If you like your plan you can keep it, period

[scottspfd82]

Yeah I agree with this, I get where that position is coming from but honestly what politically feasible method would you implement to get everybody to pay into healthcare and prevent people being left behind because of income?

I have no desire to force anyone to pay for anything.

Your answer implies that the only way to prevent anyone from being left behind is to force everyone to pay into a system. And you mention "politically" - so I'd guess that you think that the state is somehow the solution to this problem.

That assumption leads down a path of fighting fire with gasoline. The state is the problem.

For example - 90% of hospitals rely on public funding, the state has controlled healthcare since before 1900, 100% of doctors must be state licensed (and pay for it), the FDA eliminates competition on research and competing medications, health insurance as we know it has been ran by the state since it's inception in the early 1900's...

...And on and on.

I don't have time to get into it, so here's some further reading...

100 Years of US Medical Fascism - Dale Steinreich - Mises Daily

Making Economic Sense

A Four-Step Health Care Solution – LewRockwell.com

Eliminate the FDA, the Insurance Companies, and Medical Education Before They Kill You Altucher Confidential

http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

That's enough to get you thinking.

To me, judging the value of someone's life and whether we should treat them for their illnesses solely on their wealth, ability and lot in life to get the care they need is much more egregiously immoral than the theoretical threat of violence for making it a rule to have health insurance.

"Theoretical" threat of violence?

Ha!

Maybe healthcare would be affordable to everyone if they weren't forced to spend the majority of their income on bombing kids in foreign countries for decades at a time and paying for police to create the largest population of non-violent prisoners in the history of the world.

I'd consider paying interest on insolvent "public" debt and being forced to watch your wealth be swallowed by inflation due to a criminal fiat monetary system to be violent acts too - similar to economic sanctions...

...But just so we're on the same page, let's leave theft and kidnapping out of it. Let's just agree that "dropping bombs on children" is a violent act. Agreed?

Who does that more than our healthcare saviors? (Hint: No one).

"Theoretical" violence my ass.

No one ever questions car insurance either, which most states require you to have if you want to drive.

I do question it, but that's another topic. It does brings up some interesting questions.

Does my car insurance cover tune-ups, new tires, oil changes and general maintenance? No?

If it did, would I use it more often?

What if it was mandated to by the state?

I mean, I have to pay for it, I might as well put it to use, right?

And now that mechanics are seeing a huge increase in demand for brake inspections (because they're "free" to the public now) do you think that the price will increase with demand?

Will insurance get more expensive?

Now that mechanics are overwhelmed with previously non-essential services (like flushing your radiator every month) will I be able to get service as fast when I really need it? Will it cost less or more?

The definition of "insurance"...

"An agreement in which a person makes regular payments to a company and the company promises to pay money if the person is injured or dies, or to pay money equal to the value of something (such as a house or car) if it is damaged, lost, or stolen"

There's a contingency involved. Like a wreck.

"Health insurance" and "health care" are two completely different things. Neither of which I'd want to purchase under the threat of being shot in the face.

The problem that you're trying to solve (health care costs) is rooted in violence. I don't have a perfect answer for you, but I can guarantee you that the answer isn't more violence - which people will unfortunately figure out the hard way.

 

[ptpatil]

Well, that'll teach me to think I'm the smartest guy on the planet again (I try not to be so hard set but this issue has been something I argue with friends about a lot).

Definitely some good points posted which I'll have to research and incorporate into my views on this legislation/health care in general.

The surgeon is the most intriguing right now, anyways thanks for the good debate for anyone that bothered to counterpoint.

dmnEPC if you're not already bored with the subject I'd like to know how you think the insurance companies would manipulate their losses to get around the 80% rule.

 

[liams]

You say that the uninsured have no leverage.

So I ask, why do they need leverage?

I know it is pedantic to ask a question and then answer it, but I'll do it anyway. The reason you need leverage is because the medical industry works as a cartel. If it was a more free market, competition would be the leverage for the uninsured.

Why do they work as a cartel?

Thanks to government regulation.

So what is the solution you propose? More regulation.

No. Just no.

The Libertarian fantasy "free market" solution would be no regulation in healthcare. This means hospitals would be free to turn away undesirable patients. Since no hospital of pure financial motive would take undesirable patients, those patients die.

But wait! What about the kind-hearted charity hospitals (since the Libertarian fantasy also sprinkles fairy dust around and "some charity will do it" is the go-to answer for everything involving social welfare)? Won't they take undesirable patients? No. Why? Because they a) won't exist, or b) if they do exist, they will be so few and far between that they will be unreachable to most undesirable patients.

Rinse and repeat for doctors, pharmacies, and any other aspects of healthcare.

The result? The poor, uninsured, chronically sick, severely sick, and those in need of expensive emergency care get no healthcare or must endure financial hardship and the resulting effects will ripples through their families and communities and eventually state and eventually nation. Congratulations, everybody's worse off because of the "free market" solution!

 

[BigWill]

Offer wall scam

 

[guerilla]

The Libertarian fantasy "free market" solution would be no regulation in healthcare. This means hospitals would be free to turn away undesirable patients. Since no hospital of pure financial motive would take undesirable patients, those patients die.

And yet when there was a free market in medicine, this didn't happen.

Your argument is inherently flawed. You're saying that men aren't good enough to care for those who need help, and that we should force them to do so.

But who is the "we" that is so enlightened? And which angelic men will administrate a solution "men" wouldn't come to on their own?

The economic incentive to serve the poor with low cost solutions is pervasive in a free economy. A good example is McDonalds. They provide some of the best raw caloric bang for the buck. And you can argue that McDonalds isn't good food, but 300 years ago, the class of people eating at McDonalds today would have been borderline starving.

But wait! What about the kind-hearted charity hospitals (since the Libertarian fantasy also sprinkles fairy dust around and "some charity will do it" is the go-to answer for everything involving social welfare)? Won't they take undesirable patients? No. Why? Because they a) won't exist, or b) if they do exist, they will be so few and far between that they will be unreachable to most undesirable patients.

How Government Solved

The result? The poor, uninsured, chronically sick, severely sick, and those in need of expensive emergency care get no healthcare or must endure financial hardship and the resulting effects will ripples through their families and communities and eventually state and eventually nation. Congratulations, everybody's worse off because of the "free market" solution!

If this was true, then Communism would have been a Utopia. Instead it was a social horror show.

If you think free markets make people worse off, I would advise studying economics. No one makes a voluntary (free) trade that they perceive to be not in their best interest.

Folks, I get there are people who will make emotional appeals for healthcare. If you really care, then donate to health charities. Don't use government force as a proxy for your social conscience.

Also, anyone arguing against freedom is either naive or dangerous.

 

[dmnEPC]

Well, that'll teach me to think I'm the smartest guy on the planet again (I try not to be so hard set but this issue has been something I argue with friends about a lot).

Definitely some good points posted which I'll have to research and incorporate into my views on this legislation/health care in general.

The surgeon is the most intriguing right now, anyways thanks for the good debate for anyone that bothered to counterpoint.

dmnEPC if you're not already bored with the subject I'd like to know how you think the insurance companies would manipulate their losses to get around the 80% rule.

When I say manipulate what I mean is. They will show their profit/loss ratio- investment income. Like I said before the real money is not made with the reported loss ratio. Do yourself a favor and pick a major health insurer. Go and look at their financials. But you need to look at their year over year reserves to get a more accurate picture. If I get some time in the next day or 2 I will go do an analysis and show you the truth.

 

[liams]

The economic incentive to serve the poor with low cost solutions is pervasive in a free economy. A good example is McDonalds. They provide some of the best raw caloric bang for the buck. And you can argue that McDonalds isn't good food, but 300 years ago, the class of people eating at McDonalds today would have been borderline starving.

Except McDonalds is nothing like healthcare. Poor people are still going to need "not cheap" healthcare if they are ever in an accident, or get cancer, or are chronically sick, etc. There are times when "cheap" healthcare isn't a solution.

That's where I see the Libertarian argument falling apart. You just don't get that healthcare doesn't fit into a nice little box like most other exchanges of goods and services do. It's not a matter of "should I have a $100 steak or a $1 hamburger" it's a matter of living versus either dying or living with the burden of potentially immense debt that fucks you over for the rest of your life and drags everyone else down with you.

If you think free markets make people worse off, I would advise studying economics. No one makes a voluntary (free) trade that they perceive to be not in their best interest.

There is no such thing as a free market. Not in the western world. There has always been some form of oversight or regulation in place. And that's not always a bad thing. You know where your Libertarian utopia exists right now? Somalia. It's run by warlords who consolidated power at the expense of everyone else.

Look, I get that you think government puts an undue burden on many things. And you aren't necessarily wrong. The government is corrupt and shady and does enact regulations from time to time in places where they do more harm than good or benefit one well-connected party over another. But those are the exceptions, and, yes, they should be repealed. However, there are countless regulations in place that benefit society by keeping things fair and do serve the common good. Just because you hate some things, doesn't mean you have to hate all things.

 

[teatree]

And yet when there was a free market in medicine, this didn't happen.

And your proof of this is.....?

Life expectancy in the USA - the superpower and the richest country on earth - is less than that in Japan, Korea, and most of western Europe - while they were the only ones following the "free market" system. What a failure! Even Britain with it's bad food, addiction to alcohol and unhealthy lifestyles, and v low healthcare expenditure produces a higher life expectancy. So something is wrong with the American "free market" system.

Your arguments resemble those when Britain's NHS was first set up. The doctors were the main opponents - they felt that there wasn't any need for a nationalized health system, the current free market one was doing just fine.

But within weeks of the NHS being set up they got a shock. Thousands of patients presented themselves who had they had previously not seen. Women who'd lived with the agony of prolapsed discs, men who had been suffering from cancers, all untreated and getting worse because under the previous "free market" system they'd gone untreated because of lack of funds. The shock was that the doctors had not known these people even existed.

It turned out that the politicians were more in touch with what was actually happening than the medical profession who only saw the self-selected group who could pay their fees. see the following video The NHS: A Difficult Beginning - YouTube

Healthcare is an economic good just as spending on infrastructure is. Sick people arn't productive, anything that changes that helps productivity.

And if you are thinking, who cares, I'm not sick, I'm in my twenties and in rude health, understand that a) these are your customers we're talking about. Sick people (and everyone gets sick in the end) don't spend as much as healthy people on whatever you are selling them and b) you will get older, guaranteed, and more ill - one of the silliest comments I've read on wickedfire was from someone who claimed that as he was following the paleo diet he wouldn't get ill and therefore didn't need full insurance. For idiocy it was up there with Martina Navratilova's surprised comment when she was diagnosed with cancer that she'd "always eaten and exercised right". Genes play a bigger role than all the rest, and unless you have extremely healthy parents, you should expect the worst.

 

[guerilla]

Except McDonalds is nothing like healthcare. Poor people are still going to need "not cheap" healthcare if they are ever in an accident, or get cancer, or are chronically sick, etc. There are times when "cheap" healthcare isn't a solution.

Your solution is forcing people with the threat (and acts of) violence to pay for other people.

That's where I see the Libertarian argument falling apart. You just don't get that healthcare doesn't fit into a nice little box like most other exchanges of goods and services do. It's not a matter of "should I have a $100 steak or a $1 hamburger" it's a matter of living versus either dying or living with the burden of potentially immense debt.

You do realize healthcare is cheaper in other countries with less regulation?

Sort of defeats your entire argument to be honest.

Yes, the American system is broken. It is broken because healthcare is the most regulated part of the US economy after the financial services market.

There is no such thing as a free market. Not in the western world. There has always been some form of oversight or regulation in place. And that's not always a bad thing.

I never claimed there was a free market.

What you call "oversight" and "regulation" are functions that can be performed by the market. You don't need a government to do them, and it's easy to demonstrate how having a single, unaccountable (sovereign immunity) agency running everything is a recipe for high costs and corruption.

I mean, who the fuck do people think were running US healthcare the last 60 years? Martians? No, the USG. And in typical short memory, reactionary style, people want the agency that fails, to have a bigger mandate, because you know, absolute power wasn't enough power for the USG before. It needs even more power. Because that will certainly turn out well.

You know where your Libertarian utopia exists right now? Somalia. It's run by warlords who consolidated power at the expense of everyone else.

LIKE CLOCKWORK. AMIRITE? LIKE FUCKING CLOCKWORK.

Also, I am not the Utopian. I am not the one arguing that men are bad, and men can make men good. You are.

There are countless regulations in place that benefit society by keeping things fair.

All of which can be provided in the marketplace. There is no reason why law, or security, or arbitration can't be handled in a market, and must be a monopoly.

 

[charlesmartel]

I wish people would stop perpetuating the mistruth that Somalia is a libertarian utopia. They have a government!!

Politics of Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's absolutely no reason that healthcare can't have the same levels of quality like McDonalds. In fact, there already exists all levels of healthcare in the world. Some really cheap. Some really expensive. Think about it:

You choose:

Allopathic doctor, natural medicine doc, homeopath
Quality of hospital: bare bones rooms, rooms with high quality restaurants
Cancer treatment: radiation, herbal, etc

It's just like clothing and shoes. There's a spectrum of quality and price.

Healthcare is actually very cheap. It's government that makes it expensive. Look where government is heavily in and you'll find very expensive services:

Colleges
Medicine
Bureaucracy

Except McDonalds is nothing like healthcare. Poor people are still going to need "not cheap" healthcare if they are ever in an accident, or get cancer, or are chronically sick, etc. There are times when "cheap" healthcare isn't a solution.

That's where I see the Libertarian argument falling apart. You just don't get that healthcare doesn't fit into a nice little box like most other exchanges of goods and services do. It's not a matter of "should I have a $100 steak or a $1 hamburger" it's a matter of living versus either dying or living with the burden of potentially immense debt that fucks you over for the rest of your life and drags everyone else down with you.



There is no such thing as a free market. Not in the western world. There has always been some form of oversight or regulation in place. And that's not always a bad thing. You know where your Libertarian utopia exists right now? Somalia. It's run by warlords who consolidated power at the expense of everyone else.

Look, I get that you think government puts an undue burden on many things. And you aren't necessarily wrong. The government is corrupt and shady and does enact regulations from time to time in places where they do more harm than good or benefit one well-connected party over another. But those are the exceptions, and, yes, they should be repealed. However, there are countless regulations in place that benefit society by keeping things fair and do serve the common good. Just because you hate some things, doesn't mean you have to hate all things.

 

[liams]

All of which can be provided in the marketplace. There is no reason why law, or security, or arbitration can't be handled in a market, and must be a monopoly.

There is no proof of this whatsoever in modern times that something as big in scale and importance as healthcare can be handled in a pure free marketplace. None. Because there is no thing as a pure free marketplace.

The only place Libertarianism thrives is in a make-believe utopia because the rest of us live in the real world where not every problem can be nicely categorized in a neat little box with a bow.

 

[liams]

There's absolutely no reason that healthcare can't have the same levels of quality like McDonalds. In fact, there already exists all levels of healthcare in the world. Some really cheap. Some really expensive. Think about it:

You choose:

Allopathic doctor, natural medicine doc, homeopath
Quality of hospital: bare bones rooms, rooms with high quality restaurants
Cancer treatment: radiation, herbal, etc

It's just like clothing and shoes. There's a spectrum of quality and price.

Rich people deserve chemo, radiation, and state of the art treatments.

Poor people deserve magic beans.

Gotcha.

 

[drave]

and unless you have extremely healthy parents, you should expect the worst.

this should be the "sign on the X" pledge before entry into the beta community.

 

[teatree]

You do realize healthcare is cheaper in other countries with less regulation?

Again, you are guilty of just making stuff up without evidence.

In the developed world, the country that spends least on healthcare is Korea - just 7.1% of GDP, followed by Finland, 8.9% of GDP, Australia 9.1% of GDP, Ireland 9.2% of GDP, Japan 9.5% of GDP and Britain 9.6% of GDP.

All of which have better life expectancy and outcomes than the USA, whose "free market" system was costing a colossal 17.6% of GDP and delivering lower life expectancy. And all these countries are highly regulated with state provision of health care.

At what point would you have admitted failure? When healthcare was 50% of GDP, 90% of GDP, crowding out all other commerce? The American free market healthcare experiment was a Failure. People don't behave in the normal commercial way when they are ill (partly because illness reduces the ability t negotiate). Something had to change. Obamacare is a first step. No doubt it will get modified and amended over the coming decades, but on aggregate it will reduce the cost as a % of GDP and stop healthcare crowding out other businesses.

 

[guerilla]

There is no proof of this whatsoever in modern times that something as big in scale and importance as healthcare can be handled in a pure free marketplace. None.

During slavery, there was no proof that slaves could ever be equal. Before suffrage, there was no proof that women could be equal political and economic actors to men.

Before the internet there was no proof that you could have real time rich media communication across the globe.

Do I need to go on?

Because there is no thing as a pure free marketplace.

I agree with this, and I wonder why you keep bringing up the strawman when I have already addressed it in a prior post.

The only place Libertarianism thrives is in a make-believe utopia because the rest of us live in the real world where not every problem can be nicely categorized in a neat little box with a bow.

"The real world" is my favorite phrase from critics. You live in the "real world" but anyone who doesn't agree with you lives in a "make believe Utopia". It is literally the most shallow, meaningless critique someone could offer, although Somalia is a close second.

I would argue that while a lot of libertarians are crackpots (just as bad as you with your faith in the men you don't have faith in), libertarianism generally has its roots in rationalism, logic and economics. Your arguments have all been based around condescension and emotion.

In fact, you've avoided taking on any of my points of logic in your replies.

 

[guerilla]

Again, you are guilty of just making stuff up without evidence.

?

In the developed world, the country that spends least on healthcare is Korea - just 7.1% of GDP, followed by Finland, 8.9% of GDP, Australia 9.1% of GDP, Ireland 9.2% of GDP, Japan 9.5% of GDP and Britain 9.6% of GDP.

What does % of GDP have to do with anything? Seriously. I want you to explain it to me.

Don't coward out. I want a real explanation of the figures you're citing, since you accused me of making facts up.

All of which have better life expectancy and outcomes than the USA, whose "free market" system was costing a colossal 17.6% of GDP and delivering lower life expectancy. And all these countries are highly regulated with state provision of health care.

No libertarian believes that the US has a free market system. It's a strawman argument, indeed if you read my prior posts to this thread, I explained as much.

At what point would you have admitted failure? When healthcare was 50% of GDP, 90% of GDP, crowding out all other commerce? The American free market healthcare experiment was a Failure.

How Government Solved

 

[jstover77]

New lifehack: always bring your own bottle of Advil and Tylenol to the emergency room.

When I was at the bank today the manager was telling me they are no longer offering insurance to part timers. They are a big bank too. Quinkydink?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

The American free market healthcare experiment was a Failure.

Since when did the US have a free market health care system?

 

[charlesmartel]

Nice reading. Does everyone "deserve" a state of the art car, house, clothing, restaurants, etc? (Where's my Lamborghini!) And do they "deserve" the right to FORCE others to pay for it under threat of IMPRISONMENT.

BTW, there are less costly and toxic alternatives to chemo and radiation treatment. There's a lot of treatments out there for all kinds of diseases that are being held back by the FDA, etc.

Rich people deserve chemo, radiation, and state of the art treatments.

Poor people deserve magic beans.

Gotcha.

 

[guerilla]

Nice reading. Does everyone "deserve" a state of the art car, house, clothing, restaurants, etc?

Liam believes they deserve it but YOU need to pay for it.

He's not stepping up with all of his disposable income to help people out.

That's your job, and dadgumit, he's going to use the power of state violence to make sure you pay for the people he won't pay for.

Because that's moral and ethical and kind. That's the effect of social democracy.