Funny How The Pendulum Always Swings Back

You admonish others for insults, yet you insult. That's hypocrisy.

What is your evidence that a free market will bring affordable health care to all inhabitants of a nation?

Health care is far more complicated that consumer goods. For example, my primary care clinic doesn't provide specialized care, so I'm given a referral for a neurologist.

Normally, I call up the neurology clinic given on the referral and make an appointment. But, you're suggesting approach it like a consumer goods market. Okay......

What am I supposed to do? Go on Yelp and look for the neurologist with the most star ratings (of what value would ratings from lay persons be? ) or go with the neurologist with the cheapest price? Why would 'price' be even a consideration when I'm on medicare? And if I wasn't, I wouldn't be able to afford it? You are not making sense.

You see, transactionalism "free market-ism' doesn't work in health care like it does for consumer electronics.

You've done a lot of talk about health care, but you've not suggested any solutions other than free market. That isn't a solution.

But, there is no evidence that a totally free market will bring health care to all citizens. so, what is your evidence?

Democrats believe that the nation must have a system in place that allows the less affluent to have access to health care.

So, any proposal that doesn't provide that much, we do not consider a worthwhile proposal.

You admonish others for insults, yet you insult. That's hypocrisy.

 

I've posted in the religion and philosophy forum, and some heady things in the science forum. Go there, this is not the place for it.

 

Gold and silver are limited resources, and are no longer practical in a digital world.

You've only spoke in general terms, and a looking at it it doesn't seem like it would work.

You'll need to give examples, granular details of how it would work in various health care situations that are usually unaffordable for most folks.

You haven't done that yet.

I'm not keen on the insurance system. I like the 'single payer' idea.

But, your alternative is a free market. That is the only thing you can possibly mean by a 'non system'.

That won't bring health care to everyone because not everyone would be able to afford

1. Catastrophic care
2. Emergency care
3. Care beyond which is affordable.
4. General care for the poor.

Without insurance, who could afford catastrophic care or even expensive care?

A free market won't allow catastrophic care to be affordable, won't allow expensive care to be affordable and general care to be affordable to the poor.

What if someone is injured and has to spend a week in a hospital, undergo therapy?

If you have evidence that it would, please provide the evidence.

 

As long as humans are greedy, free markets always result in capital aggregating to fewer and fewer hands and plutocracy/oligarchy/kleptocracy inevitably results. That is what happened in Russia when communism fell and it was a free for all after that. Clever operators seized markets for their own enrichment and now Russia is a Oligarchy/kleptocracy with a fascist leader.

There is only one way to prevent that, and that is regulation of free markets, ie., limited free markets, and to date, that regulation does not exist.

 

I asked you a couple of days ago to tell me about the Healthcare system you think would be better for Americans. You have strong opinions about what's wrong, but have not provided solutions.

I'm still waiting.

 

What do you think people did before there was health insurance? Have you become so dependent on other people doing things for you that you cannot figure this out?

Actually it does and it did for hundreds of years. Then the corporations and government took over and all of a sudden everybody is stupid and its only corporate and government control that can work. You're an intelligent man, what is wrong with you?

It is a solution but you want everybody to do everything for you and make all the decisions for you, as well. I've got news for you, the nanny state is going away. You'll be on your own and you have to behave like a big boy.

And how are these Einsteins going to pay for it? You people are living in a fantasy world that suggests that money printing and debt creation can go on forever. Say bye bye to all of this non-sense because a new world is coming and it's going to have real money which means no more massive societal stupidity.

 

Here's the reality of the situation. The only way the present system exists is by extracting an enormous amount of wealth out of everybody through taxes, through insurance premiums, through money printing [inflation], and debt. THIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

What is sustainable is a system where services and medical technology become affordable to the vast majority of the public. In a "system" such as this, human compassion will allow for those who cannot afford basic services to have them [free clinics and the like]. Human compassion is the key. The government and the corporations are not human and could care less about anybody in particular.

A free market will set prices at levels people can afford. Individual doctors will be able to have profitable practices once again because their costs will be MUCH lower. Much of the costs today have to do with government and corporate compliance. There will be MUCH more innovation because nobody is going to be held to the corporate standard of care, i.e., do those things that make the corporations the most money. It's the free market, it's what made this country the global innovation leader for the past 150 years!

Don't you understand, nobody can afford it now! It's only manipulation that allows it to happen. It's like saying that you want to keep your 25 credit cards that are maxed out despite the fact that you can't pay for any of them.

What's going on now is unaffordable. A single payer system would save on some costs but this is not where the real problems lie. You cannot continue to spend money you do not have so you can continue to do stupid things. It doesn't work for individuals and it doesn't work for countries.

What if, what if, what if, what it...

What if the sun blows-up tomorrow?

People are going to have to grow-up and live responsibly [like they used to]. Imagine that!

 

You think that happened all by itself?

I am not saying that you shouldn't have regulation but you need to have individuals NOT corporations making the decisions. Remember regulatory capture? This is what corporations do.

 

Read my posts to others. It's there.

 

No. The difference is that a TV vendor doesn't have the leverage of saying that if you don't buy the TV, you are going to be sick or die.

Again, you offer nothing. If you think there is a "non-system" that ANY first world country would accept, you need to actually specify how it would work.

Also, you need to explain why you reject the UHC approach that is delivering healthcare in every first world country (except the US) leading to the same or greater life expectancy and far lower expenditures.

 

First, let's establish a few facts.
1. The upper 50% own 99% of the nation's wealth, so taxation should be shouldered by those who benefit from the system the most, distributed proportionally to degree benefit. If Joe Blow owns 1/100th of the nation's wealth, he should pay 1/100th of the nation's tax burden.
2. Health care dollars are spent anyway, no matter what the system is.
3. So, my view is to channel the dollars which are already being spent into the most efficient system, and that would be single payer financed by a progressive taxation system. Anyone making below 200% of poverty shouldn't have to pay income taxes.

Single payer would remove the insurance cost layer.
Via legislation, we can allow the government to negotiate on drug prices. Those who prefer paying for private care, should be allowed that option.

Neoliberalism resulted in #1, and, in my opinion, the solution is to reverse neoliberal policies. by
1. Restructuring corporatism: Make 'fiduciary responsibility to make as much profits for the share holders' subservient to 'Preservation of American Jobs, and "Aligning corporate policies to long term goals which in accord with the environment and the greater good'. Then restructure the stock market that all stock trades are done manually, every stock certificate must have a paper representation, and can only be traded at the book value, and after purchase, must be held for at least a month. Make it so that IPOs are offered to employees first. Create legislation that ties Corporate CEO salaries and bonuses to not more than 50x the lowest salary on the payroll. (this ratio was about what it was in the 50s before neoliberalism took root). Limit the aggregate wealth any individual can own to, say $50 million in total assets.
2. The state should control the strategic industries and utilities.
3. There should be more accountability on SAPs and black budget military projects.

I was a young man in the late 60s early 70s, the era of 'free clinics' and underground presses, hippies, etc. They FCs were okay, but were far inferior to my medicare advantage plan, that's about all I can say about it. You never got the same doctor when you revisited. FCs are basically cattle calls. Charity cannot fill the need, I've given that idea considerable thought, and it's not a viable idea. What people want is a card in one's wallet, that one can take to a clinic, one that you've had the same doctor for a long time, and sign in, given them the card, and they see a doctor. That is what I have, currently, and it works beautifully.

You are concerned about costs. that is a management issue, not an ideological issue.

No it won't. Health care does not work like consummer goods and services.

The issue is corruption, and free markets do not rid the system of corruption. It's a leadership issue, and without leadership ,the free market won't be better.

Your logic is simplistic. It's not workable in the real world.

My plan is only $140 per month, and I'm 71. works well. I don't see your argument at all. It isn't that good in states that rejected the ACA, but that's not the fault of the ACA, that's the fault of neoliberal governors.

I see no evidence your idea is even remotely viable. It works for shoes, clothes, etc, but health care is far too complicated for transactional thinking.

Also, I'm going to quote Willreadmore :

Also, you need to explain why you reject the UHC approach that is delivering healthcare in every first world country (except the US) leading to the same or greater life expectancy and far lower expenditures.

So, I'd like your answer to his request, above.

 

It happened via a conspiracy of a few dozen operators of whom Putin was one.

Corporations are run by people. What is needed is better regulation.

I don't see how you can rid the nation of the corporation. It exists because

1. Allows for equity sharing and financing for expansion.
2. Creates a liability shield for share holders.
3. Allows for share holders to vote on major policies.

Moreover, the corporate structure has been around since, what, the 16th century or so? It's pretty entrenched, and it's global.

Can't get rid of it, but it can be regulated. Just needs better regulation, in my view.

 

Amen.

I'd add that the deemphasis on for-profit insurance corporations in other countries must be considered, as it is one more layer of corporations working to maximize profit from the healthcare of the population.

 

I'll say this for the last time. UHC systems in some countries are considerably better than what we have in the U.S. [but that's not saying much]. Other than high end technology, the U.S. system is very poor [for a lot of reasons].

Take two of the best UHC systems in the world, Germany and Japan. Both are very expensive in their own right and are not sustainable. Although they do contain costs better, the quality of care is not so wonderful because their providers cannot spend very much time with patients either. So although they may be the least dirty shirts in the laundry, we can do a lot better.

A good analogy might be comparing factory workers in China compared to those in other third world countries. Yes, one might be better, but they are all pretty poor. We can do better.

The wealthy pay the vast majority of the taxes in the U.S.. Federal, state, and property. Unfortunately, Medicare and SS are regressive.

Oh really? Who decided this? Just spend as much as you want?

What part of, "we can't afford it," don't you get?

Now that others are paying for your Medicare you're thrilled with the system. Typical "something for nothing" type of guy.

Corporatism is another word for fascism [corporate-government coalition]. I'd just assume revoke all corporate charters.

Bad idea although there needs to be oversight and verifiable accountability

Good luck with that!

Of course you're happy about it. Your expectations are pretty low [and it's essentially free!]. How do you think all those people in their 20's, 30's, and 40's feel who will never see a penny of what they are paying for you and me?

You are delusional.

Health care is services and goods. The only difference is in your mind.

Yeah, socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.

Of course you don't. You want everything for free...and not only that, you want other people making all the decisions for you, as well. Well, you're living in the right country [for now].

 

When you see non political people as right wing biased you are myopic.

By you people it seems he means people who bad mouth our country. He's not being divisive the people that bad mouth our country are they're provoking this there can be no common ground with these people.

 

The USA spends TWICE what Germany spends, per capita on healthcare, and 2.5X what Japan spends on healthcare, per capita.

That is saying a LOT.

So far, you've given no argument for doing better - other than broad brush claims backed by complaints, not data.

Also, it sounds like your approach is heavily oriented to denying people healthcare if they don't have significant income. That's just not an acceptable approach.

Sorry - comparing American citizens to Chinese factory workers is just plain nutty.

And, we ARE doing better. That's not the issue. The issue is whether we can move toward better efficiency.

 

Yes, this is true. THIS is the degree of the waste, fraud, and corruption in this system. Just the same, the design of this system is not affordable.
There is nothing I can say that would change your mind so there is no reason to continue this conversation.

I wish you the best of luck and health in the future.

 

Well, the thing is you have not presented any clear description of what kind of system you want.

Plus (and more importantly) you haven't presented any data to back up or impugn any idea.

In fact, your claims concerning other countries have been shown to be wrong. So, nobody should believe your claims about expenditures by other countries or comparison of systems.

 

Sorry, not going to waste time reading back through your posts. Either you have a plan and can describe it, or you don't.

 

Amen.

And, he hasn't presented ANY plan for amending our healthcare system - by small or sweeping changes.

 

The average per capita costs for health care of the 50 or so western developed nations is roughly half of what it is here. The argument that it is more expensive in America because of R&D costs does not account fully for that gap. Maybe half of the gap, but not all of it. Clearly, UHC will lower costs by getting rid of the insurance cost layer, and other things like allowing the government to negotiate drug prices. The evidence points to UHC being a better solution than what we have in America.

Federal income taxes do not come close to accounting for vast increase of asset wealth accrual. This accrual is due to inflation. Inflation taxes the poor and shifts the value of holdings by the poor to the rich. It accelerates their holdings.

For example, if a poor man has $100 in savings, and there is 10% inflation, his $100 will purchase 90% of what it would purchase before the inflation.

The rich man with accruing assets, the assets (hedge funds, real estate, etc) will increase faster than the decreasing in purchasing power of his cash given that the vast majority of his assets are not in cash, but are in assets that increase in value. The poor cannot afford to hedge like the rich can. Inflation is literally a transfer from those who cannot hedge (the poor) to those who can ( the rich).

Taxes do not tell the true story of distribution of wealth. Cash is only the surface. Now, if you are going to argue 'the rich produce more'. Not talking about income from work, I'm talking about assets accruing in value without working for that increase in wealth.

The economy is like a river, cash is flowing, changing hands, that is what I mean that 'health care dollars are being spent" which is to say, health care dollars, like every other aspect of the economy, are flowing, changing hands continually. Don't look at it transactionally, look at it conceptually.

Health care dollars are ALREADY being spent, ANYWAY. Health care dollars are an economy. Do you understand? That is fact. FACT. AS in 'reality'. Truth, etc.

So, if they are already being spent, the quest is to channel health care dollars into a more efficient system.

Think of a flowing river, and you partition a large section of it into are more efficient water way where the water isn't wasted.

The water is already flowing. Capiche?

What part of 'that is false" don't you get? Per capita health care costs are roughly half of that of the US. R&D does not account for the huge gap. Greed accounts for a lot of it, and the greed culture, like smoking, can be reduced by attacking the problem, just as the US attacked the smoking problem and greatly reduced it. It's DOABLE.

So what part of "We can do this" do you not get?

False assumptions, posturing, ad homs, etc, are not a merit worthy counter argument.

Moreover, to refute your premise:

Taxes are a function of the government as included in the US Constitution, to be distributed for the nation's costs and the overall greater good.
Not everyone can afford health care, and those who can afford it, under the concept of the greater good and the concept that a civilized nation desires a healthy citizenry, those that cannot afford health care should be subsidized because a nation of healthy people is good for ALL citizens, including yourself.

But, since you prefer looking at the universe through a transactional lens, look at it how it really is: you get you taxes back by living in a healthy society.

Regulation could go a long ways to dampen the problem. No, you can't do that, that's not realistic.

Well, the subject is up for debate.

It's an uphill battle, but a worthwhile objective.

You misunderstand what I wrote. I was being critical of the 'free clinic' system.

That you insult after criticizing others for same, is hypocrisy.

That being said, it's not a counter argument nor refutation on any level. It is a non argument.

Simplistic logic. Albeit correct on a technical level, reducing health care economics, conceptually, to a simple transactional economy, say, of trading cash for shoes, for example, obfuscates the complexities of the health care economics below a threshold where adequate health care policy can be designed to adequately accommodate, address, and manage it's complexities.

You are aware of the difference between 'simple' and 'simplistic'?

The former is viable, the latter is not.

The fallacy of the famous quote by Margaret Thatcher is that both America, and the UK, currency issuing nations, cannot run out of money.

The other aspect of the fallacy is that the Constitution grants the government to have a claim on a portion of income, and by virtue of that fact, that money does not belong to you, or any individual, it belongs to 'we the people' collectively. So "OPM" implies individuals, and thus is fantasy for sound bites and manipulation of opinion. In short, it has become a thought-terminating cliché

False assumptions, ad homs / posturing, & weasel words are not a merit worthy counter argument.

 

Your argument is, essentially, 'we can't get there from here'.

THat is the argument made by cynics.

I reject that point of view on principle.

 

He is a complete waste of time. I kept challenging him on crazy crap he was claiming as facts, so he started having a nasty exchange with another user. When one is discovered to be empty of logic and reason, one tends to cut and run.

 

I sort of depend on people to be able to think just a tiny bit outside the box but this is apparently not possible here.

So enjoy your health care system. It truly is made for most Americans.

 

I agree, he is a complete waste of time and so is everybody else who doesn't agree with how I think. I mean what's with these people having different opinions? I can't wait until it is against the law to only think like I do!