Thread: New Healthcare Bill Passed - Your thoughts?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

So responsible = wealthy now?

If the ability to pay $150 a month makes a person qualify as wealthy. $150 is a ton of money in socialist countries because they are poor, but here it is no big deal.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I like this map. It really illustrates how medieval the USA is. And, I'd hate to say it, but how ignorant and fearful the people are. You don't hear anyone bitching about libraries.

Most americans only know what Fox news tell them, and FOX news isn't really news, it is mostly right wing opinions. Most americans are like Joe the plumber. It is sad.

dude are you living in the same US as me? cause the US I live in hired a half black democrat who had universal healthcare as one of his main platforms to be president by a LARGE margin. That doesnt sound like something that would happen if MOST americans are like joe the plumber watching fox news. Any poll that you see more people against healthcare than for is probably ran by someone who wants to make healthcare look bad.

As I said earlier in this thread, Im not against universal healthcare per se. I just think it would be more efficient to be run at the state level and at the same time it wouldnt infringe on states rights, because the ones who dont would lose a lot of people and tourists.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If the ability to pay $150 a month makes a person qualify as wealthy. $150 is a ton of money in socialist countries because they are poor, but here it is no big deal.

rent: $500
utilities: $100
phone: $50
gas: +-$100
car insurance: $30
food: +-$220
$1000/month
for one person. If you have children then multiply that. And this doesn't include things like clothes and all the other little fees and ]contingencies. What if your car breaks down and you can't get to work? $150 sometimes is a big deal for more and more Americans, especially if you make minimum wage, are unemployed or underemployed. And does this include dental?

Thank God I don't work for minimum wage! But I still can't afford health insurance. But luckily I take care of myself. But still, what if I get a toothache?

so Dannon do you think this health care reform is a good thing

Originally Posted by MementoMori

I'm not so much pissed about the debt, and i wouldn't care to have it if they didn't blatantly tell us we have no choice in the matter of if we can have it or not. They're not saying "here we're going to create this for you as an option to what you already have"... instead they're saying "give me that which you have (throws it away) and take this, and if you refuse then i'll fine you and if you don't pay your fines i'll find another way of dealing with you"...... Where the F**** did my choice in the matter go? where did yours, or any of the americans posting on this site? Huh?! you all have just been raped by your government and there's nothing anyone can do about it but turn your head and pretend it didn't happen.... it's ok though, because that's how most rape scenarios play out. So have fun with that, maybe you can ask the american government for a little lubricant "understanding"... doubt it though

I've just purchased mine and my sons tickets, now i'm applying for jobs in Canada (only temporary until i can get something situated somewhere in Europe)....

hope the fools haven't screwed me and put me on the no fly list...

Edit: They just need to go ahead and declare this a socialist tyrannical government that will do as it pleases, and set up "booths" for Americans to come "turn in" their freedoms... i wouldn't be so mad if they didn't associate the country with the word "freedom" and they just replaced it with the truth... then i would be like well they said that we have no say in anything, at least they didn't lie to us...

Well I hope you're wrong about the government going tyran. I don't agree with being forced to buy insurance, but if they made it affordable for you then I wouldn't really care. I thought you could keep your insurance if you were happy with it, just you can't be tossed out if your sick.

Either way, I respect your opinions. How would you feel about public option?

On the verge of death here's what "socialist" health care did for me,

Two local ambulance rides, four paramedics, three doctors (one at my local hospital, and two at the hospital I was transfered to), a helicopter ride to the foot hills hospital (thats a pilot, and two advanced critical care heli-medics), two ICU nurses, two registered nurses, a surgeon, one and a half months of in hospital care, six months of routine home check ups, a wack of all sorts of supplies and medicines for years.

What did I pay? Zero dollars. This is only ONE incident out of the many, many times I have utilized my healthcare system.

That was 18 years ago, I am absolutely grateful to every single one of the healthcare professionals that took part in my emergent and non-emergent care. "Socialist" healthcare as some of you may call it saved my life and has allowed my family and I to live happily and debt free.

All opposed to a government controlled health care, you can have your crap system. I understand the american economy is in turmoil, and this bill is far from universal healthcare. Change is slow, but universal healthcare for all americans is not impossible within the near future. In the meantime I and every single person I know will be VERY comfortable letting the government of canada tax our cheques in exchange for such wonderful care.

So in the event something does go horribly horribly wrong, or you are just stopping in for a general check-up every now and then, you can sure as hell expect equal care to what I was granted, nothing more, nothing less. Thats something I promise you would be happy with.

I'm not opposed to universal healthcare, if they were to put it into taxes and stretched it, and cut back on some crap we're spending taxes on that we don't need i'd pay for it. But putting a bill in my lap every month that i didn't ask for and basically putting a gun to my forehead and demanding money is not how it should be done.

Xei, i didn't come in this thread to debate or have my thoughts "diagnosed", so stop trying to point out how dumb it is that i'm going from a country currently beginning Universal Healthcare to some that already have it.... I know they already have it. I prefer their methods of robbery to America's, plus, i find other countries more appealing. Dannon Oneironaut pretty much summed it up... I don't care for the healthcare, i wouldn't mind it, the only thing that i feel violated by is that i no longer have the choice of do i want to purchase insurance or not.... America is becoming one big scam....

i may just stay and fight it... but my better judgement always defers to a peaceful resolution, which in this case is to leave the country while i can.

Edit: @ louie54: sorry, didn't see your post, i would like public option, to choose who i want, but then again if they tell me i HAVE TO PICK ONE OR THE OTHER.... well then it's the same boat i'd be rowing in. I now have to choose my sons college fund or insurance and not getting fined.... thanks america...

We'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully we'll have public option sooner or later.

Well good luck on your travels. Myself, if I didn't see any change in our health industry, I've already thought about maybe moving to Australia or something. I would do reasearch on how their system works and input from their citizens ofcourse.

Until then, I'm just going to give it a chance. Hopefully through time, we'll see better things.

It wouldn't be that much if weren't paying a third to a half of our income in taxes every month. With health care, how much will it go up to? Two thirds of out income going to taxes? Thats insane and stupid.

Besides, this bill doesn't give health to everyone. It forces you to buy insurance then taxes if you don't have it. So the poor person who can't affored health care, gets taxed. That way they have no health care, or money. Of course, at the end of the year they might give you the money back in a tax credit that only applies to health care, which you still can't affored.

This was pretty hilarious.

Anyway, I'm with Tao/BlackEagle/Naiya/Spart on this one. Unsure. I'm definitely for Universal Healthcare, but, how is this really going to play out? If it plays out at all, that is. When I lived in NYC, there was a great healthcare program. Everyone I knew had it. In Virginia, there is none. And a shit load middle class folks do not have health care. We need reforms. VA is actually one of the states (along with Iowa?) that passed a law earlier stating residents did not have to be insured.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

"Fox isn't news, it's the largest trolling experiment ever conducted." - ExoByte (I think he said this a few years ago. You'll have to ask him )

I think that was pretty recently

(Entertainment -> Non Biased News)

If noone answers to my two previous posts, I feel as if I have made a point.

Originally Posted by dajo

Does anyone live in a country with socialized health care, who is compaining about it here?

Originally Posted by dajo

I'm really curious if any of the people living in a country with socialized health
care oppose it. As far as I can tell from my standpoint, it's usually appreciated.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

rent: $500
utilities: $100
phone: $50
gas: +-$100
car insurance: $30
food: +-$220
$1000/month
for one person. If you have children then multiply that. And this doesn't include things like clothes and all the other little fees and ]contingencies. What if your car breaks down and you can't get to work? $150 sometimes is a big deal for more and more Americans, especially if you make minimum wage, are unemployed or underemployed. And does this include dental?

Thank God I don't work for minimum wage! But I still can't afford health insurance. But luckily I take care of myself. But still, what if I get a toothache?

You don't have to have a phone or a car. You can live in a city and ride the bus. Look at your list again and see how much money that saves. It is up to you to budget well, and it is up to you not to be dumb enough to have kids you can't afford to take care of. It is NOT my responsibility to pick up the slack of somebody else's lack of responsibility. We don't need to wreck the American system over the fact that some people blow too much money on stuff other than health insurance. People should at least have a chance to have high quality healthcare. Universal healthcare ruines that chance for even the most responsible and hard working. That is not fair.

Originally Posted by MementoMori

I'm not opposed to universal healthcare, if they were to put it into taxes and stretched it, and cut back on some crap we're spending taxes on that we don't need i'd pay for it. But putting a bill in my lap every month that i didn't ask for and basically putting a gun to my forehead and demanding money is not how it should be done.

Originally Posted by Alric

Besides, this bill doesn't give health to everyone. It forces you to buy insurance then taxes if you don't have it. So the poor person who can't affored health care, gets taxed. That way they have no health care, or money. Of course, at the end of the year they might give you the money back in a tax credit that only applies to health care, which you still can't affored.

I don't know what plan you two object to, but it does not appear to be the one that just passed. There is no taxing or fining of people who can't afford healthcare in this plan. Very likely, a handful of medium-to-large businesses and virtually no individuals will be penalized under this law. People with incomes up to FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT of the poverty line will be subsidized, and small businesses and low income families are exempt from the penalties. The idea is to create 100% participation (or near as possible) while expanding competition among insurers (currently nil in much of the country) and WITHOUT imposing hardship on the presently uninsured.

The more I examine the details of this plan, the more well-crafted it appears to be, though a lot of it will come down to cost and implementation. Memento, I think you'll find the same if you take some more time to look into the details.

Alric, are you seriously objecting that they're not blowing enough smoke up our asses about "giving" us "free" healthcare?

I'll review the points of penalization again, but i'm pretty sure if i absolutely refuse to get healthcare i'll be penalized...

Originally Posted by MementoMori

I'll review the points of penalization again, but i'm pretty sure if i absolutely refuse to get healthcare i'll be penalized...

Well, yes, but even if the penalties weren't there, why would you do that? If you don't object to universal health care on principle, why do you object to being asked to choose your own coverage, thereby keeping market forces in play and allowing the currently insured to stick with their plans? The sliding scale subsidies, with medicaid at one end and tax on "cadillac" plans at the other, are identical in effect to our tax brackets. The main difference, for a citizen, between this plan and just paying your taxes and being able to walk into a hospital or doctor's office is with this plan, you still have the paperwork

The main point of the penalties is to set a deadline for making sure everyone has their coverage squared away, and between now and then there's likely going to be a slew of help available to get it done.

I can see where you're coming from, feeling like you're being forced to do something even if it doesn't actually put you out of pocket, but universal health care is a piece of infrastructure you're going to need in any advanced society, and we've been dragging our feet on it for a long, long time.

Originally Posted by dajo

I think that was pretty recently

(Entertainment -> Non Biased News)

If noone answers to my two previous posts, I feel as if I have made a point.

It is a good question, but our version of Universal Healthcare is nothing like what any other country has as far as I am aware, and so its not a very pertinent question. I for one am not questioning the fact that universal healthcare is a good thing, I am questioning whether our universal health insurance is going to come anywhere close to universal healthcare, or if it is going to be just another insurance industry bailout.

Here are two videos of Ron Paul giving his perspective on healthcare issues. I know I used to argue with his foreign policy views and make fun of people for thinking he could get elected, but the man is an absolute genius.

those vids are pretty well thought out, but I cant help but believe that most people will disregard the second vid just because its on fox...eventhough ron disagrees with them on most other issues lol.

That reminded me of the article I saw the other day, about the IRS agents going through combat training, and how they have been purchasing shotguns, so that they can get ready for the health care bill. I didn't know that, but apparently the IRS field agents go out to arrest people. I thought they used the police.

Any way, everyone should listen to Ron Paul. He is a doctor, and in congress. He obviously knows his stuff, and people who don't even listen and consider what he has to say, are insane.

Originally Posted by Majestic

so Dannon do you think this health care reform is a good thing

I don't fucking know!
I know that the way it is is right now is sick and wrong and corrupt and immoral!
I know the way it should be,
But I don't know how we get there from here. I don't know if baby steps is good or not or if we are going in the right direction or not. I think that it is in the right direction but it is still too corrupt to accept open heartedly.
I have been following this from the beginning and I got disgusted how they took the public option off the table for discussion in the very beginning! There have been huge protests and rallies and coalitions of doctors and nurses but none of it got any mainstream media coverage.
It reminded me of when in Oregon we had a huge forest fire and right after that George Bush came to town to tell us that the forest fire wouldn't have happened if we cut the trees down first. He came to push a bill through that our timber revenue would pay for our libraries. He was advocating free trade and open market and all the yahoos were cheering him on. He came into town with the swat team and he was in a limo with machine guns pointing out the windows. Helicopters flying over my house (and everyone else's). He went up into the forest where the forest fire had taken place. there were local people up there that blocked the road and they were trying to get arrested. Of course they weren't arrested, just handcuffed and then let go. If they were arrested there would be some media coverage. then after all that our libraries closed in a few counties because we didn't have trees to cut down to pay for them because of a forest fire that a logging company probably started. You see, logging companies can't log protected old growth forests on public land, unless there is a forest fire and then it is called "salvaging". Can you imagine what this country is coming to when we have to close our libraries? Libraries should be socialized like they have been since Ben Franklin set them up. George Bush actually told us that we didn't need libraries because now people have computers and the internet.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

There are probably extenuating circumstances such as a lower quality of food. The fact that the gov. subsidizes so much could be another reason.

Subsidizes what? One thing I find that the insurance or pay-as-you-go system lacks in is preventative medicine.

Do you have sources for these claims? Because I don't see how its possible for an industry to drive down costs so far that they screw themselves over.

Spoiler for Airline stuff:

Firstly I'll just establish how I find the airline industry similar to the health industry.

• Both are considered essential services, at any given moment, the government will have to somehow make sure that health care and air travel are offered in the country.
• Both require strict regulation in the name of public safety.
• Both experience very thin profit margins (as opposed to product based enterprises).
• Both require highly skilled employees that should be well paid (pilots and mechanics/doctors and nurses).
• Both require multi-million dollar equipment (planes/hospital equipment).
• Both require many large facilities (airport terminals/hospitals).
• Both have a large steady expense (fuel/medication).
• Both involve a large amount of risk due to a number of external variables (travel trends/a person's health).
• Both require expensive insurance and risk bad PR (crashes/malpractice)

On airline deregulation in the US:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ereg/Tran8.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/bu...7air.html?_r=1

The successful outcome of deregulation has been the Southwest Airlines model. This model aims to provide the lowest possible fares by having the lowest possible expenses, which includes cutting or charging services as much as possible. These airlines (called low cost carriers or LCCs) choke larger or higher quality airlines out of their market by offering prices that can't be competed with (even if it means temporarily taking a loss). Note that for every LCC that is successful, probably 10 go bankrupt.

On the quality of the US airline industry (if you need a comparison, look up the government ran Singapore Airlines, or Emirates Airlines):

http://www.aqr.aero/pressreleases/2008pressrelease.htm

For the consumer, it's not so bad. Nobody really enjoys the airline experience (ESPECIALLY those whore were there in the 60s-70s glory days) but who can complain when you can go almost anywhere for 100$. But for the industry and its employees, it's pure hell.

On the not so glorious salaries of airline pilots in the USA (keep in mind that it takes well over $50,000 to get fully licensed):

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Aviation-...ers-Salary.htm

And lastly just to give you a scare next time you go flying:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5074716.shtml

This would be even scarier in the health industry.

I did watch it, but that's besides the point. You first said they don't provide healthcare now you said they do. Which side of the road are you on?

The reason they "get out of it when they can" is probably due to the fact that they aren't able to take such high-risk cases. Their business is so regulated that they can't use their money efficiently. Their costs are so high that they can't lower the service costs to the consumers so they're not getting as high profits and thus can't take such high-risk consumers. I'm no healthcare expert but that's how it seems to me.

I'll rephrase: "Insurance companies will explore every possibility of getting out of covering your expenses before paying up."

Companies will drop patients because they've dug through their medical records from 20 years back and found a small, unrelated incident which they conveniently label a "preexisting condition". Or they will review the recommendations of the doctor and refuse to cover the treatment because they deem it "experimental" or "not relevant". These people already have insurance, they've done as much as can be done to be covered, yet they find themselves shit out of luck facing medical bills in the six figures. I don't care if that's economically sound, it's human abuse.

In a high school class, that would pass.

Profits largely act at as a motivator of production. That means they motivate people to take a risk in order to forecast consumer needs. They also act as a signal to "adjust production." That means it changes the quality of goods/services, the amount of goods/services, the existence of the goods/services in the first place, etc. It is also a way to lower consumer costs (meaning "what the consumer pays for the good/service") via investing in cost-cutting technologies or methods. It is essentially an indicator of success. However, "profit incentive" is different from "money incentive."

You still won't have profits if you can't cover your expenses though. Profit margins are slim in the service industry, one of the ways insurance companies cut their expenses is with fine print and abusive tactics. If the industry becomes completely unregulated, I can see how companies will take advantage of the lack of oversight by becoming even more exploitive.

So you are putting forth a moral absolute?

It's an opinion, nothing is inherently right or wrong. I would like you to share my opinion, but if you don't, all I can do is bitch or eliminate you... And I'm not Hitler .

Well your cases dealt with insurance and risk brought about by the gov. regulations (and definitely not working "as intended") while mine dealt with people waiting for intolerable amounts of time due to the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy.

Not necessarily as intended, but the result of an exploitive system that puts money before health. And "intolerable" is a very individualistic point of view. If a woman waited for 5 years before having heart surgery... and survived, then she probably had a condition that could afford a 5 year wait. If a person has a condition that will kill them in a month, then they won't be put on the 5 year list. I know it would suck to be that woman waiting 5 years with that burden, but it would be even more unfair to have her go first and the more urgent case dies in the mean while.

You say yours stems from the system being "underfunded." When does it become "funded enough?" With government, there are no profits, meaning there is no way for good performance to be praised and bad performance to be punished. Bad performance is rewarded with larger budgets!

And shitstorms come next election (or even before). I find that the system could use more funding, certainly enough to cover the semi-fixed costs of more equipment (MRIs and stuff). I would call urgent care here pretty good, there should be more focus given to long-term and non-essential care. Not everybody is in agreement though, as some people would most likely prefer our current level of health care to more taxes (the stupid Conservatives just cut taxes too, ironically national surpluses turned into deficits).

I think everybody in the West is facing a bit of a health care crisis though. With the Baby Boomers retiring, that means staff shortages and an older populace to take care of.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Subsidizes what? One thing I find that the insurance or pay-as-you-go system lacks in is preventative medicine.

Subsidizes wasn't the right word, but either way, government regulations push up costs which is why Americans pay the most.

Spoiler for Airline stuff:

Firstly I'll just establish how I find the airline industry similar to the health industry.

• Both are considered essential services, at any given moment, the government will have to somehow make sure that health care and air travel are offered in the country.
• Both require strict regulation in the name of public safety.
• Both experience very thin profit margins (as opposed to product based enterprises).
• Both require highly skilled employees that should be well paid (pilots and mechanics/doctors and nurses).
• Both require multi-million dollar equipment (planes/hospital equipment).
• Both require many large facilities (airport terminals/hospitals).
• Both have a large steady expense (fuel/medication).
• Both involve a large amount of risk due to a number of external variables (travel trends/a person's health).
• Both require expensive insurance and risk bad PR (crashes/malpractice)

On airline deregulation in the US:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ereg/Tran8.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/bu...7air.html?_r=1

The successful outcome of deregulation has been the Southwest Airlines model. This model aims to provide the lowest possible fares by having the lowest possible expenses, which includes cutting or charging services as much as possible. These airlines (called low cost carriers or LCCs) choke larger or higher quality airlines out of their market by offering prices that can't be competed with (even if it means temporarily taking a loss). Note that for every LCC that is successful, probably 10 go bankrupt.

On the quality of the US airline industry (if you need a comparison, look up the government ran Singapore Airlines, or Emirates Airlines):

http://www.aqr.aero/pressreleases/2008pressrelease.htm

For the consumer, it's not so bad. Nobody really enjoys the airline experience (ESPECIALLY those whore were there in the 60s-70s glory days) but who can complain when you can go almost anywhere for 100$. But for the industry and its employees, it's pure hell.

On the not so glorious salaries of airline pilots in the USA (keep in mind that it takes well over $50,000 to get fully licensed):

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Aviation-...ers-Salary.htm

And lastly just to give you a scare next time you go flying:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5074716.shtml

This would be even scarier in the health industry.

http://mises.org/econsense/ch53.asp
http://mises.org/pdf/asc/2002/ASC8-Cleveland-Price.pdf

I'll rephrase: "Insurance companies will explore every possibility of getting out of covering your expenses before paying up."

What is the point of offering a service then looking for as many ways as possible to NOT offer a service?

Companies will drop patients because they've dug through their medical records from 20 years back and found a small, unrelated incident which they conveniently label a "preexisting condition". Or they will review the recommendations of the doctor and refuse to cover the treatment because they deem it "experimental" or "not relevant". These people already have insurance, they've done as much as can be done to be covered, yet they find themselves shit out of luck facing medical bills in the six figures. I don't care if that's economically sound, it's human abuse.

The reason they "get out of it when they can" is probably due to the fact that they aren't able to take such high-risk cases. Their business is so regulated that they can't use their money efficiently. Their costs are so high that they can't lower the service costs to the consumers so they're not getting as high profits and thus can't take such high-risk consumers.

The regulations are quite abusive, I agree.

You still won't have profits if you can't cover your expenses though.

Obviously

Profit margins are slim in the service industry, one of the ways insurance companies cut their expenses is with fine print and abusive tactics.

And why is this? I think you'll know my answer.

If the industry becomes completely unregulated, I can see how companies will take advantage of the lack of oversight by becoming even more exploitive.

Lack of oversight? If they become even more exploitative no one will use their business.

It's an opinion, nothing is inherently right or wrong. I would like you to share my opinion, but if you don't, all I can do is bitch or eliminate you... And I'm not Hitler .

Well if it's an opinion, that's fine. It's my opinion that everyone should have forty-million dollars and a Ferrari. If you're putting forth a moral absolute, you'll need to explain how, for instance, healthcare is indeed a right.

Not necessarily as intended, but the result of an exploitive system that puts money before health.

Unfortunately that's what happens when you have bureaucrats in control instead of entrepreneurs.

And "intolerable" is a very individualistic point of view. If a woman waited for 5 years before having heart surgery... and survived, then she probably had a condition that could afford a 5 year wait. If a person has a condition that will kill them in a month, then they won't be put on the 5 year list. I know it would suck to be that woman waiting 5 years with that burden, but it would be even more unfair to have her go first and the more urgent case dies in the mean while.

Say you need heart surgery. Would you rather have it next week or next year?

And shitstorms come next election (or even before).

Right, because voting works in favor of change.

I find that the system could use more funding, certainly enough to cover the semi-fixed costs of more equipment (MRIs and stuff).

How much funding? Which equipment? Do you see the problem with central planning here? Don't go advocating price-controls on me

I would call urgent care here pretty good, there should be more focus given to long-term and non-essential care. Not everybody is in agreement though, as some people would most likely prefer our current level of health care to more taxes (the stupid Conservatives just cut taxes too, ironically national surpluses turned into deficits).

I assume the Conservatives didn't cut costs before cutting taxes. Idiots.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Subsidizes wasn't the right word, but either way, government regulations push up costs which is why Americans pay the most.

Nonetheless, I don't think complete privatization will offer anymore incentive for Americans to improve their lifestyle more than they already have, especially if prices drop. And if they can't do that, then who's to say they wouldn't stick with shady insurance companies.

http://mises.org/econsense/ch53.asp
http://mises.org/pdf/asc/2002/ASC8-Cleveland-Price.pdf

The first guy has no clue of what he is talking about. He just goes on about vague anti-government rhetoric and when he does make sense he's looking at things from a consumer's point of view (low fares, which are incidentally unsustainable for the industry). The inefficient legacy airlines of the regulation era went bankrupt 20 years ago, the ones going bankrupt today ARE the "efficient" ones following post-deregulation business models. Service is at an all-time low, quality is at an all-time low, pilot pay and working conditions are at an all-time low and consumer satisfaction is at an all time low.

The second guy was a bit of a tl;dr ... but it seems that he blames recent safety concerns, especially relevant to terrorism, on the FAA. Would you really want airport security to be in private hands? Regardless of what you think, air travel is too important to the nation and will never be fully deregulated.

What is the point of offering a service then looking for as many ways as possible to NOT offer a service?

Because the exact nature of the service being offered is dictated by the insurance companies. You are provided with a service broadly termed as "coverage". You're covered for this, covered for that, they never specify every single individual treatment. They can pick and chose which treatment is included in their coverage.

The reason they "get out of it when they can" is probably due to the fact that they aren't able to take such high-risk cases. Their business is so regulated that they can't use their money efficiently. Their costs are so high that they can't lower the service costs to the consumers so they're not getting as high profits and thus can't take such high-risk consumers.

The regulations are quite abusive, I agree.

Which regulations? And whether this would happen or not after full deregulation is still up for debate.

And why is this? I think you'll know my answer.

You'll never be fully ridded of government regulation in the health industry. The government is simply too large a stakeholder to leave it be. That's something a couple of industries will have to live with and work around.

Lack of oversight? If they become even more exploitative no one will use their business.

They will if it's cheap, plenty of people by cheap shitty stuff.

Well if it's an opinion, that's fine. It's my opinion that everyone should have forty-million dollars and a Ferrari. If you're putting forth a moral absolute, you'll need to explain how, for instance, healthcare is indeed a right.

Keep in mind that I grew up being told that everybody has equal access to health care and that it was generally not associated with payments of any kind. Culture difference.

Unfortunately that's what happens when you have bureaucrats in control instead of entrepreneurs.

The CEOs of insurance companies do not work for the government and make their own business choices.

Say you need heart surgery. Would you rather have it next week or next year?

I would like it as soon as possible, but I wouldn't want anybody to die because I passed before them, just like I wouldn't want a less essential case to pass before me. I don't have the full picture so I can't make the call, the ones with the resources have to.

Right, because voting works in favor of change.

I forgot, Americans have lost faith in their government/democracy .

How much funding? Which equipment? Do you see the problem with central planning here? Don't go advocating price-controls on me

You survey all the hospitals and determine which equipment is being the most overused, which treatments have the longest waiting lines. Then you determine how much it would cost to fully rectify the situation and what the burden would be on the taxpayer. Then you reach a compromise between improvement and costs to end up with an acceptable compromise that would please the majority of the population. Not everybody will be happy, but such is democracy.

I assume the Conservatives didn't cut costs before cutting taxes. Idiots.

Of course they did, they're Conservatives ... To be fair they couldn't have foreseen the '08 recession. I don't like the idea of meager tax cuts though, cutting a couple of percents on a sales tax only saves the individual a couple hundred dollars a year, yet costs the government billions. It's a fulfillment of a campaign promise more than anything else.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Nonetheless, I don't think complete privatization will offer anymore incentive for Americans to improve their lifestyle more than they already have, especially if prices drop. And if they can't do that, then who's to say they wouldn't stick with shady insurance companies.

Well I didn't say complete privatization would entice Americans to improve their lifestyle, only that if there were like a few companies that provided poor services. If they couldn't get good services they would probably head toward healthier life-styles. Would that actually happen? I doubt it.

The first guy has no clue of what he is talking about. He just goes on about vague anti-government rhetoric and when he does make sense he's looking at things from a consumer's point of view (low fares, which are incidentally unsustainable for the industry). The inefficient legacy airlines of the regulation era went bankrupt 20 years ago, the ones going bankrupt today ARE the "efficient" ones following post-deregulation business models. Service is at an all-time low, quality is at an all-time low, pilot pay and working conditions are at an all-time low and consumer satisfaction is at an all time low.

The first guy happens to be Murray Rothbard, an economic historian that has written countless works on economics and history, including a complete four-volume history of the U.S. from colonialism to the American Revolution. That article isn't recent and was written before he died in...'95 I think? Nevertheless, it is still very relevant.

The second guy was a bit of a tl;dr ... but it seems that he blames recent safety concerns, especially relevant to terrorism, on the FAA. Would you really want airport security to be in private hands? Regardless of what you think, air travel is too important to the nation and will never be fully deregulated.

I think your problem (I mean this respectfully, not to be a troll or throw ad homs. around) is that you're unable to think of things outside of government control.

One could say anything is too important to be fully deregulated, but they don't realize that government brings inefficiencies and high prices.

Because the exact nature of the service being offered is dictated by the insurance companies. You are provided with a service broadly termed as "coverage". You're covered for this, covered for that, they never specify every single individual treatment. They can pick and chose which treatment is included in their coverage.

I'm not sure if that is relevant to my last statement, but whatever.

I don't see a problem with the insurance company dictating their services...I mean they're the ones offering it. And the consumer voluntarily accepted the company's services/coverage. If they didn't like it, they should've negotiated or chose another company.

Which regulations? And whether this would happen or not after full deregulation is still up for debate.

I don't think its necessary to cite the exact regulations as that would not only take far too much time but is largely irrelevant. We can safely assume there are regulations (because there are ).

And could you clarify your last sentence for me?

You'll never be fully ridded of government regulation in the health industry. The government is simply too large a stakeholder to leave it be. That's something a couple of industries will have to live with and work around.

Well that's not a very good argument. It's like saying "well we'll never be rid of cancer so we will just have to live with it."

They will if it's cheap, plenty of people by cheap shitty stuff.

Then they must not need such extensive services. The cheap, shitty stuff might be just perfect for them. We can't assume a one-million dollar coverage plan is perfect for everyone or is even practical for both company and consumer.

Keep in mind that I grew up being told that everybody has equal access to health care and that it was generally not associated with payments of any kind. Culture difference.

Culture difference is fine. I was told similar things. However, if you truly express that "healthcare is a right" and expect it to be enforced, you'll need to explain why.

The CEOs of insurance companies do not work for the government and make their own business choices.

True, yet it is essentially government bureaucrats that run the show regulation, and in the case of public option, industry-wise. They cause a whole host of problems for private companies which unfortunately cause "money over health" in order to continue providing some type of service to people.

[qupte]I would like it as soon as possible, but I wouldn't want anybody to die because I passed before them, just like I wouldn't want a less essential case to pass before me. I don't have the full picture so I can't make the call, the ones with the resources have to.p/quote]

I asked when you would have it because you said the woman could afford to wait for 5 years should she survive. But as you stated, you don't have the full picture so you don't know if she would survive. The problem with gov. bureaucracy and regulations (I feel like those two words have been typed too much...) is that it creates so many problems that we have to rely on "well who has the less-intense health problem" in the first place.

I forgot, Americans have lost faith in their government/democracy .

I would hope so...

You survey all the hospitals and determine which equipment is being the most overused, which treatments have the longest waiting lines. Then you determine how much it would cost to fully rectify the situation and what the burden would be on the taxpayer. Then you reach a compromise between improvement and costs to end up with an acceptable compromise that would please the majority of the population. Not everybody will be happy, but such is democracy.

How often should you survey all the hospitals? How do you determine how much it would cost to rectify the situation? How often do you do that? That is the problem with central planning. It leave a complex process such as the market up to a few individuals that claim they know how to satisfy everyone (or the majority) on every issue. It never works.

And what about the minority? Such is democracy. Mob-rule and dictatorship of the majority.

Of course they did, they're Conservatives ... To be fair they couldn't have foreseen the '08 recession. I don't like the idea of meager tax cuts though, cutting a couple of percents on a sales tax only saves the individual a couple hundred dollars a year, yet costs the government billions. It's a fulfillment of a campaign promise more than anything else.

Why couldn't they have foreseen the '08 recession?