Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny | Woot!
Have a safe weekend; eat, drink, and remember why you're celebrating! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ | See some fireworks:
»www.stressbuster1.com/lady/liberty.html |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
| 
I want YOU to have healthcare! |
|
|
KenTheCook
Vornado Fan
Premium
join:2005-10-26
Lahaina, HI | reply to TKJunkMail
Very Cool, Thanks! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to ronpin
said by ronpin  : I have & pay for healthcare. What it should say is "I want you to pay for others healthcare". |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | Healthcare and socialism?
said by TKJunkMail :I have & pay for healthcare. What it should say is "I want you to pay for others healthcare". That's happening now, even without President Obama's proposed reform.
America's healthcare "market" is not a "free market" of willing buyers and sellers. The AMA is essentially given a monopoly to set quality standards -- enforceable through public law (and, ultimately the business end of a gun).
The downside: a "market" without lower-quality (and -priced) options for those who can afford only that, and would be willing to purchase what they can afford..
We often hear "America has the best health care system in the world, that's why foreigners travel here for treatment." That's a breath-taking non sequitur. When public law is used to create a market which wouldn't naturally result from "willing buyers and sellers," you can make it whatever you want.
But, that comes at someone's expense. You never get something for nothing. Having the "best healthcare system in the world" is a direct result of eliminating lessor choices which would exist in a true "market," and the disparity (and unpredictable market outcomes) which would exist in such a true "market." It's "the best healthcare system" if you can afford this socialized and artificial market. For everyone else, they get virtually nothing.
That is a form of wealth transfer. Creating a socialized market where due diligence to purchase goods of services is reduced at the expense of others.
The really perverse thing about this is
1) We say these socially-mandated quality standards (on an otherwise "free market") are a matter of "public safety." We're denying people healthcare that they can afford so they'll be safe? Going without treatment is better than buying at least something?
Of course, what we really mean is "public safety" at the aggregate (social) level. Even if some are actually less safe. That is a social, collective goal. Subject to questions about who's safety is improved. But, as soon as anyone raises that topic they're labeled a "socialist" who supports "wealth transfer" (as if wealth transfer isn't happening now!).
2) We use foreigners seeking treatment in the US to justify Americans denied even the choice of lessor-quality (and lessor-priced) goods and services?
Trust me, someone's paying for your health care today. It's just not as clear (to you) as removing $ from your wallet.
Mark |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | said by amigo_boy :Trust me, someone's paying for your health care today. It's just not as clear (to you) as removing $ from your wallet. ...Yes -- we ARE ALREADY paying for poor folks healthcare -- and at the very highest possible costs -- with virtually no effort whatsoever for prevention -- under the absolute certainty that everyone -- especially poor people -- do get sick. Only "Ron Paul" and the Libertarians would "step-over" a dying street-person "for the public good". The rest of us swallow-hard and allow our taxes to subsidize various "hospital districts" around the country -- 'cause we know God loves everybody -- and allows us to help others as we would like to be helped -- if it was our child in need.
We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations).
Even Rush Limbaugh is paying for indigent healthcare! -- he's just too frick'n dumb to know he could save a bundle through a "medicare-like" option for needs-qualified patients -- to get preventative care (like cholesterol meds). "Stupid is as stupid does"
--
Remember the future. |
|
Fox McCloud
Crazy like a fox.
join:2006-07-23
·Embarq
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
|  said by ronpin :Only "Ron Paul" and the Libertarians would "step-over" a dying street-person "for the public good". The rest of us swallow-hard and allow our taxes to subsidize various "hospital districts" around the country -- 'cause we know God loves everybody -- and allows us to help others as we would like to be helped -- if it was our child in need. We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations). What a gross distortion of what Ron Paul and libertarians, in general, stand for; only the staunchest objectivist would do something as you describe. Ron Paul has specifically described that non-profit organizations and churches would help provide healthcare for those who couldn't afford it, which is the way it used to be until public funding crowded them out (after all, why donate when you're forced into paying for it anyway?). Milton Friedman talked about how back in the 20's and 30's the poor and upper class could get excellent healthcare, but it was the middle-class who struggled with it, a bit.
It's one thing to say "Ugh, those libertarians; they believe in deregulation, low taxes, and are somehow anti-war", but to make a statement like you just did is horrendously inaccurate. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to ronpin
said by ronpin :We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations). I don't know if I'd compare us to other industrialized nations. Less developed nations don't regulate health care quality like we do. You can see a doctor for $5-$10. Prescriptions are cheap.
Developed nations have accepted the social responsibility that comes with setting social standards on health care (to create higher quality than a market of "willing buyers and sellers" would produce). They make goods and services available to those who can't afford the artificially-created high priced "market" which allows no lessor choices.
That's what's funny (in a perverse way) about opponents to health care reform. They complain that you'll have to wait for services. People wait today! If you can't afford the artificially- (socially-) created market, you'll wait until your illness is bad enough to be seen by an emergency-room physician.
I liked (in a perverse way) Rs speaking to the camera about how "if you like the DMV or Post Office, you'll love health care reform." That's an apples/oranges comparison. There is a sizeable portion of the public who can't buy any service. For them, there's not even a line to wait in.
Rs don't talk about that. All they do is act like a precedent is being set if their own ox is gored.
However, I agree with Rs that health care reform will create problems for many people. I'm not looking forward to waiting for services that I can afford today. But, the Rs strategy seems to be to ignore how many people have it far worse than simply waiting. Maybe when the problem is *everyone's* problem we'll look for better solutions.
Personally, I'd like to see competing medical associations. The AMA providing top-shelf accreditation for those willing to pay top-shelf prices. A PMA (Public Medical Association) for those willing to accept lower quality goods and services at a discount. Giving the AMA a monopoly has been bad (unless you are among the few who can afford to pay for these monopolized goods and services).
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | reply to Fox McCloud
said by Fox McCloud :Ron Paul has specifically described that non-profit organizations and churches would help provide healthcare for those who couldn't afford it, which is the way it used to be until public funding crowded them out If you want to play the "way it used to be" game, we could go back to when health care was lightly regulated. Your neighbor could set a fractured arm, or deliver a baby if you wanted to save money on a doctor visit.
The root cause isn't "public funding." It's that we didn't want third-world health care conditions. To achieve that goal we gave the medical association (which became the medical establishment) control over its industry, to establish standards and use Public Law to enforce those standards "in the public interest."
It was the loss of those "free market" choices (for the social good of a rising standard of living) which led to increased calls for "public funding."
This is no different than other social evolution, such as public water, sewer, roads, etc. Society is always looking to improve standards -- and recognizing that a social responsibility goes with those improved (artificial, not "market-based" standards).
That's where Ron Paul breaks down. IMO, Ron Paul pseudo-libertarians are a fraud. They like to use the big-L Libertarian rhetoric to sound like their positions are "principled" (unlike everyone else). But, they quickly dodge all the disconnects in big-L rhetoric by explaining "I'm not a big-L Libertarian...."
The result is a mish-mash of incomprehensible positions based upon sound bites. Selectively focusing on things like how we should "return to a time before public funding" -- while ignoring what public funding was a response to. (I.e., they don't want to return to a time before public standards because, "hey! I'm not a Big-L Libertarian!!!!").
Mark |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | reply to Fox McCloud
said by Fox McCloud :said by ronpin :Only "Ron Paul" and the Libertarians would "step-over" a dying street-person "for the public good". The rest of us swallow-hard and allow our taxes to subsidize various "hospital districts" around the country -- 'cause we know God loves everybody -- and allows us to help others as we would like to be helped -- if it was our child in need. We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations). ...Ron Paul has specifically described that non-profit organizations and churches would help provide healthcare for those who couldn't afford it, which is the way it used to be until public funding crowded them out (after all, why donate when you're forced into paying for it anyway?). ...you only proved my point!!! (...leave it up to God -- it's not my problem ("am I my brothers keeper?")
I was raised with no healthcare -- through no fault of my own -- living in an obvious "shack" right across the street from a large church! -- during the "good 'ol days" of racism, sexism and "manifest destiny" No -- libertarians are only worse than repugs because they attempt to rationalize their convenient, selfish inhumanity. At least Rush Limbaugh is too dumb to actually rationalize anything (demonize - yes)
If only selfish people were not inherently ignorant -- they'd be the very first to embrace expanding Medicare -- to save the money that now leaks-out between the cracks in our system. GM, Walmart and most other Fortune 500 companies now see what a competitive disadvantage we now suffer by foisting-off the healthcare of sentient beings to the randomness of the "business cycle". It's time to grow-up.
--
Remember the future. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by ronpin :...you only proved my point!!! (...leave it up to God -- it's not my problem ("am I my brothers keeper?") That gets back to my observation about Ron Paul pseudo-Libertarians. A Big-L Libertarian would say it's not government's job to coerce anyone to be someone else's keeper.
Ron Paul pseudo-Ls intimate suggest that principle, but won't go that far because, to be consistent we'd have to question why government sets social standards (and resulting market prices) high (so we don't have third-world medicine). They want to suggest Big L's "non-coercion principle," but at the same time distance themselves from what that really means because Big L's are largely irrelevant due to their unrealistic/unpopular principles.
That's what I don't like about he modern health-care debate. It's driven by ideologues who simply parrot polar positions rather than think about the issues for themselves. It's just slogans about "wealth transfer." Or, the other side not acknowleging that reform will truly create problems for many -- *but, that won't be a precedent since we create problems for many today*.
Mark |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | reply to amigo_boy
Well-written amigo. |
|
dib22
join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Woot!
said by TKJunkMail :I have & pay for healthcare. What it should say is "I want you to pay for others healthcare". let's hope you never get a condition that hurts your insurance companies profit margin. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by dib22 :let's hope you never get a condition that hurts your insurance companies profit margin. Let's just hope should socialized medicine go through that you never get a condition that scores low on the government's cost benefit analysis. At least you can reason with the insurance company the government not so much.
It's funny you all cry think of poor grandma who can't afford to pay to have the brain tumor removed; meanwhile grandma has the most to lose should socialized medicine come to town since she doesn't feed the machine. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| Grandma has the least to lose, and the most to gain. Socialized medicine would provide her guaranteed healthcare at little to no cost, except for the tiny % she pays in taxes from her miniscule income. Preventative medicine applied to a socialized system that benefits from such practices would increase the quality of her life significantly, while keeping her out of the hospital. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck :It's funny you all cry think of poor grandma who can't afford to pay to have the brain tumor removed; meanwhile grandma has the most to lose should socialized medicine come to town since she doesn't feed the machine. I agree and disagree. Health care is "socialized" now. It is public law which sets standards higher than a "free market" of willing buyers and sellers would produce. That comes at the expense of those who would be willing (and able) to pay for goods and services that are essentially illegal today.
That problem is just as bad as the problem you described. Either way there is a "cost/benefit" calculus applied. Today we (collectively) make a decision to eliminate lessor (and cheaper) goods and services "for the good of all" (which translates into "the good of those who can afford the result.").
Now it's just a political negotiation how we define "the good of all."
That's where I think Rs have completely missed the boat. They're right about all the negatives of a more equitably distributed health-care system. But, they ignore how our current system has inequitably placed the cost of high quality upon those who can't afford it.
Mark |
|
Shamayim
I already have a Messiah.
Premium
join:2002-09-23
| reply to ronpin
Re: Healthcare and socialism?
said by ronpin :Even Rush Limbaugh . . . he's just too frick'n dumb . . . Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is dumb like B. Hussein Obama is an American patriot.
--
Who is Jesus? and Why it matters (to YOU).
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Shamayim :said by ronpin :Even Rush Limbaugh . . . he's just too frick'n dumb . . . Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is dumb like B. Hussein Obama is an American patriot. Yes to both.
I do know one thing. Healthcare *must* be addressed because if nothing is done, it is one of the planks that America is going to walk right off the end of.
The spiralling costs of healthcare ALONE could sink the entire country. Something MUST change.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
dumbamericans
@rr.com
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by ronpin :We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations). I don't know if I'd compare us to other industrialized nations. Less developed nations don't regulate health care quality like we do. You can see a doctor for $5-$10. Prescriptions are cheap.Developed nations have accepted the social responsibility that comes with setting social standards on health care (to create higher quality than a market of "willing buyers and sellers" would produce). They make goods and services available to those who can't afford the artificially-created high priced "market" which allows no lessor choices. That's what's funny (in a perverse way) about opponents to health care reform. They complain that you'll have to wait for services. People wait today! If you can't afford the artificially- (socially-) created market, you'll wait until your illness is bad enough to be seen by an emergency-room physician. I liked (in a perverse way) Rs speaking to the camera about how "if you like the DMV or Post Office, you'll love health care reform." That's an apples/oranges comparison. There is a sizeable portion of the public who can't buy any service. For them, there's not even a line to wait in. Rs don't talk about that. All they do is act like a precedent is being set if their own ox is gored. However, I agree with Rs that health care reform will create problems for many people. I'm not looking forward to waiting for services that I can afford today. But, the Rs strategy seems to be to ignore how many people have it far worse than simply waiting. Maybe when the problem is *everyone's* problem we'll look for better solutions. Personally, I'd like to see competing medical associations. The AMA providing top-shelf accreditation for those willing to pay top-shelf prices. A PMA (Public Medical Association) for those willing to accept lower quality goods and services at a discount. Giving the AMA a monopoly has been bad (unless you are among the few who can afford to pay for these monopolized goods and services). Mark i dont know what world you live in.
the US has the WORST overall health care system IN THE WORLD for its OWN PEOPLE.
try being elderly on ssi paying insurance premiums and prescriptions, or state funded ssi and state Medicaid with subsidized so called insurance.
be a "typical" AMERICAN with wow "insurance" and be the lucky one to be struck with a major illness lets try a major heart condition that amounts to $500,000 in medical expense, and now the hospital is demanding "UPFRONT" payment before they cover any procedure of what your "INSURANCE" WILL NOT COVER!!!! yea your now REFINANCING YOUR HOUSE TO THE TUNE OF $100k+. you think your covered because you have insurance? THINK AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the ones who can "afford" insurance are paying into a for profit agency seeking for profit treatment/s on top of for profit drugs these are the huge huge flaws in the U.S medical system.
health care in America is VERY BROKEN AND YES IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
MEXICO has 100% coverage on any working person and everyone is treated EQUALLY. as far as health care goes.
and this coverage is PAID FOR BY THE EMPLOYERS of the working people |
|
