WSJ: Ten GOP Health Ideas for Obama

[mogrovejo]

Sure. What's next? A dissertation on the Geary-Khamis dollar?

I don't think you are - otherwise, why the reference to an Argentinian dentist?

Really? You go to jail if you don't purchase private insurance?
You need to keep up with the thread and what you post.

No, if I don't pay for the public system they send me to jail. If I dont' pay for my private insurance, I just run a higher risk of dying sooner.

It works fine. It's not faultless, but the burden is on you to prove that in the vast majority of the cases it doesn't work. Furthermore, that you don't like or agree with what you personally deem functional service doesn't amount to failure.

I've just posted an article that proves you're full of BS about the access to dental care.

Plus, I think you completely miss the point: I'm paying for it. If it's working and it doesn't work for me, than there's an easy solution: exempt me from paying for it. What's the problem? If it works so well, it shouldn't be a problem, there will be tons of people willing to be part of it and pay for it.

It's very easy to say "hey, my product is great, it works!" when you can force people to buy your stuff, isn't it?

Then you're completely unaware why people go bankrupt in this country with regards to healthcare spending.

Quick question: how much money a middle-class American spends on health-care in health-care premiums+taxes during his life span?


In any case, you're confused. Even you admit I was responding to this:

Originally Posted by ElNono
No, you pay because you choose to pay. If you couldn't pay, you would still be able to get service without going bankrupt.

What does this have to do with America? You probably just wanted to insert the dramatic anecdote, even though you can't prove that less people would be bankrupted or lifes would be saved with the system you propose.

No, we have a scam by insurance companies in the US. When people are old enough to require increased healthcare spending, they toss them to the public system. In the meantime, they collude to concentrate markets and keep premium prices up.

No? No? Of course yes.

I repeat what I said: you have a mixed system in the US and the American government spends more in health care per capita than any other government, including the French or the Italian or whatever.

Your theory is odd considering that insurance companies don't really make extraordinary profits. I understand you have been listening to nothing but that narrative for years and you've grown accostumed to it, but sometimes facts are a real pain in the ass.

They can certainly do certain things a policeman does.

So can I. Your point is? That we can have the government managing restaurants as well? Maybe low-cost restaurants that would complement the existent offer that prices out so many people? What about cars? Housing industry? Clothes? Supermarkets? Farms?

Defence and justice are services that only the state can provide due to the requirement of neutrality.

Again, are we doing away with taxes?

I hope that most of them are gone as soon as possible. The idea that "taxes already exist so let's spend some more" is too ridiculous to merit a discussion.

I didn't omit 'available' right next to 'offered'. You did.

Available? I refer you to the britains looking for a dentist. Your idea that socialized health-care would prevent rationing is hilarious.

As long as you're part of the union, that's a 'domestic' car for all intents and purposes.

My wife is a registered nurse. That's how oblivious I am to that fact.
But that's another scam for another thread: The government backed student loans.

Do doctors in Europe have the standard of living of janitors or primary school teachers? It's rhetorical questions, BTW. I know the answer and you do too.

This is what you posted:

That's your argument? It reads a lot more like an unsubstantiated rant to me.

Funny.

American doctor -> huge costs to be trained -> bigger salary to pay for aforementioned costs -> more costly health-care to the consumer
+
European doctor -> huge costs to be trained -> doesn't need a higher salary to pay for those costs -> less costly health-care to the consumer
=
OMG!! AMericans spend a lot more money than Europeans in health-care!!!111!

Yet, there are no free lunches. Somebody pays for those training costs for European doctors. The idea that if you hide costs they dissipate isn't a very good one. It only makes things less transparent and therefore less efficient.

This is my argument about the studies, btw. They only account for expenses directly related to health-care: the money that Europeans spend on education through taxation doesn't enter the calculation.

Of course doctors in Europe don't have the standard of living of primary school teachers - that's exactly my point. But do you want American doctors to have a lower standard of living then they currently have? If not, how exactly to you want to make them earn less? What do you mean by "domestic cars"? What's exactly your proposal? How exactly are you going to convince doctors to reduce their salaries and standard of living? Or is this just wishfull thinking?

Something to substantiate this please? I mean, I know people go to jail for evading taxes, but I also know people get tax exemptions/rebates under certain pressure conditions.

It's very easy: calculate how much an average person spends on health-care, including mandatory tax payments, in Europe (hint: in some cases 1/5 of your earnings to go pay the health-care systems). Then try to figure out how many could have used that money to avoid bankruptcy.

[mogrovejo]

Or the laters will adapt to offer a complementary service to the formers...

Why?

I mean, if the non-profit companies are more efficient and therefore able to offer better prices, why would we need the laters? They would simply disappear, the market would kill them because nobody would buy their services. I think this is absolutely obvious.

[mogrovejo]

Insurance companies operate in a quasi-monopolistic mode. Not too many markets in which to make a comparison, are there?

Unfortunately there are plenty of monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic markets. But that's completely irrelevant for the discussion.

Don't be thick. In any contemporary discussion of a public option, there has also been a provision for private insurance. Where do you suppose the line of deliniation would form? Most likely income with those with lower or restricted incomes moving towards public option and those with cash sticking with a private plan.

No, it's not as explained above.

I've explained the concept multiple times. Inexplicably, you fail to recognize that.

Ditto the above.

Look, you're not interested in a discussion. This is turning into some weird validation exercise. You've done nothing but refute without a single counter arguement. Fine....if you want to sit and pick apart a post, knock yourself out kid. When you're ready to propose a solution of your own, I'll be ready to listen.

Okay, you are unable to explain why would non-profit health-insurance companies be more careful exercising their bargaining power than for-profit ones.

I'm not surprised; I strongly suspect you could win a Nobel prize if you were able to explain it, btw.

[Winehole23]

I refer you to the britains looking for a dentist.

The British, or Englishmen, we say in English. I'm tempted to say your bad English impairs your comprehension of others, but it's probably just your high-handed self-regard that keeps getting in the way.

You blame other posters when you don't understand something instead of acknowledging that there might be limits to your own knowledge. Telling.

[mogrovejo]

One easy thing that people who sustain that a non-profit health-insured would be more efficient and drive prices down could do to prove they're right: get together and form one. If they are right, that non-profit insurer would offer the smallest prices on the market, causing for-profit companies to lower their premiums or to close doors.

I'm always appalled by the fact that people who know so much and are so sure about what works and what doesn't work aren't more willing to put their money when their mouth is.

[ElNono]

I don't think you are - otherwise, why the reference to an Argentinian dentist?

Because Argentina has a mixed socialized-private system? Just as good an example as anywhere else. Don't forget we were talking about availability, not price.

No, if I don't pay for the public system they send me to jail.

Do you go to jail for not paying the private system?
You can keep moving the goalposts all you want, but the thread is there for everyone to see.

I've just posted an article that proves you're full of BS about the access to dental care.

Where?

Plus, I think you completely miss the point: I'm paying for it. If it's working and it doesn't work for me, than there's an easy solution: exempt me from paying for it. What's the problem? If it works so well, it shouldn't be a problem, there will be tons of people willing to be part of it and pay for it.

No, what you want is a cop-out. People don't get to micromanage what taxes are spent on. You get to vote for people that say how they're going to spend the money, period. The money is spent wether you like it or not, and wether you think it's useful or not.

It's very easy to say "hey, my product is great, it works!" when you can force people to buy your stuff, isn't it?

So now you claim it works because people are forced to but it?
Didn't you just say it doesn't work?
You need to make up your mind.

Quick question: how much money a middle-class American spends on health-care in health-care premiums+taxes during his life span?

Depends on the insurance the individual has.

In any case, you're confused. Even you admit I was responding to this:
What does this have to do with America? You probably just wanted to insert the dramatic anecdote, even though you can't prove that less people would be bankrupted or lifes would be saved with the system you propose.

If you understood what's not working on the American model, you would know what this have to do with America and why I specifically brought it up.
But you don't have to take my 'dramatic anecdote' at face value if you don't want to. Feel free to read all about it here.

No? No? Of course yes.

I repeat what I said: you have a mixed system in the US and the American government spends more in health care per capita than any other government, including the French or the Italian or whatever.

Please, we have nothing of the sort. You're way past being disingenuous here. Don't omit the fact that the public system does not compete with the private system. Furthermore, the public system shoulders the burden of taking care of those that have a higher requirement for service.

Your theory is odd considering that insurance companies don't really make extraordinary profits. I understand you have been listening to nothing but that narrative for years and you've grown accostumed to it, but sometimes facts are a real pain in the ass.

First of all, my 'theory' is no such thing. Plenty of countries implement different variations of it, and you know that quite well. And as long as there's a public option to compete with the private insurance companies, I really couldn't care less what their profits are.

So can I. Your point is? That we can have the government managing restaurants as well? Maybe low-cost restaurants that would complement the existent offer that prices out so many people? What about cars? Housing industry? Clothes? Supermarkets? Farms?

There's simply a lot of those you can do without. So, in my personal opinion, no, the government doesn't need to get in those markets.
That said, the government already DOES provide a safety net for those that cannot earn enough to purchase enough food for the entire family by means of food stamps.

Defence and justice are services that only the state can provide due to the requirement of neutrality.

Sure. That doesn't mean they cannot provide it for a lot less money.

I hope that most of them are gone as soon as possible. The idea that "taxes already exist so let's spend some more" is too ridiculous to merit a discussion.

I would recommend you sit while you wait. It will be a long wait indeed.

Available? I refer you to the britains looking for a dentist. Your idea that socialized health-care would prevent rationing is hilarious.

So you bring up ONE case, in ONE country with socialized medicine, and that has to be the standard?
I gave you an example of a country with socialized medicine that refutes your case, but you refuse to accept it.

Funny.

American doctor -> huge costs to be trained -> bigger salary to pay for aforementioned costs -> more costly health-care to the consumer
+
European doctor -> huge costs to be trained -> doesn't need a higher salary to pay for those costs -> less costly health-care to the consumer
=
OMG!! AMericans spend a lot more money than Europeans in health-care!!!111!

Yet, there are no free lunches. Somebody pays for those training costs for European doctors. The idea that if you hide costs they dissipate isn't a very good one. It only makes things less transparent and therefore less efficient.

This is my argument about the studies, btw. They only account for expenses directly related to health-care: the money that Europeans spend on education through taxation doesn't enter the calculation.

Perhaps the US should move more towards an European model for doctor's education then.

Of course doctors in Europe don't have the standard of living of primary school teachers - that's exactly my point. But do you want American doctors to have a lower standard of living then they currently have? If not, how exactly to you want to make them earn less? What do you mean by "domestic cars"? What's exactly your proposal? How exactly are you going to convince doctors to reduce their salaries and standard of living? Or is this just wishfull thinking?

I absolutely do. I rather see a doctor more interested in medicine than in it for the money. I don't want them to starve, or have the standard of living of janitors or primary school teachers, but sure. They would need to take a cut here too. And I'm also including myself having to pay more taxes also.

It's very easy: calculate how much an average person spends on health-care, including mandatory tax payments, in Europe (hint: in some cases 1/5 of your earnings to go pay the health-care systems). Then try to figure out how many could have used that money to avoid bankruptcy.

Strawman, again. That's an imaginary post-facto bankruptcy. Not a bankruptcy as a result of paying for healthcare.

[mogrovejo]

ElNono, I'll answer in detail later, but are you in favour of a public option to compete with private companies that can't be subsidized by the taxpayer - meaning it can't operate at a loss?

Thanks for admiting that the cost analysis are bogus!

[ElNono]

ElNono, I'll answer in detail later, but are you in favour of a public option to compete with private companies that can't be subsidized by the taxpayer - meaning it can't operate at a loss?

Not necessarily. I would say being profit-neutral would be a required mandate, much like the postal service. I think it should be budgeted and funded like any other state provided service.

Thanks for admiting that the cost analysis are bogus!

I don't recall admitting to that. Quote please?

[Stringer_Bell]

• Make medical breakthroughs accessible to patients. Breakthrough drugs, innovative devices and new therapies to treat rare, complex diseases as well as chronic conditions should be sped to the market. We can do this by cutting red tape before and during review by the Food and Drug Administration and by deploying information technology to monitor the quality of drugs and devices once they reach the marketplace.
The solutions presented here can be the foundation for a patient-centered system. Let's hope the president has the courage to embrace them.

Awesome! If there's one GOP idea we should all take away from this, it's this one. Stop the corporations from medicating people instead of curing them. Fast track testing for new drugs, herbal remedies, treatments, etc that can heal people and help them become productive Americans again. Make open a new world to doctors to treat patients holistically and not discourage them from using solutions other than mass produced treatments/meds with limited advancement. Cut the red tape and dependence on the drug companies that make tons of money treating symptoms instead of diseases. Stem cells would be included in this too, right? Wow, that's courageous and the GOP is making waves with this one!