17 Feb 10
Originally posted by sh76In that case why not privatize funding and building our roads? Apples and oranges right?
How about other markets? Computer technology. Communications technology; even pharmaceutical development. The free market (regulated smartly of course) produces the best and most innovative environment.
The problem is with 200 countries around the world you cannot provide one example while staying with healthcare.
17 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperRoads are public domain and there is insufficient incentive for companies to build roads efficiently. Tolls can perhaps be used to pay for some highways; but there's no profit in maintaining Main Street in Podunk. The market is also inherently limited by the limited number of open spaces. Roads are one of the examples are markets more efficiently run publicly.
In that case why not privatize funding and building our roads? Apples and oranges right?
The problem is with 200 countries around the world you cannot provide one example while staying with healthcare.
Healthcare, on the other hand, is a market much more similar to the other I mentioned. The major difference is that it's a market that provides a necessity, not a want, and a market that provides a service wherein the consumer doesn't have the same ability to differentiate between services. I also understand the importance of pooling risk in the marketplace for this service. That's why a public option and subsidy of premiums for the poor make some sense.
If roads building and maintenance are oranges and computer technology is a macintosh apple, then healthcare is a Granny Smith apple.
The problem is with 200 countries around the world you cannot provide one example while staying with healthcare.
I'm sorry. I don't understand the meaning of this sentence. What am I trying to provide an example of?
17 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76If private insurers are going to be able to deny for pre-existing conditions, then the public option is going to have to accept a lot more, costly customers. Private insurers should have to pay for that by some kind of additional tax on them. And what will be the "market rate" for those with pre-existing conditions if no private company wants to insure them?
I'm in favor of a three pronged system:
1) Public option with market rate premiums, reduced on a sliding scale based on income/resource ability to pay standard
2) Increase of 1 or 2 points in the Medicare tax to pay for (1)
3) Deregulation of private insurers and removal of their liability shield. They can deny for pre-existing conditions; sell across ...[text shortened]... verage.
Single payer systems are too bureaucracy laden. Open market brings the best results.
17 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76this plan would sort of end up in the great chasm between the current Democrat and current GOP positions.
I'm in favor of a three pronged system:
1) Public option with market rate premiums, reduced on a sliding scale based on income/resource ability to pay standard
2) Increase of 1 or 2 points in the Medicare tax to pay for (1)
3) Deregulation of private insurers and removal of their liability shield. They can deny for pre-existing conditions; sell across ...[text shortened]... verage.
Single payer systems are too bureaucracy laden. Open market brings the best results.
the minute you mentioned public option, the GOP along with Lieberman just left the room. The minute you allowed insurers to deny pre-existing conditions and sell across state lines, pretty much all of the Dems just left the room.
Which leaves just you in the room with Obama. I actually believe Obama would accept this plan if he could get it. Maybe he could hire you as healthcare reform legislation czar and put you in charge of getting everyone to agree on this proposal or something like it.
But then Glenn Beck would find a tape where you inadvertently made a statement that supported communists in 2003 and Obama would be pressured into rescinding the nomination.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by sh76I asked you to point to an example where open markets bring the best results when it comes to a country's healthcare system. There are 200 countries in the world so surely you can name at least one. And yet, you simply countered by pointing out *other* industries where free markets work well.
Roads are public domain and there is insufficient incentive for companies to build roads efficiently. Tolls can perhaps be used to pay for some highways; but there's no profit in maintaining Main Street in Podunk. The market is also inherently limited by the limited number of open spaces. Roads are one of the examples are markets more efficiently run publicly. ...[text shortened]... don't understand the meaning of this sentence. What am I trying to provide an example of?
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe answer is very simple and it will be the proof one way or the other, all those that believe in 'free' health care sign up for it, and fund it, of course. Just leave the rest of us alone.
I asked you to point to an example where open markets bring the best results when it comes to a country's healthcare system. There are 200 countries in the world so surely you can name at least one. And yet, you simply countered by pointing out *other* industries where free markets work well.
17 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaGo find a cave if you don't want to be part of society, Hermit. Human societies have always taken care of their sick.
The answer is very simple and it will be the proof one way or the other, all those that believe in 'free' health care sign up for it, and fund it, of course. Just leave the rest of us alone.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by WajomaAnd those that can't afford it or are excluded from private insurance due to their preexisting conditions?
The answer is very simple and it will be the proof one way or the other, all those that believe in 'free' health care sign up for it, and fund it, of course. Just leave the rest of us alone.
17 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperNo, they're not excluded they just sign up for the free health care, that's all that's required, opt one way or the other and then take responsibility for that choice.
And those that can't afford it or are excluded from private insurance due to their preexisting conditions?
i.e. I choose not to sign up for 'free' health care, later I get extremely sick, then I have no claim against the 'free' health care system.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by WajomaYou said those who want free healthcare can fund it. If they're funding it it's not free, and many people can't afford it.
No, they're not excluded they just sign up for the free health care, that's all that's required, opt one way or the other and then take responsibility for that choice.
i.e. I choose not to sign up for 'free' health care, later I get extremely sick, then I have no claim against the 'free' health care system.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by shavixmirI want everyone to be healthy shav, there are a lot of very unhealthy people all through out Africa, what are you doing for them? Don't wait for regulation go right ahead and spend your life in the service of all the unhealthy people of the world.
The whole argument is so 80's.
What on earth is wrong with giving everyone free health care?
You don't want your neighbours to be healthy? What on earth does that say about you?
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by shavixmirI'd like to see the US join the mid-20th Century and adopt a single payer system; experience has shown that these function well.
The whole argument is so 80's.
What on earth is wrong with giving everyone free health care?
You don't want your neighbours to be healthy? What on earth does that say about you?
However, only about 1/3 of Americans presently support moving to such a system. For now, it is a political impossibility. So we'll have to come up with a half-assed tinkering of the present costly and inefficient monstrosity or suffer with large numbers of our fellow citizens not having adequate access to care and rapidly rising costs to the consumers which translate to big profits for a limited number of corporations.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThat's the flaw in your argument. If your idea is so great you'd have no problem with people signing up - by choice. Including those that are happy to fund all those that cannot afford it.
You said those who want free healthcare can fund it. If they're funding it it's not free, and many people can't afford it.
Choice
C h o i c e
Or are you admitting it would be a flop
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by WajomaCan I not sign up for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or for enforcement of drug laws? Or many other things I don't think my government should be doing? I'd get a lot of money back.
No, they're not excluded they just sign up for the free health care, that's all that's required, opt one way or the other and then take responsibility for that choice.
i.e. I choose not to sign up for 'free' health care, later I get extremely sick, then I have no claim against the 'free' health care system.