Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

7th September 2009, 05:52
janvanvurpa

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Right-Wing?
Hardly.

So you admit you're a lefty engaged in a years long charade just parodying a central casting version of a raving lunatic brainless unthinking right winger cliché
and that talk about sipping wine with a mass murderer just a couple of weeks ago was just trolling for reaction.

Figured.

Nobody not in a padded cell could really believe the funny stuff you dream up.

Good laugh.
7th September 2009, 15:14
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Suppliers on the other hand, do not supply goods or services where profits can not be made, nor will they lower their prices to the point of affordability for consumers.
In such circumstances the consumers are either prices takers, because they do not have enough influence on the market to influence prices or alternatively if they simply can not afford it, those consumers do not get those goods and services. The concept is called "market failure".

What is wrong with profit? I don't understand why so many seem to think that companies making profits are evil. Government isn't much better. Although they don't make a profit, they do have to contain costs. Unless you're the US government and then apparently you can just keep spending until the whole thing blows up. How long until that happens?

If a company can not provide a good or service at a price the market can bear, then they go away. What's wrong with that? If a consumer truely needs a product they will have to pay what the company is charging. Or one of these consumers may come up with a better/cheaper way to provide that good or service. That's how we get new and improved products/inventions. There has to be a need to drive improvement. What's wrong with improvement?

Why is it better for the government to provide said service at a "lower" price? Rember, there is no free lunch. Somone is paying, through taxes. So maybe if the people didn't have to pay so much tax, they could afford the "expensive" product/service they couldn't afford in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

In the case of healthcare, the public is propping up private firms for a more costly system. And because those same firms have such a sway in Washington, the consumer will continue to have zero influence in determining prices.

The consumers have no influence in the healthcare market because employers control the system. I can not choose the insurace provider that I feel fits my circumstances best (Well I could, but I loose the tax breaks. And as I am a relatively healthy young man, it doesn't effect me too much, yet. So it doesn't make economic sense for me right now.). I am stuck with what my employer feels is best for me. Also we can't buy insurance accross state lines.

So even though there are about 13,000 insurance providers in this country, there really isn't too much competition. So the thing I don't understand is, how is having no competition now going to change when we set up a "Public Option"? That doesn't drive any competition. In fact that will make my situation (and many other's) much worse. Because my employer has already told us that if there is a "Public Option" that they will drop our coverage. And why wouldn't they? That makes a lot of sense business wise. So now I really don't have much of an "Option" do I?

And none of this does anything to address the issue of how do we pay for a new system that is going to cost an additional $1,000,000,000,000 to the Public Debt? Anyone? Come on, how many times to I have to ask before either you guys admit that it can't be done, or come up with a plausable plan?
8th September 2009, 02:45
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

What is wrong with profit? I don't understand why so many seem to think that companies making profits are evil.

Profits by themselves aren't evil, but who exactly is the system designed to benefit? Obviously not the people who need medical services.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...can-Healt.aspx
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me..._update_v2.pdf
the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.
That's surely worth paying 7 grand a year for isn't it. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

And none of this does anything to address the issue of how do we pay for a new system that is going to cost an additional $1,000,000,000,000 to the Public Debt? Anyone?

I conceed. The cost you're already paying is worth it.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/paren...mothers.index/

A trillion dollars to fix a system which clearly works perfectly would be money wasted.
8th September 2009, 12:31
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Profits by themselves aren't evil, but who exactly is the system designed to benefit? Obviously not the people who need medical services.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...can-Healt.aspx
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me..._update_v2.pdf
the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.
That's surely worth paying 7 grand a year for isn't it. :D

I have NEVER said the system doesn't need fixing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

I conceed. The cost you're already paying is worth it.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/paren...mothers.index/

A trillion dollars to fix a system which clearly works perfectly would be money wasted.

That is $1,000,000,000,000 above and beyond what we are already paying. And don't kid yourself, there are horror stories in EVERY system. Do I need to go find those? Do you really believe that once the US government takes over the system that everything will be rosey? Come on this is the real world.

Again, NO ONE is saying that our current system is perfect. Far from it. It needs to be fixed. But why does that "fix" need to be taken care of by the government WHO CAN NOT AFFORD IT? Why can't INDIVIDUALS own their own healthcare? Wouldn't that drive competition, at NO, ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA cost to the government? Isn't that the very thing the Democrats are saying the "Government Option" will address? Shouldn't that be the plan, to actually boost competition?
8th September 2009, 19:46
DexDexter

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I have NEVER said the system doesn't need fixing.

That is $1,000,000,000,000 above and beyond what we are already paying. And don't kid yourself, there are horror stories in EVERY system. Do I need to go find those? Do you really believe that once the US government takes over the system that everything will be rosey? Come on this is the real world.

Again, NO ONE is saying that our current system is perfect. Far from it. It needs to be fixed. But why does that "fix" need to be taken care of by the government WHO CAN NOT AFFORD IT? Why can't INDIVIDUALS own their own healthcare? Wouldn't that drive competition, at NO, ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA cost to the government? Isn't that the very thing the Democrats are saying the "Government Option" will address? Shouldn't that be the plan, to actually boost competition?

In my humble opinion individuals are too stupid to own/take care of their healthcare. We could see a pandemic spread because the uninsured think it's too expensive to see a doctor. That's a totally possible scenario.
8th September 2009, 20:17
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by DexDexter

In my humble opinion individuals are too stupid to own/take care of their healthcare. We could see a pandemic spread because the uninsured think it's too expensive to see a doctor. That's a totally possible scenario.

There you go.

The exact reason I despise Liberals.

They actually believe they know how people should live their lives better than the individual.
8th September 2009, 20:36
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by DexDexter

In my humble opinion individuals are too stupid to own/take care of their healthcare. We could see a pandemic spread because the uninsured think it's too expensive to see a doctor. That's a totally possible scenario.

Let's use Swine Flu as an example. If the CDC really thinks that this will be a pandemic, I wouldn't (and I don't know who would) have any problem with the gov. giving out free vaccinees(sp?) to anyone who wants them. That would be a heck of a lot cheaper than taking over the entire system. And actually accomplish something.

You still haven't address how to pay for the $1,000,000,000,000 in new government spending.
8th September 2009, 20:57
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

You apparently don't know about this new concept of market driven economies. You see, in some countries, economics drive the markets. In these so called "markets", consumers make decisions on what they would like to purchase. In your example, Porsche and Ferrari, have a product that enough consumers have decided to purchase that those companies can make enough profit (I know that's an evil word to some) to stay in business. The British Rail system apparently does not do a good enough job to turn much of a profit.

You clearly don't know much about the subject, given your present tense reference to British Rail for a start. And what exactly do you know, without looking it up on Wikipedia, about the financial status of British Rail when it was in existence?

The same could be said for your opinions on CO2 emissions. What makes you believe one set of scientists rather than the other? Self-interest, that's what.
8th September 2009, 20:58
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Right-Wing?
Hardly.

If you don't consider yourself to be right-wing — in fact, a very long way to the right — then words absolutely fail me.
8th September 2009, 21:08
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

You clearly don't know much about the subject, given your present tense reference to British Rail for a start. And what exactly do you know, without looking it up on Wikipedia, about the financial status of British Rail when it was in existence?

You are correct, I don't know much about British Rail. All I know is that you guys on here keep saying that it was gov. run. Then it went private, was poorly run, and cost the gov. 10x more than when it was gov. run. In my mind that is absolutly insane. If I have that wrong, please let me know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

The same could be said for your opinions on CO2 emissions. What makes you believe one set of scientists rather than the other? Self-interest, that's what.

I look at ALL the data. The data is very inconclusive on wether or not global warming is actually happening. It is even more inconclusive when it comes to a cause.

Do you not believe that CO2 is plant food?

How much of the CO2 emmisions per year are man made?

How much of that CO2 will be stoped, even with full emplimentation of Kyoto?

How much of an effect will that have on the environment?

Is CO2 a leading or lagging indicator of temperature?

At what temperature does man, plants, animals, etc. start to be adversly effected? How?

Let's take this to a new thread.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page