Originally posted by EladarTo repeat for the stupid, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
You didn't present numbers. You presented your opinion, then claimed that it was based on actual numbers. In other words, you were talking out your arse and claimed that your stench was fact.
The numbers are there, dunce.
Originally posted by uzlessNo, I would only wail about the government taking the money. Why should we give them any more until they show a propensity to be able to be accountable for what they already have?
Don't start this one again.
All the repub's will wail about the government taking their money and having to support fat people who eat hamburgers.
All the Dem's will call them stupid and selfish.
Debate over.
Originally posted by whodeyThe government is accountable for their expenses through the general elections. Of course, in a two-party system like in the US, where both parties' right-wing socio-economic policies vary very little, this point loses some significance, but improving the undemocratic electoral system in the US needs change from within, and is therefore difficult to achieve.
No, I would only wail about the government taking the money. Why should we give them any more until they show a propensity to be able to be accountable for what they already have?
Originally posted by no1marauderThere are three 'necessities' of life -- food, clothing, and shelter. The free market manages to provide all three of those quite well.
How about individuals who don't have enough money to "vote with their pocketbooks"? Should they just die because they can't afford adequate health care?
The free market breaks down with health care; people will pay whatever is demanded in order to avoid sickness and death. Demand is "inelastic" in economic terms.
But there is this myth -- and you are propagating it, knowingly or unknowingly -- that the free market cannot provide a fourth, which is healthcare.
The fact is, the free market could provide very adequate healthcare at reasonable prices, but it is not alowed to do that. The poor do not die from hunger or exposure in the world except in countries where free markets do not function. If healthcare were allowed to be obtained in the same way, the poor would be able to obtain it as easily because prices would plummet in the face of competition.
Demand for healthcare is not inelastic in itself -- it is inelastic because the supply of health care is extremely limited due to massive government regulation and restriction. You are not allowed to buy care or products from someone willing to provide them. You must go through government-approved physicians and pharmacists who cost millions to educate and license and who spend most of their careers diagnosing and treating colds and flu and counting out pills.
Lewis Thomas, a physician, points out in Lives of a Cell that the biggest costs in modern medicine are for little more than symptom relief. The truly "curative" medical treatments, like antibiotics for certain diseases, vaccines, and even simple saline IVs in the ICU are cheap. Often, when a cure occurs, it is the body that cures itself. The physician is merely a spectator. So we are actually paying a lot for not much.
It costs nothing to eat right, not smoke, not drink, and exercise regularly. Under that regimen, rich or poor, most of us are abominably healthy. Then, if adequate competition is allowed, society will be glad to step in and pay the reasonable cost for persons for whom costs are still too great. But first those costs have to become reasonable.
Originally posted by spruce112358What utter garbage!
...If healthcare were allowed to be obtained in the same way, the poor would be able to obtain it as easily because prices would plummet in the face of competition...
1. Healthcare of any sort is incredibly expensive. The drugs, Doctors, Hospitals - it isn't like buying candy.
2. The poorest socio-economic regions always have the highest mortality rates and instance of need for care. This need would be transferred into demand if your nonsensical, non-existent Perfect Competition healthcare model actually existed and prices "plummet".
3. I think I recall that rises in demand or reduction in supply can cause prices to rise. I'm sure I read that somewhere...
4. Please give me any example of a country where competition in the healthcare market has caused prices to fall over time.
I eagerly await your response.
Originally posted by spruce112358The country with the freeest market in the world is Somalia, which has no regulations and no taxes. Yet, people die of starvation and lack of medical care.
The poor do not die from hunger or exposure in the world except in countries where free markets do not function. If healthcare were allowed to be obtained in the same way, the poor would be able to obtain it as easily because prices would plummet in the face of competition.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, a market exists when ownership is determined by buying and selling, not when ownership results from force, as with the Somali warlords.
The country with the freeest market in the world is Somalia, which has no regulations and no taxes. Yet, people die of starvation and lack of medical care.
Originally posted by spruce112358Exactly, which brings you to the core issue here, and one which is not understood by most. The paradox is that an unregulated free market will automatically make itself less free because it's in the interests of parties within the free market to mislead and misinform consumers and form cartels, after all, that's what creates the biggest revenue. The same has happened in the US health market, where insurance and pharmaceutical companies have been allowed to freely exploit consumers by making cartels and driving up prices to ridiculous levels, due to lack of regulation.
No, a market exists when ownership is determined by buying and selling, not when ownership results from force, as with the Somali warlords.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLack of competition, not lack of regulation, is what drives prices up. Companies only charge high prices for the first 10 years a drug is on the market. This basically pays them back for the 100 million they spent on FDA-mandated research to get the product developed. After that, the price for a drug drops to almost nothing due to generic competition.
Exactly, which brings you to the core issue here, and one which is not understood by most. The paradox is that an unregulated free market will automatically make itself less free because it's in the interests of parties within the free market to mislead and misinform consumers and form cartels, after all, that's what creates the biggest revenue. The sam ...[text shortened]... umers by making cartels and driving up prices to ridiculous levels, due to lack of regulation.
(NB: patents of drug exclusivity last 17 years, but half that period is taken up in clinical trials where the company earns nothing. Compare with Michael Jackson who can charge an outrageous price for 'Thriller' for his entire lifetime.)
Regulation can reduce prices, but not by much. Government regulators face a no-win situation. If they regulate too lightly, companies "get rich" and people blame them. If they regulate too heavily, supplies dry up and people blame them. Regulators have to balance on a knife edge and be eternally vigilant to get it right. Add to that the fact that industry lobbies the government much more heavily than consumers, and the result is usually not anywhere near as low as prices can go.
On the other hand, the collective force of everyone making best decisions for themselves drives prices down automatically. Supply and demand regulate the situation far more accurately and fairly than a bureaucrat sitting in Washington could hope to do.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchThe demand for health care is already there. Government limitations on supply and third-party payers is what continues to drive up prices.
What utter garbage!
1. Healthcare of any sort is incredibly expensive. The drugs, Doctors, Hospitals - it isn't like buying candy.
2. The poorest socio-economic regions always have the highest mortality rates and instance of need for care. This need would be transferred into demand if your nonsensical, non-existent Perfect Competition healthcare ...[text shortened]... the healthcare market has caused prices to fall over time.
I eagerly await your response.
In a very bizarre illustration, in Switzerland, for example, people are charged many times more for the same service if they pay with insurance compared to paying cash.
The experiment with universal health care is widespread, but only about 60 years old. Just as we are seeing with the mortgage bailout, once you offer a "free lunch", the demand for free lunches increases out of bounds.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
1 edit
Originally posted by CliffLandinI don't have health care, I can't afford it. If I have an accident, like I did this year, and I need health care (and I did), and I walk into a hospital, I only get what is necessary to get me out of the emergency room. Then I have a doctor bill that still needs to be paid and the health care system has a lot of power when it comes to pursuing debts to them - more so than just about any entity save the government.
He meaning Granny? People without health insurance still get treatment in the U.S. Just walk in to any hospital and half the people there will be uninsured. And just because Granny says it doesn't make it so. The statistics don't back her up.
It sounds to me like you have a callous idea of people who are 1) Uninsured, and 2) What kind of care they can get, and 3) That there's some sort of free ride going on if you're uninsured. It ain't so; I can attest to that from experience.
AND - if you have any kind of pre-existing condition (let's say diabetes, for example) you are totally screwed. You're not going to get a policy worth a damn and if you can it's majorly expensive. But insurers won't touch you and if you have the money you didn't need the insurance anyway.
There's something wrong when I, as a small business owner, can't get affordable health care. When I have an accident like I had this year, I'm screwed.
Originally posted by uzlessNow uzless you're being dishonest or stupid, you tell us which it is.
Don't start this one again.
All the repub's will wail about the government taking their money and having to support fat people who eat hamburgers.
All the Dem's will call them stupid and selfish.
Debate over.
We're trying to establish what is right and what is wrong. Here's just one of the things that is wrong with UHC , a person that takes care of their health has to pay for those that are reckless with theirs and we're not just talking about fat people who eat burgers (which can be quite healthy) we're talking about those that are careless, i.e. they don't exercise, they drink to excess, they smoke to excess, they do harmful drugs to excess. We're also talking about those that are reckless with their health i.e. they engage in risky activities, risky sports.
So not only does the person looking after their health have tom pay for all the fools, if something does go wrong they are going to end up on a waiting list with a good proportion of fools ahead of them.
So clearly UHC is wrong, and when we see wrong things we need to correct them, not by throwing more and more resources at them.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe paradox is that an unlimited guvamint will automatically make itself less free because it's in the interests of parties within guvamint to mislead and misinform consumers.
Exactly, which brings you to the core issue here, and one which is not understood by most. The paradox is that an unregulated free market will automatically make itself less free because it's in the interests of parties within the free market to mislead and misinform consumers and form cartels, after all, that's what creates the biggest revenue. The sam ...[text shortened]... umers by making cartels and driving up prices to ridiculous levels, due to lack of regulation.
The biggest baddest monopoly of all - Guvamint
The only party other than criminals to initiate force and threats of force - Guvamint
&feature=related
Part one of six.
Originally posted by spruce112358spruce:There are three 'necessities' of life -- food, clothing, and shelter. The free market manages to provide all three of those quite well.
There are three 'necessities' of life -- food, clothing, and shelter. The free market manages to provide all three of those quite well.
But there is this myth -- and you are propagating it, knowingly or unknowingly -- that the free market cannot provide a fourth, which is healthcare.
The fact is, the free market could provide very adequate health ...[text shortened]... persons for whom costs are still too great. But first those costs have to become reasonable.
Only someone with an incredible ignorance of history would make such a ridiculous assertion.