Universal Healthcare

[Magic Man]

No, markets are my life work. Is there something you wanted to teach me about free markets, please do so. As it is now, and has been, we have not had a free market in the US. We have had a controlled market. The politically engineered term has been, "open market".

Then I would expect you to understand that our healthcare system is a free market system. Hence how there are many different private companies competing with each other to sell people health insurance and health care.

 

[Magic Man]

No, it's consequentialism. If you love something, you set it free. If you want to pretend you love something, you spoil it to death. There is nothing selfish about wanting others to be better and helping them get there. Because I choose not to support a government that takes from the poor and gives to the rich, doesn't make me conservative. Heck, most conservatives and liberals love to take money from the poor and give to the rich. They just fight on which rich group gets the money, and which poor group should suffer the most.

No. Your inaccurate characterizations of the positions and systems, along with your opinion, are staples of conservatism.

Also, you are starting to put words into my mouth. Whatever label you fall under, is that a trait of... your wing? LOL

I haven't put any words in your mouth. I've used words you've said in this thread, though.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No, markets are my life work. Is there something you wanted to teach me about free markets, please do so. As it is now, and has been, we have not had a free market in the US. We have had a controlled market. The politically engineered term has been, "open market".

Do you actually get paid for your work?
An un-controlled free market was what led to the recent market collapse.
And you want more of it ???
A market that is regulated/ controlled gives some hope on minimising the more disastrous abuses.

What ever you like to call yourself, your statements so far, coincide with right wing policies. To a normal observer, you are a right wing apologists.

 

[Crystallas]

Then I would expect you to understand that our healthcare system is a free market system. Hence how there are many different private companies competing with each other to sell people health insurance and health care.

That is not a free market. A free market would mean that I would have free entry to compete with the corrupt fat cats. A free market would mean that I could buy services from whoever across state lines. A free market would mean that I could go to a doctor, and get whatever I wanted to get without having to opt out of different state programs. A free market would mean that the person who provides the service is liable for bad services, and not protected, as long as they file hefty paperwork to satisfy standards that do not even apply in most cases. A free market is NOT what we have. It is far from a free market. It's called state-capitalism, which is nothing like capitalism or free markets. That is why it is a controlled market.

 

[Crystallas]

Do you actually get paid for your work?
An un-controlled free market was what led to the recent market collapse.
And you want more of it ???
A market that is regulated/ controlled gives some hope on minimising the more disastrous abuses.

What ever you like to call yourself, your statements so far, coincide with right wing policies. To a normal observer, you are a right wing apologists.

I sure do, and I even donate a lot of time and money to the needy! How terrible of me!
An uncontrolled market led to the market collapse? You mean, when the government intervened into the housing market, this is somehow not controlled? When the government regulates airlines, forbids them from not allowing security on planes, or even pistols for the pilots, this somehow called deregulation. You mean when the government gave money to the banks in the last 20 years for our best interests, that is what you consider deregulation? We should regulate the government, they're causing more problems. Hell, we have a bought president, bought congress. Anything you want, they can give you, but on their terms. You aren't going to get a true universal healthcare system until we take their power away, get rid of shortcuts, and pass the legislation needed by using the correct processes(none of this, trust me, sign it, read it later nonsense.)

Look at the political spectrum, yes, and actual political spectrum. I am an individualist, it is not left or right. Some of you don't even sound like leftists, you sound like statists.

 

[Crystallas]

No. Your inaccurate characterizations of the positions and systems, along with your opinion, are staples of conservatism.



I haven't put any words in your mouth. I've used words you've said in this thread, though.

Okay, if you say so. I have been more than patient to be a "minority" in this topic and let many, who aren't even in North America, take their jabs. Why do you resort to pulling out labels, and then brush it off, as if you know anything about me? Your argument is with someone else.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I sure do, and I even donate a lot of time and money to the needy! How terrible of me!
An uncontrolled market led to the market collapse? You mean, when the government intervened into the housing market, this is somehow not controlled? When the government regulates airlines, forbids them from not allowing security on planes, or even pistols for the pilots, this somehow called deregulation. You mean when the government gave money to the banks in the last 20 years for our best interests, that is what you consider deregulation? We should regulate the government, they're causing more problems. Hell, we have a bought president, bought congress. Anything you want, they can give you, but on their terms. You aren't going to get a true universal healthcare system until we take their power away, get rid of shortcuts, and pass the legislation needed by using the correct processes(none of this, trust me, sign it, read it later nonsense.)

Look at the political spectrum, yes, and actual political spectrum. I am an individualist, it is not left or right. Some of you don't even sound like leftists, you sound like statists.

You are probably correct when you say the American political system is broken.
You are probably right when you say your government regulations are bad or misplaced
You would probably be right to say your politicians are inept or corrupt.
You would probably be right to say that your Corporations control the Government.
You could probably liken your government/corporation axis to a mafia.

You could also say Ultimate control is in the hands of the people.

However, All these things , people and processes, are themselves controlled and given power and expression by your Constitution.

Perhaps those countries like the UK, who do not have constitutions, can make changes to laws, that actually benefit the people, rather than the law makers and executive.

But The USA certainly does not help itself, by the choice of politicians at ground root, state or federal levels.
In the UK we have many poor candidates, however rather fewer get elected, nor does access to money make much difference to their election chances. ( election spending is very limited and monitored)

 

[Alceste]

That is not a free market. A free market would mean that I would have free entry to compete with the corrupt fat cats. A free market would mean that I could buy services from whoever across state lines. A free market would mean that I could go to a doctor, and get whatever I wanted to get without having to opt out of different state programs. A free market would mean that the person who provides the service is liable for bad services, and not protected, as long as they file hefty paperwork to satisfy standards that do not even apply in most cases. A free market is NOT what we have. It is far from a free market. It's called state-capitalism, which is nothing like capitalism or free markets. That is why it is a controlled market.

But surely you understand that the US health care market is miles closer to your ideal than amy other country in the developed world. Do you also realize it is more than twice as costly per capita as the next highest spending country? And that by every metric by which health care can be measured, the quality is poor compared to other developed countries?

If you're going to try to take the immorality of trying to profit from misfortune out of the debate to advance your ideology, you should at least try to understand the economic and pragmatic factors. What else do you have to go on?

 

[Crystallas]

You are probably correct when you say the American political system is broken.
You are probably right when you say your government regulations are bad or misplaced
You would probably be right to say your politicians are inept or corrupt.
You would probably be right to say that your Corporations control the Government.
You could probably liken your government/corporation axis to a mafia.

You could also say Ultimate control is in the hands of the people.

However, All these things , people and processes, are themselves controlled and given power and expression by your Constitution.

Perhaps those countries like the UK, who do not have constitutions, can make changes to laws, that actually benefit the people, rather than the law makers and executive.

But The USA certainly does not help itself, by the choice of politicians at ground root, state or federal levels.
In the UK we have many poor candidates, however rather fewer get elected, nor does access to money make much difference to their election chances. ( election spending is very limited and monitored)

Look, I know this is a debate section. I don't normally like to debate. I do, however, like to have more than one or two options, and that is what I am trying to present here. Unfortunately the US healthcare system, and universal healthcare are just two, and we are ignoring so many more possibilities, so many that I can't even think of. Many that would change the way we see a doctor. I do acknowledge that there is a way to regulate and satisfy the markets, and protect the liberties that preserve free entries and promote incentive, innovation and competition. I see most nations ignore this method, and that is the method of mean-line standardization. That is when you recognize that the market itself, by the choices of the people, have determined a new freezing point and new boiling point for issues that bear real consequences to the innocent. Not for fluke issues, and not aggressive regulation, because that stunts the productivity and sends a shock to the market. But mean-line standardization would recognize, "Hey, look, everyone avoids this type of product because it has X-toxic chemical" therefore, let's throw some restrictions on this product. Not, "well, university X has found a study that this item that we have used for 200 years has a 0.0001% chance of causing cancer, so let's ban it and ignore what good it has done to save lives and help life better." There is no mean-line, and nothing to solidify it's restrictions. Plus, I don't trust corporations, why would I trust the government that is controlled by corporations to have this kind of authority?
When it comes to healthcare, we weren't doing bad when we strictly regulated drugs and equipment for low-benefit safety. We started getting ourselves into trouble when we started regulating the efficacy. We really got into trouble when we started telling doctors that they couldn't practice natural medicine without a lot of zany loopholes. Of course, big-agriculture didn't like natural medicine, neither did big-pharma, but nobody questions why quackery is still allowed with little or no licensing? This has got to stop. We need to make our own decisions, because the ones that are being made for us is not in our interest. This nation is too big and complex for most to pay attention to all of the details on both a federal and local level. Heck, I don't think there is a person on this earth that knows every law and regulation in the books, or even 0.1% at that.

 

[lunakilo]

I have 100% of my resources. I want many things. I want a phone, a TV, a computer, I want internet, I want food, I want a home, I want running water, I want heat and air conditioning, I want a retirement plan, I want a car, I want clothes, I want a retirement plan, I want police, I want a fire department, I want electricity, I want music, I want to take vacations, I want whatever it is. If I can afford exactly this much, that is my 100%. If I want to add something, I have to take away.

So basically what you are saying that if you want to add an extra piece to this complex pie of yours you need to take away something from an other piece for things to add up.

Yes that makes sense.

Healthcare is very pricey and it has the potential to consume 25%-40% of our nation's revenue.

Maybee (I seem to recall that the danish health tax is about 10% of the total tax, but I will have to look that up) , but presumably people had healthcare before. So it is not a question of people paying more money, just paying it to somone else than the insurance companies.

It is obvious that you can't for the same money you now pay in taxes get universal healthcare. Not unless you take the money from another pie piece. Like the military for example

Alternatively you could raise taxes and stop paying for the private insurance.
In reality you would probably have to do that in steps and not al at once, but it could be done.

Before, we didn't have a perfect system, but we still had fairly good coverage, and anyone could go to a hospital and get treated, hardly nobody was turned down, less than a thousand people a year(and most of these cases were due to heavy criminal activity.) While millions were not insured, everyone who wanted to get treatment, could get treatment. Nobody was turned down, and hospitals had funds that dealt specifically for those in need.
We essentially outlined one of the major problems here, and that was the insurance liabilities. What did we do? We passed a law that said everyone must have insurance, one way or another! LOL.... I can't be the only one that recognizes this ironic corruption? Even worse, partisan parrots here like to jump on a party bandwagon, and support the issue, as if this has anything to do with left-right wing. Corruption is corruption.

Well I don't know the specifics of US health care, so I can't really say anything sensible to this. So I won' say anything

 

[Crystallas]

But surely you understand that the US health care market is miles closer to your ideal than amy other country in the developed world. Do you also realize it is more than twice as costly per capita as the next highest spending country? And that by every metric by which health care can be measured, the quality is poor compared to other developed countries?

If you're going to try to take the immorality of trying to profit from misfortune out of the debate to advance your ideology, you should at least try to understand the economic and pragmatic factors. What else do you have to go on?

I do understand that the US healthcare market is nowhere near my ideal. This corporate and government manipulated system is one of the most corrupt among developed nations. Why would that be my ideal? Until the corruption is minimized, no ideal will be achieved.

loud lady at the DMV yelling: NEXT!
lol, Okay, bring on the next assumption about my position. How did I get into this mess with the socialists? :sarcastic did I type that out loud? :angel2:

 

[Crystallas]

Alternatively you could raise taxes and stop paying for the private insurance.
In reality you would probably have to do that in steps and not al at once, but it could be done.

So let me ask you this. What is your solution to lower the cost of the goods and services that are provided with healthcare?

Here, any social service we subsidize, goes up in cost. It's a means of hurdling. If we price-fix, the jobs go away. If we limit imports, we make a new enemy(we are the "arrogant war-hungry US after-all, and all of the doves in the world have had no luck fixing this one.) If we cut wages, the labor will unionize.

 

[Alceste]

I do understand that the US healthcare market is nowhere near my ideal. This corporate and government manipulated system is one of the most corrupt among developed nations. Why would that be my ideal? Until the corruption is minimized, no ideal will be achieved.

loud lady at the DMV yelling: NEXT!
lol, Okay, bring on the next assumption about my position. How did I get into this mess with the socialists? :sarcastic did I type that out loud? :angel2:

American libertarians are like children on the brink of drowning, insisting "If I just go out a little deeper everything will be fine".

Amazing.

Do you admit that your system is CLOSER to your ideal of an entirely market-driven health care system than any other developed country in the world? Let's start there.

 

[Crystallas]

American libertarians are like children on the brink of drowning, insisting "If I just go out a little deeper everything will be fine".

Amazing.

Oh, is that a fact? :clapbravo, very mature

 

[Alceste]

Oh, is that a fact? :clapbravo, very mature

Fact 1: You have the most market-friendly, profit-driven health care system in the developed world. Fact 2: It is more costly and less effective and efficient than every other health care system in the developed world. Your solution to the problem of it being more costly and less effective than any other model in the world is to make it MORE market-friendly and profit-driven?

How is that rational at all? How is it any different from a child on the brink of drowning thinking his problems will be solved if he just swims out a little further from the shore?

 

[Crystallas]

Do you admit that your system is CLOSER to your ideal of an entirely market-driven health care system than any other developed country in the world? Let's start there.

AH, you edited your post and added another line.

No, I do not admit that the US is closer to my ideal than any other developed country in the world. For one, as I said, it is among the most corrupt, and secondly, the free entry into the market does not exist, nor is it even reasonable. Hong Kong may be the closest, still not my ideal, but that is what you are fishing for.

 

[lunakilo]

:faint:If only economics were that simple to just use an X or Y. Then we wouldn't have this mess.

Yes, I keep forgetting that in economics 2 plus 2 does not equal 4.

Okay, then all treatments, drugs, and practices developed outside of Denmark can not be used in Denmark. Now do you see?

So you are saying that the only reason why new drugs are invented is because of the US healthcare system?

 

[Crystallas]

Fact 1: You have the most market-friendly, profit-driven health care system in the developed world. Fact 2: It is more costly and less effective and efficient than every other health care system in the developed world. Your solution to the problem of it being more costly and less effective than any other model in the world is to make it MORE market-friendly and profit-driven?

How is that rational at all? How is it any different from a child on the brink of drowning thinking his problems will be solved if he just swims out a little further from the shore?

No, we aren't. Also, we have been on a complete decline for years due to adding more layers of bureaucracy. On top of that, we also return a considerable amount of wounded veterans from war which count against our world ranks.

 

[Alceste]

AH, you edited your post and added another line.

No, I do not admit that the US is closer to my ideal than any other developed country in the world. For one, as I said, it is among the most corrupt, and secondly, the free entry into the market does not exist, nor is it even reasonable. Hong Kong may be the closest, still not my ideal, but that is what you are fishing for.

Hong Kong is closer to your ideal than the US?

The chart below illustrates the overall structure of the healthcare system and the services provided in Hong Kong:

GovHK: Overview of the Health Care System in Hong Kong

So you would rather the US switch to a mainly public system like Hong Kong's, with the government directly managing the delivery of most health care services?

 

[Crystallas]

So you are saying that the only reason why new drugs are invented is because of the US healthcare system?

No, I said

"Okay, then all treatments, drugs, and practices developed outside of Denmark can not be used in Denmark. Now do you see?"

I didn't say US, I said everyone but Denmark. This was pertaining to how diversity aids to development. Let's stay in context and not hyperbole.