First Test for New Health Care Bill

Originally posted by spruce112358
Yes. And until the rules are changed, it remains my money. Not yours.

Primitive cultures don't treat aging as a sickness.

Thus, the rules are changed in which you get taxed and that money is no longer yours.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I don't prefer that anyone dies. I recognize that people DO die eventually and that there is nothing that can be done about that.

On the other hand, sound medical treatment could mean the difference between dying at 70 and dying at 90. That's quite a substantial proportion of someone's life.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
On the other hand, sound medical treatment could mean the difference between dying at 70 and dying at 90. That's quite a substantial proportion of someone's life.

One annoying thing about public health care is that "they" have to decide what your life is worth. So the 70 year old expected to live another 20 years might be worth $20,000. But spending $200,000 to give the 90 year old another three months -- no, they will baulk at that.

I like being able to decide what my life is worth. That's why I want a hugely ramped up supply of healthcare so that there is fierce competition for my business so that whatever I want to buy is cheap -- much like with car repair: you want to avoid it, but when you need it, lot's of people will do it. You don't always have to go to the dealer and pay a high price. You can even do-it-yourself or have a friend help you -- there are no rules against that.

I want to take the arcane out of medicine, smash the medical monopoly, open up the supply of information and let the market take care of the price problem.

Originally posted by spruce112358
One annoying thing about public health care is that "they" have to decide what your life is worth. So the 70 year old expected to live another 20 years might be worth $20,000. But spending $200,000 to give the 90 year old another three months -- no, they will baulk at that.

I like being able to decide what my life is worth. That's why I want a hugely ...[text shortened]... opoly, open up the supply of information and let the market take care of the price problem.

The obvious problem with that is that truly sick people are usually the least able to pay. When you get MS or a brain tumor and need expensive and possibly heroic efforts to save you then you are not likely to be pulling the cash necessary to pay for it. So the upshot of your plan is: don't get sick and die quickly if you do.

Originally posted by spruce112358
One annoying thing about public health care is that "they" have to decide what your life is worth. So the 70 year old expected to live another 20 years might be worth $20,000. But spending $200,000 to give the 90 year old another three months -- no, they will baulk at that.

I like being able to decide what my life is worth. That's why I want a hugely ...[text shortened]... opoly, open up the supply of information and let the market take care of the price problem.

No one is able to spend an unlimited amount of money on anything.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Health-Care/2010/03/26/Covering-Hard-To-Insure-People.aspx

Anyone want to lay odds on this happening in 3 months?

Nobody gets covered, as I understand it, until the fourth year. The only immediate effect is the taxes and fees.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What is the laissez faire solution to the problem of people who are in too poor health for insurance companies to be willing to insure them at any price that they can afford? Death?

There is no solution, laissez-faire or otherwise, which will prevent all people in poor health from dying. Much of poor health is related to poor life style choices which are individual matters.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
And health care should be all about profit and loss calculations - right?

More about who decides and who pays! Government running it will not reduce the cost. Whatever the estimates on cost are, count on 10X that amount. That's what Medicare overruns were the first year.

Universal care is a cruel myth. Nobody covers everything, and even people wealthy enough to pay for anything may not survive.

Originally posted by no1marauder
"Your money" is only earned because society has established an economic system allowing you to earn it. As to your claim to keep every cent you have earned because of society's rules vs. the claim of someone to be medically treated when they are sick, you lose. Even the most primitive of cultures tend to their sick.

Pure collectivist Marxism.

I'd prefer real compassion from individuals to the phony "compassion" of government spending my money on the needs of others who may or may not be deserving of the help.

Originally posted by normbenign
More about who decides and who pays! Government running it will not reduce the cost. Whatever the estimates on cost are, count on 10X that amount. That's what Medicare overruns were the first year.

Universal care is a cruel myth. Nobody covers everything, and even people wealthy enough to pay for anything may not survive.

If you expect me to argue that people don't die or that money will keep you alive then you're being irrational. We've covered seniors for how long now? Other countries are covering all of their citizens in a mythic way? The only argument that would match yours would be to claim that rainbows will drop from the sky and cure all disease and infirmity. Get real. We'll have to make choices together (just like we do already) and we'll do what we can (which so far has been a lot less than other countries while costing much more.) I'd rather take a chance on improving our current situation than waste my breath trying to convince you that the earth is not flat.

Originally posted by normbenign
There is no solution, laissez-faire or otherwise, which will prevent all people in poor health from dying. Much of poor health is related to poor life style choices which are individual matters.

Much of poor health of rich people is also related to poor lifestyle choices. Should they be denied treatment?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What's your big hurry for old people to die? If treatment extends their and other people's lives, what's your problem with it? That it might cost you a few bucks?

I am an old person, and I have no claim on the wealth of others to attempt to prolong my life.

In the free market if one can afford to prolong their life, no problem. In Marxist statist systems, inevitably there is rationing of care, and it is government bureaucrats who decide whether you live or die.

For example in Canada, if you are over 55 and have severe kidney disease the waiting period can be a death sentence.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I wouldn't expect a fascist to have much problem with the concept of old people and other "undesirables" being liquidated.

There's nothing "ridiculous" about my statement. Spruce has been complaining about the costs associated with having old people not die fast enough. He has done so for several pages here and in other threads as well. It' ...[text shortened]... you think that your opinion as to who is "winning the argument" is of any consequence.

Do you have any idea of the terms you use? Fascism is a form of collectivist government akin to socialism and communism, differing only in the degree of statist control of private means of production. Virtually every national health care system is fascist! That is it still permits nominal private ownership (doctors offices, hospitals, labs, etc.), but absolutely controls them.

You are right, that the fascist has no restraint when it comes to sacrificing human life for the bottom line. The absolute of all Marxist systems is that the end justifies the means.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I support democratic decision-making. Just because a solution is democratically arrived at doesn't make it perfect, of course. But I like the odds.

I don't prefer that anyone dies. I recognize that people DO die eventually and that there is nothing that can be done about that.

Careful now! Democratic decision making is simply expressing the will of 50.1% of the population which votes. It is hardly superior to mob rule, if it is not delimited severely by Constitutional limitations.

Many of the faults of current policy are because democracy is respected, and the Constitution ignored.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Though I'd like to see more detail, I have no problem with the idea of public spending being limited to cost effective treatments.

I suppose the whodeys can now start screaming "RATIONING!"

Rationing is accomplished in a variety of manners, depending on the system. It is self imposed when you can't afford a treatment out of pocket. Insurance companies to so via underwriting and rejection of claims, and government systems do so by fiat.

The notion of any system being "universal" is a cruel hoax.