Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(01-22-2017, 05:34 PM)TnT Wrote: A peripheral topic that seems important is detailed discussion of whether, in this day and age, everyone is entitled to the best available health care (excepting of course clearly optional procedures like cosmetic surgery), or if one is only entitled to the healthcare that he/she can pay for. Interestingly, this philosophical question impacts directly on the whole idea of health insurance.
You can spend essentially unlimited amounts of money on health care these days. Obviously not everyone can be entitled to the "best available health care"; we just don't have the resources to give it to everyone, or even to very many people at all.
If you recognize that reality, it might be worth having a discussion. If you're in denial about it, such a discussion is pointless.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(01-22-2017, 05:34 PM)TnT Wrote: Turns out that i've spent nearly 49 years of my life toiling in the medical field.
Given that, it could actually be interesting to have a civil conversation with folks who are relatively conservative about two related topics:
1. Detailed structure for a reasonably good health care delivery system in this country.
2. Detailed proposal for the financing of (1).
A peripheral topic that seems important is detailed discussion of whether, in this day and age, everyone is entitled to the best available health care (excepting of course clearly optional procedures like cosmetic surgery), or if one is only entitled to the healthcare that he/she can pay for. Interestingly, this philosophical question impacts directly on the whole idea of health insurance.
When I've tried this before, what I mostly get from conservative folks is hand-waving and sky pictures on the care provision topic, and pretty much an "I've got mine, you get yours" approach to financing. As Gary Johnson (my Libertarian New Mexico compatriot) says, "The Devil is in the Details."
As i recall, the Obamacare bill was about two thousand pages long. Do we have 10,000 pages available to us to commit to debating and coming up with a reasonable long term healthcare plan that satisfies everyone here?
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(01-22-2017, 06:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-22-2017, 05:34 PM)TnT Wrote: Turns out that i've spent nearly 49 years of my life toiling in the medical field.
Given that, it could actually be interesting to have a civil conversation with folks who are relatively conservative about two related topics:
1. Detailed structure for a reasonably good health care delivery system in this country.
2. Detailed proposal for the financing of (1).
A peripheral topic that seems important is detailed discussion of whether, in this day and age, everyone is entitled to the best available health care (excepting of course clearly optional procedures like cosmetic surgery), or if one is only entitled to the healthcare that he/she can pay for. Interestingly, this philosophical question impacts directly on the whole idea of health insurance.
When I've tried this before, what I mostly get from conservative folks is hand-waving and sky pictures on the care provision topic, and pretty much an "I've got mine, you get yours" approach to financing. As Gary Johnson (my Libertarian New Mexico compatriot) says, "The Devil is in the Details."
As i recall, the Obamacare bill was about two thousand pages long. Do we have 10,000 pages available to us to commit to debating and coming up with a reasonable long term healthcare plan that satisfies everyone here?
Most of Obamacare was giveaways to various interest groups, like health insurers and corporate hospitals. Romneycare was 100 pages and still included plenty of compromises. I could outline a system meeting his requirements in one post, and hash out details in subsequent discussion. But we'd have to be arguing from the same facts; if he's coming from the leftist "infinite tax money grows on trees" perspective, no productive discussion can be had.
Posts: 198
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2016
01-23-2017, 12:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2017, 12:01 PM by The Wonkette.)
(01-22-2017, 06:39 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (01-22-2017, 05:34 PM)TnT Wrote: A peripheral topic that seems important is detailed discussion of whether, in this day and age, everyone is entitled to the best available health care (excepting of course clearly optional procedures like cosmetic surgery), or if one is only entitled to the healthcare that he/she can pay for. Interestingly, this philosophical question impacts directly on the whole idea of health insurance.
You can spend essentially unlimited amounts of money on health care these days. Obviously not everyone can be entitled to the "best available health care"; we just don't have the resources to give it to everyone, or even to very many people at all.
If you recognize that reality, it might be worth having a discussion. If you're in denial about it, such a discussion is pointless.
A good place to start would be to ask if everyone is entitled to basic health care. If you believe that everyone is, then you ask what is the definition of basic health care? Does it include preventive medicine? Birth control (which is a cost saver)? Cancer treatments? Bypass surgery? Transplants? Dental care?
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(01-21-2017, 09:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (01-21-2017, 12:45 PM)David Horn Wrote: (01-20-2017, 04:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (01-20-2017, 03:51 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: It's not the insurance companies who profit from illness it's a subset of the care providers. The insurance companies want you to pay your premiums but make no claims. That's why they make it so painful to have actual claims and why they deny or reduce claims. Meanwhile, certain providers (especially ones that don't take Medicare and who are very selective about which insurance plans they accept) rake it in. Now to be fair, I know some providers who do take Medicare and are being short paid by insurance - they are not exactly raking it in.
I agree with respect to the care providers, and I agree that's how it used to work - and should work - with insurance companies. However, Obamacare limited insurance company profits to a percentage of medical payouts, giving the insurance companies an incentive to increase overall costs as well.
If costs had risen faster than they had in the past, you might have a point. They didn't. In fact, the rate of increase slowed dramatically -- and I say that as someone not well disposed to the ACA.
It's arguable whether the rate increases slowed. It's pretty clear that when you include skyrocketing deductibles and not just premiums, health care costs are rising as fast as ever for most people.
And your claim to being "not well disposed" to Obamacare is questionable since there's every indication you prefer it to what came before.
There's a graph that tells the tale. Interesting, but not surprising, this US government graph was pulled off the Whitehouse server just after the Trump team took charge, and apparently doesn't reside elsewhere either. All the non-government data I could find is only good through 2014.
On what went before, the net benefit of the ACA accrued to the less well off. Most of the cost, to the more well-to-do. Eliminating lifetime maximums and precondition exclusions was a huge net benefit to everyone, but the cost to do that is high. Still, both are very real, so both needed to go. My biggest complaint is the role of private insurance in the system. Medicare allows for Medigap plans that are private. I'm OK with those. The core is public and single payer -- the best model. We didn't get that with the ACA.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(01-20-2017, 12:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (01-19-2017, 11:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-19-2017, 06:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (01-19-2017, 05:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-18-2017, 03:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree with Odin on that one. Anti-welfare is the dog-whistle for white identity racism. Conservatives often claim otherwise, but your own posts Warren earlier revealed this. So do Classic's posts.
"Welfare as a style of life" is a revealing phrase too. The claim is that welfare creates a dependent style of life. Even though that kind of welfare went away in the 1990s, it is still the leading conservative talking point. Because it scores political points with closet racists and libertarian ideologues.
No, welfare is a protection for all of us against the greedy bosses, who will stop at nothing to fire us over nothing or take away our jobs. We will need it ever-more greatly, and as the Republican power grows, we have less and less protection from the greedy bosses who run our country. And now our new president (whom you voted for) is the leading exponent of this behavior, as exemplified by his favorite phrase, "you're fired!" Not to mention the leading practitioner of race-baiting.
You assume that's what we are doing instead of what we are actually. Now explain why, I called Odin ( a known white poster) a welfare king and associated him with the welfare system (public assistance). Why I've said, welfare is no longer just associated with minorities its now applicable to whites too . Why I told, a white racist that his skin color didn't matter much to me as far as my opinion of him and his ideology. Who is actually blowing the dog whistle that you claim that we're blowing? Ain't me. I'm not the one making an effort to turn everything into race and drawing support of whites who have a racist view of whites that are similar to those of blacks and other races. I've never called you a racist even though you are associated with a lot of them (minority racists). Rani and I were good friends. What's your thing? Are you trying to start a race war or revolution to over throw our government? What do you think might happen to you if you found yourself stuck in the middle of a race war that you played a role in starting or a revolution of some sort? Do you think the American collective is going to remain idle? Do you think a pissed off racist minority group is going ask if you're a liberal or conservative before they bludgeon you? Dumb people do dumb things, say dumb things, associate themselves with dumb things, go along with dumb things with the hope of achieving something greater or better for themselves which smart people pick up on. Well, we have an idea as far as your amount of national appeal with the latest progressive stunt. You know that I don't care much for you, don't care much for the ideology that you represent or care much for the modern day progressives that you are associated with today. I must admit, I didn't care much for LBJ either. I must also admit, you paint a pretty picture as well. A pretty picture that covers up a lot of shit but unfortunately your pretty picture is unable to hide the stink.
You need to change your picture of whites like us who support the ideology of welfare. Supporting welfare is supporting ourselves and our rights, all of us. We need that protection from the bosses. That is our well-founded opinion. You have frequently referred to other races besides yours as being the lazy folks who need welfare. I assume you know that whites need welfare too.
We need to resist the right-wing takeover of our country and their attempts to dismantle our public social structures, including what little we have left in the government to help our health and welfare.
I think the blacks and hispanics are going to be increasingly unwilling to take the way they are treated. The ideology you speak for is the main ingredient in this mistreatment, more basic even than the shootings and the unfair jailings and racial profilings. We all need that social support; we can't make it in a society in which people look only after themselves. LBJ's Great Society was just some progress toward that taking care of one another. We need public institutions, not just private "charities." It is not charity to see that society takes care of its people; it's prudent policy. We all benefit when we do this; we all suffer when we don't. Our society has declined because we aren't doing it.
It doesn't matter if you don't care for me. I care for the truth.
Pretty hard to change a picture of whites like yourself when you associating the rest of the whites with racism and calling them racists for many years. You created a picture of us to benefit yourselves. A picture that no longer applies to most of us. Now, you keep pointing your finger screaming racist as we are looking at the minority racists behind you. You want truth. Look in a mirror, ask yourself questions about yourself and see how much truth comes out. I don't mind if you continue your efforts to divide and continue shrinking yourselves in the process.
If what you claim about yourself is true, then I will not see further posts from you that suggest a link between liberal welfare policies/your taxes and poor people of color. When I don't see that from you, then I will know that the racist dog-whistle does not get a response in you.
That doesn't mean it does not get a response in many other "conservatives." (if not in all)
Meanwhile, the divide has come from the right-wing. I watched PBS Frontline's "Divided States of America" last night, and was reminded of the tactics and angry fanaticism of the people you are siding with, and what they have done over the last decades and especially during Obama's term to force their will on us and shut down the government. I think the divide is pretty well baked in now until one side wins and a consensus is thereby achieved. It may not be a full consensus, but at least the nation will move on. If it moves in a progressive way, the nation will prosper. If it moves in the direction you have supported, it will not. As to who will win, sure your side is winning now. But the nation remains evenly divided, and the winner goes back and forth. You may be disappointed if you think the contest is over.
That's my opinion and my prediction. Your opinion is your right. I'm quite happy for you to post it here.
(01-20-2017, 02:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: As noted in my post, Obamacare actively disincentivizes dissemination of information on effective preventive care.
Agreed that increased self care is the answer. That of course implies decreased government intervention and decreased reliance on employer provided care.
Some preventive care is best described as avoiding bad habits and developing good ones. Some (like screenings) allow medical treatment to be less costly and more effective. Early and aggressive treatment of mental illness can do much to spare people of miserable lives. (If I had only known about you-know-what early, instead of struggling along without a clue)...
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(01-23-2017, 12:00 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: (01-22-2017, 06:39 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (01-22-2017, 05:34 PM)TnT Wrote: A peripheral topic that seems important is detailed discussion of whether, in this day and age, everyone is entitled to the best available health care (excepting of course clearly optional procedures like cosmetic surgery), or if one is only entitled to the healthcare that he/she can pay for. Interestingly, this philosophical question impacts directly on the whole idea of health insurance.
You can spend essentially unlimited amounts of money on health care these days. Obviously not everyone can be entitled to the "best available health care"; we just don't have the resources to give it to everyone, or even to very many people at all.
If you recognize that reality, it might be worth having a discussion. If you're in denial about it, such a discussion is pointless.
A good place to start would be to ask if everyone is entitled to basic health care. If you believe that everyone is, then you ask what is the definition of basic health care? Does it include preventive medicine? Birth control (which is a cost saver)? Cancer treatments? Bypass surgery? Transplants? Dental care?
You'd be starting out with a moral position and you'd be starting out by asking a moral question. BTW, that's how we ended up with Obamacare.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
01-23-2017, 02:41 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2017, 02:44 PM by Warren Dew.)
(01-23-2017, 01:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (01-20-2017, 12:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (01-19-2017, 11:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-19-2017, 06:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (01-19-2017, 05:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You assume that's what we are doing instead of what we are actually. Now explain why, I called Odin ( a known white poster) a welfare king and associated him with the welfare system (public assistance). Why I've said, welfare is no longer just associated with minorities its now applicable to whites too . Why I told, a white racist that his skin color didn't matter much to me as far as my opinion of him and his ideology. Who is actually blowing the dog whistle that you claim that we're blowing? Ain't me. I'm not the one making an effort to turn everything into race and drawing support of whites who have a racist view of whites that are similar to those of blacks and other races. I've never called you a racist even though you are associated with a lot of them (minority racists). Rani and I were good friends. What's your thing? Are you trying to start a race war or revolution to over throw our government? What do you think might happen to you if you found yourself stuck in the middle of a race war that you played a role in starting or a revolution of some sort? Do you think the American collective is going to remain idle? Do you think a pissed off racist minority group is going ask if you're a liberal or conservative before they bludgeon you? Dumb people do dumb things, say dumb things, associate themselves with dumb things, go along with dumb things with the hope of achieving something greater or better for themselves which smart people pick up on. Well, we have an idea as far as your amount of national appeal with the latest progressive stunt. You know that I don't care much for you, don't care much for the ideology that you represent or care much for the modern day progressives that you are associated with today. I must admit, I didn't care much for LBJ either. I must also admit, you paint a pretty picture as well. A pretty picture that covers up a lot of shit but unfortunately your pretty picture is unable to hide the stink.
You need to change your picture of whites like us who support the ideology of welfare. Supporting welfare is supporting ourselves and our rights, all of us. We need that protection from the bosses. That is our well-founded opinion. You have frequently referred to other races besides yours as being the lazy folks who need welfare. I assume you know that whites need welfare too.
We need to resist the right-wing takeover of our country and their attempts to dismantle our public social structures, including what little we have left in the government to help our health and welfare.
I think the blacks and hispanics are going to be increasingly unwilling to take the way they are treated. The ideology you speak for is the main ingredient in this mistreatment, more basic even than the shootings and the unfair jailings and racial profilings. We all need that social support; we can't make it in a society in which people look only after themselves. LBJ's Great Society was just some progress toward that taking care of one another. We need public institutions, not just private "charities." It is not charity to see that society takes care of its people; it's prudent policy. We all benefit when we do this; we all suffer when we don't. Our society has declined because we aren't doing it.
It doesn't matter if you don't care for me. I care for the truth.
Pretty hard to change a picture of whites like yourself when you associating the rest of the whites with racism and calling them racists for many years. You created a picture of us to benefit yourselves. A picture that no longer applies to most of us. Now, you keep pointing your finger screaming racist as we are looking at the minority racists behind you. You want truth. Look in a mirror, ask yourself questions about yourself and see how much truth comes out. I don't mind if you continue your efforts to divide and continue shrinking yourselves in the process.
If what you claim about yourself is true, then I will not see further posts from you that suggest a link between liberal welfare policies/your taxes and poor people of color. When I don't see that from you, then I will know that the racist dog-whistle does not get a response in you.
That doesn't mean it does not get a response in many other "conservatives." (if not in all)
Meanwhile, the divide has come from the right-wing. I watched PBS Frontline's "Divided States of America" last night, and was reminded of the tactics and angry fanaticism of the people you are siding with, and what they have done over the last decades and especially during Obama's term to force their will on us and shut down the government. I think the divide is pretty well baked in now until one side wins and a consensus is thereby achieved. It may not be a full consensus, but at least the nation will move on. If it moves in a progressive way, the nation will prosper. If it moves in the direction you have supported, it will not. As to who will win, sure your side is winning now. But the nation remains evenly divided, and the winner goes back and forth. You may be disappointed if you think the contest is over.
That's my opinion and my prediction. Your opinion is your right. I'm quite happy for you to post it here.
(01-20-2017, 02:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: As noted in my post, Obamacare actively disincentivizes dissemination of information on effective preventive care.
Agreed that increased self care is the answer. That of course implies decreased government intervention and decreased reliance on employer provided care.
Some preventive care is best described as avoiding bad habits and developing good ones. Some (like screenings) allow medical treatment to be less costly and more effective. Early and aggressive treatment of mental illness can do much to spare people of miserable lives. (If I had only known about you-know-what early, instead of struggling along without a clue)...
I agree with your general statements though I'm not sure about the specifics about you-know-what. Knowing about you-know-what early would in my case likely have resulted in a decrease in expectations which would have impacted me negatively. I also believe the current consensus on you-know-what is not that it needs to be treated, but instead that society needs to provide accommodations. But my opinion may have been partially shaped by spending too much time on the old wrongplanet fora.
I would agree that early diagnosis can't hurt too much. Then treatment could be decided on an individual basis.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(01-23-2017, 12:00 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: (01-22-2017, 06:39 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (01-22-2017, 05:34 PM)TnT Wrote: A peripheral topic that seems important is detailed discussion of whether, in this day and age, everyone is entitled to the best available health care (excepting of course clearly optional procedures like cosmetic surgery), or if one is only entitled to the healthcare that he/she can pay for. Interestingly, this philosophical question impacts directly on the whole idea of health insurance.
You can spend essentially unlimited amounts of money on health care these days. Obviously not everyone can be entitled to the "best available health care"; we just don't have the resources to give it to everyone, or even to very many people at all.
If you recognize that reality, it might be worth having a discussion. If you're in denial about it, such a discussion is pointless.
A good place to start would be to ask if everyone is entitled to basic health care. If you believe that everyone is, then you ask what is the definition of basic health care? Does it include preventive medicine? Birth control (which is a cost saver)? Cancer treatments? Bypass surgery? Transplants? Dental care?
I think it would be better to start with what basic health care is, rather than immediately getting into a big argument about entitlement.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(01-22-2017, 05:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-22-2017, 11:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (01-22-2017, 05:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (01-22-2017, 01:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: You quite clearly demonstrated it. It's up to you to correct it.
Conservatives are good at denial. Look at how many deny anthrogenetic climate change.
I corrected it for the record so others can read, follow our exchanges and decide for themselves. As far as correcting it for you, it doesn't seem like it's going to matter to you anyway. I don't take kindly to those who insult others by using the term racist to describe them or their feelings. I've spent years ignoring insults and cutting through baseless insults coming from progressives who aren't around here anymore. I still have one of them left. Any guess who it is? Bob's smart, Bob knows who is left here and Bob knows who is most likely going to win the battle of male ego's/personalities here. Bob used me to send you a message about his view of extreme partisans here. Did you get his message about his rejection of extreme partisans that's are often associated with him? Well, you're basically on your own with some support from people like Odin if they're foolish enough to join in.
Bob is no more qualified than you to judge me or label me. Everyone is free to say what they please about me, or not. I don't think you corrected your view; others can judge for themselves. If you are against welfare and social programs because they steal your tax money to help poor people of color, then that's racist. If you are against welfare and social programs because they steal your tax money to help poor people period, then I still disagree, but I would just call you a libertarian conservative. It's your choice in how you express your views.
Lets see, you're qualified to judge us and label us as you please but we are not qualified to do the same with you. Did someone/something/some group make you a king/emperor/tyrant or something? What makes you think/believe that you're special that you feel immune to judgement and receiving labels? Man, what an ego that you must have???????? A glorified super ego of some sort. My ego should be shaking in it's boots and freaking out over its greater size.
Well, it should 
Seriously, I would put it that I am characterizing your views, based just on what you say, rather than labeling you per se. Maybe that's a distinction you don't agree with, but I think it's significant. So far I haven't seen anything that convinces me that my characterization is wrong, but I wouldn't hesitate to admit it if I am wrong.
Bob chooses to label me as this and that, when he disagrees with me. I wouldn't always entirely disagree with his labels. I am very partisan, but in a specific limited way: I am convinced that today's Republicans have views and policies that I can't agree with, and I hope they will lose elections. I admit I agree with Republicans very rarely indeed. Actually I agree with Trump on a few things. Democrats, on the other hand, are hit and miss; much better than the other side, but I am not a Democrat, and not a partisan Democrat in the sense of always agreeing with them. I don't even always agree with Greens these days. That distinction doesn't seem to carry much weight with Bob or some others.
Posts: 31
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2017
01-23-2017, 05:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2017, 05:01 PM by flbones too.)
Basics should cover annual checkup, along with annual ear and eye checkup. Preventive medicines should be covered. Hearing aids definitely should be covered by insurance. Glasses are. Health care should also start looking into doctor home visits. Mental health and chiropractory (spelling?). Also I personally think health insurance should cover medical marijuana.
Posts: 1,402
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2016
(01-23-2017, 05:00 PM)flbones too Wrote: Basics should cover annual checkup, along with annual ear and eye checkup. Preventive medicines should be covered. Hearing aids definitely should be covered by insurance. Glasses are. Health care should also start looking into doctor home visits. Mental health and chiropractory (spelling?). Also I personally think health insurance should cover medical marijuana.
1. Uh, why do we need grifting middlemen like health [insurance] companies?
2. Medical marijuana? Uh, I suppose, but it's real cheap to grow your own. Marijuana ain't called "weed" for nothing.
3. My glasses are not covered.
---Value Added 
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(01-22-2017, 11:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The reason it's stupid to tie health care to employment is because then the incentives are misaligned between the payer - the employer - and the patient, resulting in inefficient allocation of resources. That problem applies in spades when you tie health care to the government.
What's needed is for people to pay for their own health care, whether it's directly or through an insurer. If you really want to subsidize it, give everyone a voucher or a universal basic subsidy.
Healthcare is not a product or even a service in the commercial sense. It has more in common with fire and police protection. Are you OK shopping for those 'services'? Are you even capable of doing it?
There was a time in the past when Fire Services were fully private. Rent The Gangs of New York for a tutorial on how well that worked.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(01-22-2017, 06:39 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (01-22-2017, 05:34 PM)TnT Wrote: A peripheral topic that seems important is detailed discussion of whether, in this day and age, everyone is entitled to the best available health care (excepting of course clearly optional procedures like cosmetic surgery), or if one is only entitled to the healthcare that he/she can pay for. Interestingly, this philosophical question impacts directly on the whole idea of health insurance.
You can spend essentially unlimited amounts of money on health care these days. Obviously not everyone can be entitled to the "best available health care"; we just don't have the resources to give it to everyone, or even to very many people at all.
If you recognize that reality, it might be worth having a discussion. If you're in denial about it, such a discussion is pointless.
Out of simple curiosity, what services would you deny on a too-costly basis?
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(01-22-2017, 06:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: As i recall, the Obamacare bill was about two thousand pages long. Do we have 10,000 pages available to us to commit to debating and coming up with a reasonable long term healthcare plan that satisfies everyone here?
Rags suggested one in a single sentence: reset Medicare eligibility from 65 to 0. Pretty simple, and dead-nuts on the money.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(01-22-2017, 08:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Most of Obamacare was giveaways to various interest groups, like health insurers and corporate hospitals. Romneycare was 100 pages and still included plenty of compromises. I could outline a system meeting his requirements in one post, and hash out details in subsequent discussion. But we'd have to be arguing from the same facts; if he's coming from the leftist "infinite tax money grows on trees" perspective, no productive discussion can be had.
You start where you do and others will do likewise. That's the opening salvo on the way to a final solution.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(01-24-2017, 01:21 PM)David Horn Wrote: (01-22-2017, 11:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The reason it's stupid to tie health care to employment is because then the incentives are misaligned between the payer - the employer - and the patient, resulting in inefficient allocation of resources. That problem applies in spades when you tie health care to the government.
What's needed is for people to pay for their own health care, whether it's directly or through an insurer. If you really want to subsidize it, give everyone a voucher or a universal basic subsidy.
Healthcare is not a product or even a service in the commercial sense. It has more in common with fire and police protection.
To the contrary, health care is comprised mostly of services and some products. There's no fundamental difference between prescription drugs and, say, vitamin D pills other than distortions imposed through regulation. There's no fundamental difference between the market for doctors and the market for mechanics.
Police and the associated justice system are different because it involves use of force, and likely devolves to warfare if there are competing "providers" - although I would point out that there are substantial areas that are primarily policed by private police forces, such as many university campuses, so it's really the justice system that's the natural monopoly.
Fire protection is less clear; the issue there may be that there's too much incentive for private services to engage in criminal activity, though there have also been cases of publicly employed firemen resorting to arson to protect their employment.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
Health care is a right. The trickle-downer libertarians want to continue to deny this; it's just reactionary ideology dominating the minds of half the American people.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(01-24-2017, 01:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Health care is a right. The trickle-downer libertarians want to continue to deny this; it's just reactionary ideology dominating the minds of half the American people.
No its not. You do not have the right to the product of another person labor which is why libertarians generally reject the notion of positive rights because they are a violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand individuals and groups of people may chose to set up charities to provide health care and no libertarian would have a problem with it, indeed they would probably help. It is the use of force by government that is objected to.
This quote by Murray Rothbard describes the mentality of the left perfectly: It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
(01-24-2017, 04:11 PM)Galen Wrote: (01-24-2017, 01:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Health care is a right. The trickle-downer libertarians want to continue to deny this; it's just reactionary ideology dominating the minds of half the American people.
No its not. You do not have the right to the product of another person labor which is why libertarians generally reject the notion of positive rights because they are a violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand individuals and groups of people may chose to set up charities to provide health care and no libertarian would have a problem with it, indeed they would probably help. It is the use of force by government that is objected to.
This quote by Murray Rothbard describes the mentality of the left perfectly: It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.
These libertarian precepts are no more legitimate than the divine right of kings.
|
