly the opposite of what you ask me to do. I'm going to apply for my American citizenship as soon as I'm qualified and I'm going to make sure I can vote to keep you, the ones that think stock profits rule over the wellbeing of a nation, in the minority.
Have you ever heard of the Hippocratic Oath? Medicine is much more than a for-profit venture. We strive to have a healthy society of individuals so they can contribute to it, so we all can reap the benefits.
I don't see healthcare as a right either. That said, I see it as an important pillar of a nation, much like security, or other services that the state provides for the well being of it's citizens. I'm actually a realist, and I understand that's impossible to provide everyone with 100% of all medical procedures, and stated so plenty of times (that you just to ignore it doesn't make it any different).
I also find it very hypocritical from you that you feel like lecturing me about not caring for other people then proceed to defend those that don't want to help others in the next paragraph. Again, I don't think you have thought this through very well.
I don't think buying an island for everyone will be a betterment to society, no. I don't think handing gold to everyone is either. But I'm starting to get a feel that you really don't know what you're talking about, and that's probably why you felt those things are similar to affordable, accessible health care.
What would be next up would be another topic that I feel needs to be addressed at some point, and that is the spiraling costs of tertiary education. But that's a different topic for a different thread.
I don't believe the 6% figure, never seen any reliable sources. It is impossible for the direct and indirect costs to be that low. It costs doctors with many specialties $250k to $300k per year for insurance due to the legal system abuses. If that is only 6% the cost, then how much do you pay an hour for a doctor visit?
As for me getting a bit silly on the topic, it's simply because I am growing tired of the topic. Texas did not do tort reform correctly. To use them as an example, against me, is wrong. We have addressed this aspect before.
Screw "cost" as a rationale for limiting potential legal liability from medical errors.
My God, can both major "sides" in this forum kill themselves off?
"It is impossible for the direct and indirect costs to be that low."
To your ideological bias, of course. Facts can be ignored.
The tort-reform-as-making-diff-in-reducing-health-costs myth has been deflated by everyone who has looked at the stats.
The actual medical malpractice payouts are a tiny part of the total national health care cost, and then only a tiny portion of those are "frivolous". 6% of total health care costs way higher than any number I've ever seen.
"It costs doctors with many specialties $250k to $300k per year for insurance due to the legal system abuses"
Across 900K US doctors, the average malpractice insurance price is about $1000/month. iow, about the same avg price as the health insurance for a family of 4. Of course, the avg doctor makes a lot more than the avg family of 4.
Not by any stats I've seen. Link please.
That is the direct cost associated with are sue crazy society. Have a figure for the indirect costs?
Never seen that before. Link please?
Unless malpractice insurance can be shown to negatively impact the quality of care, why exactly is a putative "conservative" concerned about its cost?
There's plenty of studies available if you're actually willing to change your mind on the subject, which you clearly are not:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/49xx/doc4...alpractice.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1
Article pointing to some more studies:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=az9qxQZNmf0o
It just so happens that you grow tired very quickly of topics where your ideals don't align with reality. This is one of those cases.
Now you have the links. Are you going to read them?
According to the CBO, it's 2%... I grew it all a 4% considering it's a 6 year old report, but we both know that's being VERY generous.
One would think a "conservative" would be hesitant to interfere with our common law tradition.
If the quality of care is generally improved by the cost of malpractice insurance, instead of negatively affected by the moral hazard of insurance, what's the problem?
He's not concerned with quality of care. He's concerned about protecting his little sand castle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote