The Free markets simply CANNOT manage affordable healthcare.

you have lost the argument, this is why you are resorting to insults, ad hominem attacks. Pretty sad.

why spend the time arguing with someone that doesn't even conduct basic research on this subject or ignores the vast data/info on healthcare outcomes around the world. You are simply a waste of my time...

you are the one that has been exposed as a person that doesn't have a basic understanding of what is government, how it came to be, what it is meant to do. You need a 101 on US civics...

You are basically setting forth an argument that government shouldn't exist. Our founding fathers and WE, the people, agreed to this form of government where taxes (a product of one's labor) secures rights of others. This is not what i'm here to argue but clearly, you can't even follow an argument, you get tangled up and stumble on simple ideas. Go ahead create a new thread 'government should not exist', don't bring this irrelevant argument into this debate.

I have repeatedly stated that private sector is usually more efficient and that i would prefer if it handled healthcare but it has never done it well. The U.S. is the most privatized healthcare system in the developed world and it's outcomes worse than most developed nations. If you haven't taken the time to research this, you are a complete waste of my time.

The private sector is the most efficient at making profits, but unfortunately profits don't care about a human life. This is the very reason government should step in as government doesn't make a profit, this is the basic point of why government should play a role. You can't even follow this basic argument...

 

You are wrong and you dodged simple fact proving you lost the argument and are trying to distract from that fact.

You denied dodging but you know you did.

the vast data does not support your claims.

We the people never agreed to a system which robs a person of his lifes work to give to others sorry it is you lacking basic comprehension of what this great nation is.

As I said earlier it is a republic and you are not intelligent enough to grasp THAT fact.

Health care is a commodity and government is not suited to control it

 

You have proven nothing.....

How about answering my question.....why do you think everyone is entitled to free health care?

 

lol, keep arguing in circles

you haven't done the research, it shows. Educate yourself.

If you think taxes is robbing, blame the people. We agreed to form a government, pay taxes and have a representative democracy where laws represent our desires. You don't even understand how government works and perhaps why you are confused.

jesus, you don't even know what a representative democracy is.
let me help you:

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy, representative republic, or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.
Simply put, a representative democracy is a system of government in which all eligible citizens vote on representatives to pass laws for them. A perfect example is the U.S., where we elect a president and members of the Congress. We also elect local and state officials

This is nothing but ideological RANT based on no evidence. Here, look at the WHO rankings list below and observe how most (if not all) of the top 20 Countries have either nationalized healthcare or nationalized insurance. The U.S.? #37. The U.S. is the only developed Country that doesn't guarantee healthcare to all it's citizens, most Countries consider it a basic right. THIS IS A FACT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000

 

When did i say national defense was ONLY capacity to repel an invasion? I merely focused on one BIG component of national defense, i never said what you state. Too many people here use diversion tactics and straw mans when they can't quite debate the real argument.

 

Correct - because the idea that there is some "free market" to be had in healthcare is abject nonsense. The major insurance companies are Oligopolies as are the Drug companies and the medical college is allowed to restrict the number of doctors which creates and artificial supply demand squeeze.

Neither Red or Blue have even suggested any changes that would introduce the free market back into the equation.

 

This is pretty typical of the left. They offer no policies or solutions so they only attack those who disagree with them. None of them can explain why people deserve free healthcare yet they whine about it. Pathetic.

 

Well the free market has brought about many positive things. Government cannot produce positive things unless it is a democracy. Freedom is the common thread.

 

a couple of things..

1. Not everyone that believes healthcare is a right and should involve either nationalized insurance or nationalized healthcare is a lefty
2. You guys use clever straw mans to make your arguments easy. Most 'lefties' and people like me (i'm an independent and a Trump supporter) do not ever advocate 'free' healthcare. Do you realize that nothing is for free? What many of us argue is that we need to pay a tax, so that everyone can access affordable healthcare. When you pay taxes, it is not 'free'.
3. Lefties and others who believe in a single payer system offer policies and ideas all the time, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean we don't offer them. There is a difference between offering an idea you oppose and offering no idea

The biggest problem with this debate is that seldom we see people being honest and having a productive debate. If you pay attention to my argument with others here, it quickly turns into idealogical battles and insults. It's like a Christian debating a muslim about which religion is better, the debate can never be settled. It's the same with healthcare, you put Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders in a room and neither can prove the other wrong, it's about who can set forth the strongest argument. When someone that hates government debates someone that hates the free markets, the debate is extremely unproductive. What we need around here are more solutions oriented people. I'm not going to label myself a 'solutions guy' but the fact is that i consider both the private sector and government to be important to this Country. I believe that the free markets is superior to government in the art of making money, there is no comparison. Having said this, the free markets has one fundamental flaw - it's brutal, it's tough, it's survival of the fittest. All these qualities are good for profits and productivity BUT they can lead to massive abuses within the healthcare domain because people are viewed as objects or as products, empathy takes a back seat. All the private sector cares about is the dollar bill, nothing else. Government was formed precisely to address this flaw of the private sector, otherwise our founding fathers would've never formed a government. It comes down to an ideological difference - many think healthcare is a right, many don't... NO-ONE CAN PROVE THE OTHER WRONG.

 

I rarely bother trying - particularly with healthcare. All I do these days is tell people like you that if you want socialized medicine, then talk to your local government because the rest of us don't want it. The fact that nobody really takes their own local governments to task for not providing what they think the federal government should says quite a bit about what your first principles really are on the subject.

You want other people to pay for your stuff, and that, my friend, makes you a socialist.

 

there you go, you resorted to a label 'socialist'. Should i now label you an anarchist cause you don't want government involved in anything? now where do we go from here...

I'm not a socialist because i believe we need limited government but make some exceptions - healthcare and national defense. I don't think we need the Federal government playing a large role in other area, i'm totally against the banking regulations and many more.

as far as me wanting people to pay for my stuff, not true, straw man. Everyone chips in, everyone benefits. This is not the same as someone paying for something i get without me putting anything into the pot. If you want to argue a point, make sure you argue the right point and not twist things to make it easier for you. Now tell me, what free stuff am i getting if i'm paying taxes, just like everyone else is? What is the difference between this and paying taxes for national defense? Also, what is the difference between paying a premium to private insurance and paying taxes to get healthcare? NONE.. both are paying to secure right to healthcare.

 

Cruz has by introducing and amendment that allows people to by the insurance they want rather than the insurance the government thinks they ought to have.

 

You can call me an anarchist, and I'd be fine with that. It's an ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world.

National defense is what governments have always been tasked with, no matter where or how far back you go. The people on the other side want what we have, and we need to defend ourselves or they will just come and take it. If that is health care that the enemy wants, then they'd come over here and steal our doctors, rather than our women, food, and gold.

The argument for national defense there is that they are disregarding the golden rule. They don't want us to go over there and steal their doctors, just as we don't want them stealing our doctors. They can go through no-man's land and voluntarily provide their services, but involuntary servitude is immoral. If we go about stealing each other's doctors, it's immoral because both sides are doing something that the other side doesn't want to happen, and vice-versa. Because everybody on both sides DON'T want that to happen, it is immoral.

Do you see how I defined exactly where the immorality lies, and how it is universal? Everybody involved would prefer that this NOT happen.

If anybody on the pro socialized medical care side wanted to go to the trouble of explaining where the morality is in that, then I'd be flabbergasted. That's why I don't bother arguing this stuff. There's nothing to rebut.

If this was true, then it would be voluntary. If everyone participating in this benefits, then you don't need a mandate.

So great! We've settled the socialized medical care debate! Hooray!!!!

As for paying taxes for national defense when you don't want to, you make a good point. It is immoral to require you to pay taxes if you don't want to. It is not of your own free will, so you shouldn't be forced to pay them. However, this also means that you should not expect to be defended if the russians show up at your door.

Now we go back to what I was talking about with defense against the tribe on the other side of the river/valley/wherever. Since you don't want to defend against them, then you have no need for a military. Without a military, you have no need for a government.

 

maybe, maybe not. Costa Rica hasn't had a military, who has invaded? It is, after all, a beautiful Country. Also, the government was not ONLY set up to provide national defense.

. Very easy. If a hospital tuns down someone's baby due to having no insurance, is it immoral? borrowing from your logic, the doctors that could save the baby's life wouldn't want the same thing to happen to their baby, so by your definition, this is IMMORAL. What about someone with a pre-existing condition going bankrupt? or someone with a serious illness being kicked off insurance? These things can happen in free markets because it used to happen before ACA. Using your logic, neither side would want this outcome (patients and doctors). I suggest you don't even try to expand on this, it makes no sense. Put it to sleep.

here's a way to easily annihilate these arguments that you and others make here.

First, you claim we want healthcare for free, right? proven to be false as we advocate paying taxes for it. Now to my next point.

You claim that we want others to pay for our care and because of this, we are socialists. Well, news for you, we are both socialists, yes, you AND me. See, paying private health insurance is NO DIFFERENT than paying taxes. When you pay a premium and need a 50k surgery to save your life, who pays for it? OTHER PEOPLE PAYING PREMIUMS. Now, if you pay taxes to fund single payer and need a 50k surgery to save your life, who pays for it? OTHER TAX PAYERS. So, we are BOTH SOCIALISTS if your definition of socialist is everyone chipping in to pay for each other's healthcare. There you go, your argument has been absolutely smashed.

I make this point to prove a point. You guys get tangled up with all these arguments in a futile attempt to make your position stronger. What i'm proving to you is that it all comes down to this - you don't think government should manage healthcare, you don't like paying taxes and you don't think healthcare is a right. It's as simple as this, so just say it. Getting tangled up with these other side arguments is just going down the wrong path.

 

So you still cannot answer the question. The question of whether or not everyone should have healthcare needs to be answered before any solution is even thought of. This is not a strawman argument....it is called common sense.

Now the OP claims the free market cannot manage healthcare. Truth is that it can but the question is this: Is the free market the best way to manage it?

There are those who think the government should manage healthcare completely . That is a terrifying thing. The government does not manage anything well.

 

I'm talking the federal government. What else is it there for?

At least now you admit to being a socialist. I am forced into it, therefore I'm a reluctant socialist. I personally don't care what contracts you enter into freely, just leave people the ability to say "thanks, but no thanks".

That is the difference between us. You don't mind forcing other people to do stuff you want.

Government should get the hell out of healthcare, I don't like paying taxes, and healthcare is most certainly not a natural right.

 

The free market has never been able to manage healthcare so that it is affordable for everyone and it never will. The free markets can make profits and can take care of many people but by discriminating against others. This is what the free markets does in every industry, those who don't make profits don't survive, bad products (like sick people) get discontinued and empathy is not part of the equation. What many of you advocate is simply that this is all okay, the world is not fair. You may not say it, but this is what many of you think. Whilst free market capitalism is the best system overall, it's not the best system to protect, secure, guarantee basic needs. Why do we have many poor people? Free markets simply discriminates against the weak, less capable and yes, the sick. This is all very basic... Do you think it was fair to charge outrageous premiums to people who have pre-existing conditions? or kick people out insurance due to breaches of lifetime limits? This is what went on in free markets, it's just what happens when profits are the one and only goal, not well-being of all citizens. It all comes down to whether you believe healthcare is a basic need and should be accessible to all or not. Many of you think, no, it's not a basic need and should not be made available to all and it's hard to understand this position.

and i don't think government should manage healthcare completely, it should be a combination of government and private sector, similar to how medicare works.

 

The free market does not manage much of anything to make it affordable. I would say with healthcare, the free market does not do as well as with other things. The problem I see is that healthcare is pretty much a necessity and there is a problem with supply. There are not enough healthcare workers is one of the causes. What can the government do to fix this?

Btw, I agree with much of your post. I am merely discussing the topic, not debating it.

 

no, the federal government wasn't just set up for national defense. What do you think it means 'to secure right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'?

okay, so you are a socialist too as you pay private insurance so that others can pay for your care when you need it. You claim you are a 'reluctant' socialist as if you would rather not pay insurance but we know how this plays out. 99% of the people that don't pay insurance run to ERs to get free care when they need it, this cost is approx. 50 billion a year according to some estimates. People like you actually advocate 'free' care, which is ironic. All the people that are against individual mandate or taxes, are okay with millions of Americans getting free care every year.

What would i be forcing people to do? explain, many of you claim this but fail to properly explain what you mean. Paying taxes? is this it? explain... if this is it then you and i are no different. You want national defense right? what about people that don't want national defense? Then you we are 'forcing' them to do something you want (pay taxes to guarantee defense for others). So, you and I are the same.

It's a basic need that should be available to anyone that needs it, just like drinking water, eating food. In a way, if you believe it's not a basic need, then you don't believe in right of life. It's all very connected,

 

We have had no credible threat to the US homeland in over 60 years. So, our "national defense" spending is not covering everyone equally. It is only benefiting a minute few defense contractors.

 

I don't think it's a problem of supply, it's problem of of demand. The Unites States has probably the most unhealthy people in the planet. We have a massive problem with obesity and related illnesses (diabetes, heart disease). People in Europe and other developed countries are healthier and it saves them money. This is another problem with the free markets, drug companies and hospitals profit off sick people so they have no incentive to make us healthier. Without regulations, Insurance companies will seek to make profits by charging more for sick people and if they can't, drop them off insurance. The best way to reduce costs is to decrease demand; i.e., make people healthier. The free markets would make less money though, so they have no incentives to make people healthier. Imagine how much money drug companies, hospitals and doctors would lose if everyone were healthy and just died of old age? We need much more focus on preventive care and incentives to make people acquire healthier habits but why would healthcare providers focus on these things?

 

We also have an aging population. The big Baby Boomer generation is retirement age and that requires more healthcare. Obesity is an issue but is that a problem for the government to solve or is it a social problem? Perhaps we need to bring back fat shaming....

It takes more to become a doctor or even a pharmacist in the US. College is expensive and then when a one graduates there is all kinds of liability issues and regulations that have to be dealt with. I wonder if all that is necessary or just regulation brought about by lobbyists?

Having lobbyists is another problem with the government handling things. Once the government gets involved there is some lobby group created to influence decisions in the favor of special interests.

 

but for those in favor of free markets, aren't lobbyists welcome? after all, lobbyists are ensuring government tailors to them and if these lobbyists are part of the private sector, government is doing what private sector wants, no? Isn't this good for free markets advocates?

The baby boomers are a burden on the system but make no mistake, the younger generation is simply not healthy. I was shocked to find that the average waist was 39in and weight 195 lbs at a height of 5'9. A person that takes care of himself and eats well should have a waist of 32-35 and weigh 160-170 at 5'9 unless the person has very large frame. We either have many mesomorphs with massive frames or too many fatsos roaming the Country. It's all a sign of over consumption, too much eating, too much drinking, too much chips and cokes and doing no physical activity. Then we wonder why we have many healthcare costs and blame government. We can blame ourselves for being a burden on the system and we can't rely on free markets to make us healthier, healthcare providers and drug companies need sick people to make money.

 

There are problems with the free market solution as well as government handling healthcare. As long as the government can be influenced by big money interests, the people will not get a fair shake. This is why it has failed so far in attempting to tackle the issue of healthcare.

I believe the problem is with our society.

 

Everyone is not entitled to free healthcare.
I have proven your sig is ill informed opinion. Unless you agree every president ranked lower than 12th in history is a total failure. Where your hero GWB is ranked 33rd.