ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Classic-Xer]

(01-17-2017, 07:37 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 03:37 AM)Galen Wrote: see, if someone should refuse to pay taxes then people with guns show up and take what they want.  In effect by taking the earnings and property of another then  the taxpayer in question is working for someone they would rather not.  If the slave does not work then he is subject violence.  Its a little more roundabout being one of the tax livestock but the results are much the same which is some form of involuntary servitude.

And if tenant farmer doesn't pay his rent, men with guns show up and deprive him of his livelihood.  What's your point?

The tenant farmer signed a legal agreement much like the legal agreements that I've signed with banks. You should be smart enough to get the point  and understand the difference between legally committing oneself and being socially/legally committed by others without your consent. I'm pretty sure you would make a big stink and put up a fight if you were financially bound to an agreement that you didn't sign/authorize.

[Warren Dew]

(01-17-2017, 07:11 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 02:20 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: First, perhaps the main reason they are cheaper is that alll the drug research is paid for by us, and they only pay the costs of manufacture. 

We charge Americans boku for drugs because people like you are willing to accept it.

I'm willing to accept it because I don't pay for the drugs; my employer or the government does.  That's the whole problem, which I show how to fix in the post you're responding to.

The rest of your post seems to be based on facts from an atypical case; budgets for big pharma companies show most of the cost being the trials necessary for FDA approval.  That's what the Japanese bargain not to pay, but if everyone bargains not to pay them, the drugs won't be developed.  (Which would be fine with me, but not so fine with the people that use them.)

[Warren Dew]

(01-17-2017, 12:38 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 02:51 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: In an ideal world, the government - or the federal government, at least - would just get out of medical care entirely, limiting its role to safety regulations.

The big problem with our present system is the economic distortion introduced when the beneficiary of a product is different from the payer of the product.  That's a recipe for overconsumption and overcharging - or at least overpricing - and is what causes health care expenses to keep going up and up.  And we have that distortion both with government provided medicare and with employer provided health insurance, which together include the vast majority of the market.

What that means is that we spend too much on medical care, and that takes away from the money we could be spending for things like a higher quality diet that would be a more cost effective path to good health.

Return the money and control to the people, and we'll see a more rational health care system and better health.  And yes, people will likely start paying for doctors' visits and drugs out of pocket and medical insurance will likely be limited to relatively inexpensive policies that only cover catastrophic needs.

How do you handle the affordability issue?  Most Americans don't have a couple grand lying around that they can use to procure routine preventive care such as colonoscopies or managing chronic conditions such as diabetes or asthma, common medical emergencies such as broken legs or pregnancy.  (I'm assuming that the catastrophic coverage would cover things such as heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and postnatal care for preemies.)  And do you really want people having to pay out of pocket for public good items like vaccinations?

For people at the age where colonoscopies are common, health insurance typically costs $500-$1000 per month, or $6000-$12000 per year.  If you get that money back - for example if it's paid by an employer now and instead they pay that money to you as wages - you can easily afford the colonoscopy.

Alternatively, people who don't do money management well could continue to just buy the same health insurance they have now, at the same price - though the price will come down as going rates are reduced from the competitive effects of people who choose to buy their medical care a la carte.

I would expect catastrophic coverage to cover broken legs.

Vaccinations might be a special case where the government - the state government, not the federal government - might choose to pay for them due to the general public benefit from people being vaccinated.  Vaccinations tend to be cheap anyway.  I do have to say, though, that I presently pay for my own vaccinations under Obamacare.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-17-2017, 01:25 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 11:03 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:18 AM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why politicians are making this health care thing more complicated than it needs to be. Just expand Medicare for everyone. it's not that complicated.

A lot of people already get insurance through their employer and those people don't want to pay the higher taxes needed for a single payer system. It's "I've got mine, fuck you".

You rang?

Actually, my fear is not taxes. It's losing the type of plan I now get through my employer. Give me another plan as good as this one or better and I would not mind paying taxes to fund it. Good luck with that, right?

Who do you trust more, politician or your employer? Sorry dude, I trust myself more with my healthcare than I'd trust any politician with my healthcare and trying to argue with me to convince me otherwise would a loosing argument and complete waste of your time. Good luck with that, as you say. IMO, government has a tall hill to climb to reestablish its trust with the American people.

[Mikebert]

(01-17-2017, 07:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Considering how much they request US military intervention, yes they are.  Even France was calling for "US leadership" when Libya started falling apart.  Poland has been asking for a US military presence ever since Russia invaded Ukraine.  Japan would be in a tough spot without US nuclear protection because they need it to balance North Korea but large proportions of their population are allergic to having nuclear weapons themselves.

Has the US ever said no?  Think about it, if you were offered free gasoline for life, would you attention to fuel economy?  If your well-heeled friend always insists on paying more than his share (as some sort of dominance display) how long would it take for you to decide to just let him pay?

[Mikebert]

(01-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The tenant farmer signed a legal agreement much like the legal agreements that I've signed with banks.

Suppose he didn't, he's squatting.

[Mikebert]

(01-17-2017, 01:05 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm willing to accept it because I don't pay for the drugs; my employer or the government does. 

No they don't.  They pass it along to you as lower salary.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-17-2017, 02:37 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The tenant farmer signed a legal agreement much like the legal agreements that I've signed with banks.

Suppose he didn't, he's squatting.

Suppose he was squatting in/on your property, what would you do about him?

[Mikebert]

(01-17-2017, 03:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 02:37 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The tenant farmer signed a legal agreement much like the legal agreements that I've signed with banks.

Suppose he didn't, he's squatting.

Suppose he was squatting in/on your property, what would you do about him?

I asked you.  I am not the one challenging the sovereignty of the state.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-17-2017, 02:41 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 01:05 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm willing to accept it because I don't pay for the drugs; my employer or the government does. 

No they don't.  They pass it along to you as lower salary.

No they don't. They add it to his hourly cost and mark it up accordingly and pass it on to the costumer. I think he's service related. Service related people aren't viewed as corporate overhead.

[Galen]

(01-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 07:37 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 03:37 AM)Galen Wrote: see, if someone should refuse to pay taxes then people with guns show up and take what they want.  In effect by taking the earnings and property of another then  the taxpayer in question is working for someone they would rather not.  If the slave does not work then he is subject violence.  Its a little more roundabout being one of the tax livestock but the results are much the same which is some form of involuntary servitude.

And if tenant farmer doesn't pay his rent, men with guns show up and deprive him of his livelihood.  What's your point?

The tenant farmer signed a legal agreement much like the legal agreements that I've signed with banks. You should be smart enough to get the point  and understand the difference between legally committing oneself and being socially/legally committed by others without your consent. I'm pretty sure you would make a big stink and put up a fight if you were financially bound to an agreement that you didn't sign/authorize.

Exactly right.

[Galen]

(01-17-2017, 03:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 02:37 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The tenant farmer signed a legal agreement much like the legal agreements that I've signed with banks.

Suppose he didn't, he's squatting.

Suppose he was squatting in/on your property, what would you do about him?

Now you are being deliberately obtuse.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-17-2017, 03:09 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 03:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 02:37 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The tenant farmer signed a legal agreement much like the legal agreements that I've signed with banks.

Suppose he didn't, he's squatting.

Suppose he was squatting in/on your property, what would you do about him?

I asked you.  I am not the one challenging the sovereignty of the state.

I asked you in order see how you would respond to/ handle the same question when reversed. You don't seem to handle yourself being place in a defensive position very well.

[Warren Dew]

(01-17-2017, 03:09 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 03:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 02:37 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The tenant farmer signed a legal agreement much like the legal agreements that I've signed with banks.

Suppose he didn't, he's squatting.

Suppose he was squatting in/on your property, what would you do about him?

I asked you.  I am not the one challenging the sovereignty of the state.

You're the one challenging the sovereignty of the individual, on which western philosophy has been based for a century or two.  "We the people" and all that, you know.

[Warren Dew]

(01-17-2017, 02:41 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 01:05 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm willing to accept it because I don't pay for the drugs; my employer or the government does. 

No they don't.  They pass it along to you as lower salary.

They pass it along to all the people in the company as lower salary.  Given there are several hundred people in the company, you can at best argue that I pay for a fraction of 1% of the cost.  That gives me very little incentive to take the price into account.

My suggestion has me paying for 100% of the cost of my drugs, which gives me exactly the correct incentive to take price into account.

[Odin]

(01-16-2017, 03:31 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 10:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Expecting welfare and entitlement recipients to have respect for taxpayers is like expecting slaveowners to have respect for their slaves.

That is a very strong statement.  I personally find it offensive to have taxpayers compared to slaves and welfare and entitlement recipients compared to slaveowners.  Most people on welfare want to work, want to get off of welfare.  And comparing taxpayers to slaves?  Really???

I had to respond.

It's the whole white identity politics thing. A lot of conservatives associate public assistance with the myth of the "black welfare queen" and think "hard working white people" are being "exploited" by lazy minorities on welfare.

[Odin]

(01-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 07:37 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 03:37 AM)Galen Wrote: see, if someone should refuse to pay taxes then people with guns show up and take what they want.  In effect by taking the earnings and property of another then  the taxpayer in question is working for someone they would rather not.  If the slave does not work then he is subject violence.  Its a little more roundabout being one of the tax livestock but the results are much the same which is some form of involuntary servitude.

And if tenant farmer doesn't pay his rent, men with guns show up and deprive him of his livelihood.  What's your point?

The tenant farmer signed a legal agreement much like the legal agreements that I've signed with banks. You should be smart enough to get the point  and understand the difference between legally committing oneself and being socially/legally committed by others without your consent. I'm pretty sure you would make a big stink and put up a fight if you were financially bound to an agreement that you didn't sign/authorize.

This is what Marx mocked as "merely formal freedom". when you are coerced by your economic situation to sign a "voluntary" contract it is not really voluntary.

[Odin]

(01-17-2017, 02:23 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 01:25 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 11:03 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:18 AM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why politicians are making this health care thing more complicated than it needs to be. Just expand Medicare for everyone. it's not that complicated.

A lot of people already get insurance through their employer and those people don't want to pay the higher taxes needed for a single payer system. It's "I've got mine, fuck you".

You rang?

Actually, my fear is not taxes. It's losing the type of plan I now get through my employer. Give me another plan as good as this one or better and I would not mind paying taxes to fund it. Good luck with that, right?

Who do you trust more, politician or your employer? Sorry dude, I trust myself more with my healthcare than I'd trust any politician with my healthcare and trying to argue with me to convince me otherwise would a loosing argument and complete waste of your time. Good luck with that, as you say. IMO, government has a tall hill to climb to reestablish its trust with the American people.

I have coverage though Minnesota Medical Assistance, I have never had a problem with "the government" doing my healthcare. I trust the state of Minnesota far more than I trust any insurance company.

This whole notion that FOR-PROFIT companies would put your interests at heart more than your own elected government is insane.

[Warren Dew]

(01-18-2017, 07:56 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 03:31 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 10:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Expecting welfare and entitlement recipients to have respect for taxpayers is like expecting slaveowners to have respect for their slaves.

That is a very strong statement.  I personally find it offensive to have taxpayers compared to slaves and welfare and entitlement recipients compared to slaveowners.  Most people on welfare want to work, want to get off of welfare.  And comparing taxpayers to slaves?  Really???

I had to respond.

It's the whole white identity politics thing. A lot of conservatives associate public assistance with the myth of the "black welfare queen" and think "hard working white people" are being "exploited" by lazy minorities on welfare.

Consiidering we were talking about Medicare, it obviously nothing to do with race.  As to welfare, most conservatives dislike the use of welfare as a style of life irrespective of race.

[Anthony '58]

But if the Catholic Church gets involved in this - and remember that we have a Hispanic pope! - it has the potential to destroy the evangelical right's stranglehold on Christianity in American politics (and probably provoke a nasty anti-Catholic backlash not seen in America in nearly a century).  Then, if progressives can merely tone down their reflexive fawning over all the freaks and geeks, there's your prescription - no pun intended since we're talking about health care here - for a Democratic landslide in 2020 (and what more do they want?  They got what they wanted in Obergefell v. Hodges - and even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned only about 1 out of 10 women live in states that would enact blanket bans on abortion).

I even have a catchy slogan for this campaign:

OUR JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD
THEIR JESUS IS THE SON OF JOHN GALT!