More people hurt by the ACA than helped

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How many bear skins is a triple bypass operation?

You do realize that nobody makes money by denying service? Or by providing it only to the most wealthy buyers.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you keep going on and on how healthcare should be treated like any other market. it is not like any other market. this isn't a product that you can refuse.

if i am unsatisfied with the quality and price of my fast food, i stop going to mcdonalds. if wendy's, taco bell and burger king join mcdonalds in offering almost equal levels of quality and price, i ...[text shortened]... companies, you agree the government should step in and oversee, which is exactly what ACA does.

"it is not like any other market. this isn't a product that you can refuse."

Well no it isn't, but that's not to say it couldn't be.

You do recognize there are other choices in eating than fast foods. There are both cheaper and higher priced alternatives, not necessarily better.

When you take the consumer of the product out of the equation, yes the situation becomes as you describe, and gets worse the longer free choices are denied.

The products that insurance companies offer are largely dictated by government, not by markets. The HMO, PPO, Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are all inventions of government. Is it reasonable to think that they can fix the mess they made of a market?

There are obviously individual problems with health care delivery and payment none of which are solved by government control, the biggest one being the inflationary costs.

Originally posted by quackquack
When I go to a restaurant there is one price for each item. We don't have rich people pay more for an item so poorer people can get their food cheaper. We don't give certain people obtain only 80% of a portion so really hungry people can get extra insurance. We don't make people pay for things they don't wish to eat even if the restaurant thinks it is ...[text shortened]... pre-existing conditions, the majority of people are paying for the costs of others healthcare).

Yes, you've made it very clear in the past that you prefer an aristocratic society. I just prefer a society where work, rather than birth, is rewarded.

Originally posted by normbenign
You do realize that nobody makes money by denying service? Or by providing it only to the most wealthy buyers.

Is there a point to this trivial observation?

Originally posted by normbenign
"it is not like any other market. this isn't a product that you can refuse."

Well no it isn't, but that's not to say it couldn't be.

You do recognize there are other choices in eating than fast foods. There are both cheaper and higher priced alternatives, not necessarily better.

When you take the consumer of the product out of the equation, yes ...[text shortened]... nt none of which are solved by government control, the biggest one being the inflationary costs.

"Well no it isn't, but that's not to say it couldn't be."
no, it really can't. free market cannot exist when one of the parties involved can hold the other hostage. as a patient that is going to die if i don't buy a certain drug, i cannot boycott that product. even if that drug is not patented, there is no reason other companies will sell it at a reasonable price.

"You do recognize there are other choices in eating than fast foods. There are both cheaper and higher priced alternatives, not necessarily better."
and like i said, this isn't the case.
anyone can grow food. the market is flooded with the product. i have a choice where to buy. and if the food is too expensive, i might even grow my own.

i cannot make my own drugs. and i die if i don't get some. i HAVE to agree to the price set by the drug companies. i don't have a choice.

do you understand now why healthcare cannot be treated like any other consumer product?


"When you take the consumer of the product out of the equation, yes the situation becomes as you describe, and gets worse the longer free choices are denied."
what are you talking about?


"Is it reasonable to think that they can fix the mess they made of a market?"
yes, because you control your government. you don't control private companies.

Originally posted by normbenign
You do realize that nobody makes money by denying service? Or by providing it only to the most wealthy buyers.

except when that service is vital that the buyer is forced to agree to any price.

Originally posted by quackquack
If you have no intention of ever using a certain type of insurance (drug rehab, mental health, abortion) ....

How many people have the intention of using
"drug rehab, mental health or abortion"?

It's like asking who intends their house to burn down.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
How many people have the intention of using
"drug rehab, mental health or abortion"?

It's like asking who intends their house to burn down.

People who abuse drugs, practice an immoral life and have unprotected sex are acting recklessly and people who are not so reckless should not be made to pay for the bad choices of others.

The question is "Who recklessly endangers their house of being burnt down"

eg, the people that install indoor wood burning stoves but do not sufficiently insulate the stack where it goes through the roof, people who have open fires that they leave unattended, people that bypass fuses or substitute a nail for 15amp fuse wire, people that don't bother replacing 80 year old wiring, people who release fireworks inside their house, people that leave something cooking on the stove then fall asleep in front of the telly. The list of stupid reckless acts that result in house fires goes on and on.

So that is the question: Should people that are careful pay for the results of the reckless behaviour of others?

(PS. I have actually attended two house fires intentionally set, it's not as uncommon as you may think)

Originally posted by Wajoma
Should people that are careful pay for the results of the reckless behaviour of others?

You do, regardless of whether or not you should. In a modern economy, people's actions are interconnected. If someone who is doing productive labour gets sick, then this will negatively affect you, directly or indirectly. The only way to avoid being negatively affected by the actions of others is the same way you avoid benefiting from them; i.e. live as a hermit far from the influence of others (another planet, maybe) and boycott currency.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You do, regardless of whether or not you should. In a modern economy, people's actions are interconnected. If someone who is doing productive labour gets sick, then this will negatively affect you, directly or indirectly. The only way to avoid being negatively affected by the actions of others is the same way you avoid benefiting from them; i.e. live as a hermit far from the influence of others (another planet, maybe) and boycott currency.

So socialised forced healthcare should only be eligible for productive worker units. You have a nice point there.

Originally posted by Wajoma
So socialised forced healthcare should only be eligible for productive worker units. You have a nice point there.

Non sequitur.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Is there a point to this trivial observation?

It may be trivial, but you seem to prefer to ignore it.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
except when that service is vital that the buyer is forced to agree to any price.

No, if a market exists, someone will cater to the lower tier of that market and probably do better than catering to the rich.

Originally posted by normbenign
It may be trivial, but you seem to prefer to ignore it.

You seem to insist it's relevant when it's not. Without government subsidies, some people will still be able to buy adequate health care. So what?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
except when that service is vital that the buyer is forced to agree to any price.

Control of the market by third parties is what leads to that situation. If government or insurance companies pay all the bills, providers no longer have to consider the consumer's ability to pay.