The actual insurance companies are one link in the chain. What about the pharma industry which is one of the top 5 most profitable, at about 20% margins?
Obamacare starting to look more appealing.
- Thread starter dreamache
- Start date
The actual insurance companies are one link in the chain. What about the pharma industry which is one of the top 5 most profitable, at about 20% margins?
It's a special case because consumers have so little choice in the health care market due to many negative conditions you brought out.
guerilla said:
I know, I know. But employees get health insurance with lots of perks as a tax free benefit, so plans with comprehensive care are popular.
Granny would clobber you with her cane for that statement (as well as your congress critter who shudders in fear of her and will not put their government hands on her Medicare). Medicaid is health care for the poor, btw.
I agree, and the government would like to allow out of state competition as well, but the insurance companies successfully lobbied against it. They do not welcome the competition.
To a large degree, the health insurance industry is the problem. They prefer the status quo, and have been looking forward to getting an ever-growing share of the US GNP. Many of your ideas are good ones, although various special interests are not as enthusiastic as yourself. Aside from health insurers, your got opposing unions, seniors, and even doctors who get fees per service, motivating them to provide more and more care. People who get health insurance from their employer don't want some libertarian smarty named guerilla to touch their comprehensive care because it's good for them, the family needs it and damn it they earned it working at the shitty job!
Libertarian ideals don't trump human nature. Taking stuff away from people won't go down very well, and I'm sure that if you asked a conservative to give up even a single benefit they would rather see you chained to a rock while a raven pecks at your liver.
It's very hard to implement change of any kind when somebody's got something to lose, making the health insurance bill passage a miracle. The bill they would like to have passed is far different from the one that did pass because so many special interests had something to lose. It's imperfect because they had to legislate in the real world, not in a purist libertarian fantasy world.
In short, the government is not as much a problem as the special interests. Government in this case is working within the system and stepping in to stop the insurance industry from running roughshod over consumers.
What the hell are you talking about, if you nationalise healthcare, doctors get paid by the government, through our tax money. It would work out the same anyway, instead of paying $500 a month to some insurance company that has a whole legal team dedicated to screwing you over, it would go through your taxes. And in case you're wondering, GPs in the UK that work in local clinics get paid minimum of £53k up to £80kish. ($77k to $120k) a year. Doctors/surgeons in hospital get similar wages.
You know that's a BS argument.
LOL. Refer to response above.
There it is. Competition. Unfettered competition. To that end...
A Four-Step Healthcare Solution - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily
Why don't people understand that as soon as you offer things for free quality goes down? Why don't people understand that some people deserve better things if they work for them? Why don't people understand that some people deserve less if they choose not to work for them? Why don't people understand that if we really want free healthcare we should have family, a neighbor or a friend start offering it? Why don't the people who want free healthcare ever offer it to others? Why are the supporters always on the receiving end and not the giving end? Why is the government always the entity of choice to administer these free programs? Why is it called universal healthcare but then they give you insurance? Why is insurance tied into healthcare?
Do people understand that by wanting somebody else to take care of you you are giving your power away? This is what serfs do. They have the king take care of them. But we actually HAVE the option of not being slaves but we CHOOSE to be slaves. Are we that blind? Are we that pathetic? The whole thing is an absolute joke. People by their actions are saying, I am unable to take care of myself, save me king. Save me. I thought Americans were supposed to be their own sovereign kings. So much for freedom. Let's bring on the king. I'm amazed at how incredibly sick this whole thing really is. People are never going to figure it out. Technocratic feudalism here we come
Do people understand that by wanting somebody else to take care of you you are giving your power away? This is what serfs do. They have the king take care of them. But we actually HAVE the option of not being slaves but we CHOOSE to be slaves. Are we that blind? Are we that pathetic? The whole thing is an absolute joke. People by their actions are saying, I am unable to take care of myself, save me king. Save me. I thought Americans were supposed to be their own sovereign kings. So much for freedom. Let's bring on the king. I'm amazed at how incredibly sick this whole thing really is. People are never going to figure it out. Technocratic feudalism here we come
Because we have a wealthy and powerful insurance industry that employs an army of lobbyists to influence our members of congress. They have the financial clout to buy up media time to influence public opinion their way (e.g., Harry & Louis ads).
This powerful, entrenched industry makes sure they will continue commanding a large portion of the US GNP also by making large donations to presidential candidates and members of congress. A particularly egregious example is Joe Lieberman, Ind., CT, the "senator from Aetna," who successfully lobbied on behalf of the insurance industry to scrap the public option in the health insurance bill, which was intended to compete with the insurance industry to lower costs.
I agree completely. So why are we knowingly then taking something that is already broken and now enforcing a broken system by law? Shouldn't we FIRST fix this problem before we go out bringing in the Nazis to enforce that everyone needs insurance? Do people not understand what is going on here? You don't solve a problem by taking the problem and then mandating that everyone needs to participate in the problem.
Once again, a simple problem that could easily be solved by a free market with no government intervention. But it's much more fun to complicate it and bring in the socialism. People absolutely love being slaves. They can't get enough of it. Give them their Roman circus and give them their beer and they're yours for life.
They are only able to extort because the system is created to prevent competition. It is not necessary to artificially create competition (public option) if real competition was allowed.
Everyone is greedy. It is called rational self interest. Networks are greedy, affiliates are greedy, McDonalds is greedy. Babies are greedy for mother's milk.
The difference with the health care industry is that they enjoy government enforced monopolies. You can't force people to buy Acai berries, but they can force people to get insurance. You can't stop me from starting a network or running an offer, but they can stop out of state firms from competing, and they can create so much regulatory red tape, it is very expensive to get licensed in their market.
That is how government protects big business. Government + big business = high prices. Greed is bad when it is combined with the power of force like violence or law. Greed in honest competition is what makes the world go around.
Generally I agree with you. And like you, I also have to get my grind on.
Let's talk about greed:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
Wouldn't that trample on states rights and end the end screw the consumer anyway?
Ezra Klein - Selling insurance across state lines: A terrible, no good, very bad health-care idea
[quote]writtenstyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon
Healthcare should not be a profit making business venture. EVERYONE deserves free healthcare, it's a human right you fucks. Any 1st world country should be able to provide free healthcare and free education to its citizens. It boggles the mind that some of you think otherwise. /Demon
writtenstyle Responds,
That is a scary statement. You are saying everyone deserves free healthcare. But what you are really saying is:
Doctors should be forced by law to give up their time and resources to take care of people, without getting compensated.
I wonder if you were running some profitable PPC campaigns and the government came by and said you were to profitable, and it is a right for everyone to be financially stable. Therefore, you have to put other people's affiliate links in your PPC ads, but you keep paying for the ads - if you would still have the same outlook.
You are saying that the government with power of the law, and the ability to enfoce laws (with guns), should hold guns to Doctor and nurses and force them to perform their jobs for free.
You forget that it is a human right to own your own self and not have others be imposed on you. Your statement says doctors and nurses do not have that right.
As for the illness thing. I agree something needs to be done. I dont think Obamacare is the answer, but that does suck that just because of one illness, you are denied coverage. That really sucks.
[/quote]
You want doctors to trust the government to fairly compensate them? You are allowing the government to determine what doctors should be paid. Would you trust the federal government to fairly compensate you if they forced to share your profitable PPC campaigns with marketers who were struggling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon
Healthcare should not be a profit making business venture. EVERYONE deserves free healthcare, it's a human right you fucks. Any 1st world country should be able to provide free healthcare and free education to its citizens. It boggles the mind that some of you think otherwise. /Demon
writtenstyle Responds,
That is a scary statement. You are saying everyone deserves free healthcare. But what you are really saying is:
Doctors should be forced by law to give up their time and resources to take care of people, without getting compensated.
I wonder if you were running some profitable PPC campaigns and the government came by and said you were to profitable, and it is a right for everyone to be financially stable. Therefore, you have to put other people's affiliate links in your PPC ads, but you keep paying for the ads - if you would still have the same outlook.
You are saying that the government with power of the law, and the ability to enfoce laws (with guns), should hold guns to Doctor and nurses and force them to perform their jobs for free.
You forget that it is a human right to own your own self and not have others be imposed on you. Your statement says doctors and nurses do not have that right.
As for the illness thing. I agree something needs to be done. I dont think Obamacare is the answer, but that does suck that just because of one illness, you are denied coverage. That really sucks.
[/quote]
You want doctors to trust the government to fairly compensate them? You are allowing the government to determine what doctors should be paid. Would you trust the federal government to fairly compensate you if they forced to share your profitable PPC campaigns with marketers who were struggling?
A human right??? Only government can give free health care to it's citizens. If the government can give you these "rights" than government can and will eventually take away your rights when they wish.
It shouldn't boggle your mind that most people (at least in this country)are not communist.
Erm yeah, because if they didn't pay well there would be no incentive for people to go into that field. Medicine is one of the most competitive courses at university in the uk because of this, doctors get paid the highest salaries. If the government ever decided to dramatically reduce the pay, demand would drop significantly, as people would go into different fields. It doesnt really matter who is paying, the government or a private company, because the principle still stands.writtenstyle said:
LOL. I can't believe it, I actually joked to myself that you would come in here and call me a communist, and you actually did. So believing in free healthcare for all = communist? lol
And Perhaps 'human right' is the wrong term to use, for the same reason that food is not a human right either as pointed out earlier.
There are already a lot of doctors retiring, and future doctors opting for new career fields. So you are right. Your suggestion of free health care for every one will in fact mean very limited health care for only those who are connected enough.
My wife works for a doctor who just sold his practice to a big corporation because he would not be able to maintain his practice under Obamacare.
That is pretty circular.
Yes, free stuff is popular. I'm not sure how it is relevant, but it is true.
Do I understand that right? They are not responsible for being persuaded to benefit a special interest class, which supports their re-election?
That is the same for every industry.
Well at least you can admit it is a race to the bottom, and the consumer is part of the problem.
I never say they do. But if one wants to make a claim to morals (doing right by the less fortunate, what is fair) then human nature as you see it, doesn't support your position. People do not want what is fair, they want what is in their interest. They do not want what works for everyone, they only want what works for themselves.
Politicians are human, and also have human nature. They don't give a shit about you or some granny. They only care about being re-elected.
You don't have to get petty because you are struggling to articulate a coherent argument. I'd like to think you are better than that.
The way I see it, belief in the benevolence of government is the real fantasy. People think their political rulers (yes, they do indeed rule by force) are somehow more moral, intelligent and righteous, and that they are motivated by altruism and a burning desire to accomplish the common good. While that may be generally true of someone like Ron Paul, most of them are idiots, liars, and power hungry thugs who will do almost anything to keep themselves on top. Seriously, who thinks Nancy Pelosi is actually a decent human being? Or Dick Cheney?
The people who make the world a better place are the producers, not the moochers or looters.
Without government power, special interests have no clout.
How? They are not increasing competition, and they are forcing millions more people to buy private insurance.
They setup a system where consumers cannot succeed, and then they compound it by removing consumer choice.
If one wants to be compassionate to the poor and less fortunate, setting them up for a fall by destroying the free market is a strange way to do it.
And now I am really going back to work.
And that right there is the problem. You should be able to exclude certain things, or pay more to get it covered.
Laws have been put in place over the last 100 years that allow insurance companies to make more money at the expensive of patients. Now if this was a situation where patients loose a dollar and the companies gain a dollar that would even be OK - but it's not. There are huge dead weight losses in the industry. As it stands now it's more like the patients loose $6 and so the companies can make $1. If you don't understand what that means or what a dead weight loss is feel free to pick up an economics book.
This simply isn't a beneficial situation for our country overall. We have laws that allow a small percentage of the population to make money off the rest at a greater expense then the money they make. Now this exits in almost every industry to some extent but it's pretty much the worst in the health care industry and also health care is a bit more required then plenty of other things.
There are no simple instant fixes but it would help if people could have more rational discussions on this.
Also the entire idea of changing or putting in place a system for our entire country at once is just plain stupid. How can anyone expect to be able to come up with the best system simply through any other method besides experimentation? Once one system goes up it won't be changed quickly or anything no matter how bad it is. That would be like starting a hugely expensive campaign and just using the first LP you designed and just stick with it for a years then maybe try a different one. We all know what split testing is and how important is from day 1 on a campaign. It's sad the government doesn't currently doesn't seem to know this.
Any sound approach to changing most laws would involve first testing the changes versus the current system in different areas and then drawing conclusions from those tests. This is one of the best arguments for federalism.
Health care CANNOT be COMPLETELY free to ALL citizens, that's one system it doesn't take a genius to figure out wouldn't work. There is no doubt in needs some serious changes though.
This simply isn't a beneficial situation for our country overall. We have laws that allow a small percentage of the population to make money off the rest at a greater expense then the money they make. Now this exits in almost every industry to some extent but it's pretty much the worst in the health care industry and also health care is a bit more required then plenty of other things.
There are no simple instant fixes but it would help if people could have more rational discussions on this.
Also the entire idea of changing or putting in place a system for our entire country at once is just plain stupid. How can anyone expect to be able to come up with the best system simply through any other method besides experimentation? Once one system goes up it won't be changed quickly or anything no matter how bad it is. That would be like starting a hugely expensive campaign and just using the first LP you designed and just stick with it for a years then maybe try a different one. We all know what split testing is and how important is from day 1 on a campaign. It's sad the government doesn't currently doesn't seem to know this.
Any sound approach to changing most laws would involve first testing the changes versus the current system in different areas and then drawing conclusions from those tests. This is one of the best arguments for federalism.
Health care CANNOT be COMPLETELY free to ALL citizens, that's one system it doesn't take a genius to figure out wouldn't work. There is no doubt in needs some serious changes though.
Slightly (only slightly) off-topic...
I have been discussing this with a friend. He is receptive to ideas of freedom, but oddly veers toward Marx rather than Mises. He does agree, however, that man (defined as a rational actor) is driven by his/her self-interest in every decision made.
I asked him, "How then can you conceptualize placing such an actor in a position of coercive authority over others, and expect something other than the oppressive system against which you rail?"
This is a disconnect for him. It is a disconnect for many people.
If a person believes every rational actor is driven by self-interest, then arguing that a rational actor placed in a state role will abandon his self-interest for the good of others is optimistic. Further, it is entirely unsupported by history.
I think if some of you guys were exposed to having family members lose nearly everything over an accident of some sort, you'd have some altered perspectives.