15 Jul 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe nerve of those California socialists -- forbidding converting a condominium into a chicken coop!
Raising chickens is illegal in Los Angeles I think. Or highly regulated or something. Plus it requires land.
Humans without capital have only their service to offer.
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat I'm saying we should get rid of isn't insurance at all. It is a pre-pay program. Insurance is supposed to be there in case something happens unexpectedly, not to cover expenses you know you are going to have to cover.
I did read it. Your plan would make sale of approximately 99% of health insurance plans illegal. That's a "free market" solution?
Pre-paying for expenses you know you will have to cover is pre-payment, not insurance. Going to a pre-payment format is what has allowed the medical community to jack up their prices.
It's a real screwed up practice at that. Doctors say that an office visit now costs $100, but you only have to make a payment of $40 if you have a pre-pay program and the pre-pay company will kick in another $40 and the doctor writes off the rest. This is by pre-arranged agreement. If you don't have a pre-pay program you are to pay the entire $100. This kind of pricing gets carried over into every other procedure that a doctor might do for you.
Pre-payment programs are not insurance, pre-payment programs are simply a mechanism that has allowed the medical community and insurance companies to get rich off the consumer. It is a form of a monopoly that the government is supposed to be protecting consumers from.
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarHowever you define it, it is a result of willing buyers and willing sellers purchasing a product. Outlawing these "pre-pay programs" is violative of free market principles.
What I'm saying we should get rid of isn't insurance at all. It is a pre-pay program. Insurance is supposed to be there in case something happens unexpectedly, not to cover expenses you know you are going to have to cover.
Pre-paying for expenses you know you will have to cover is pre-payment, not insurance. Going to a pre-payment format is what has all ...[text shortened]... It is a form of a monopoly that the government is supposed to be protecting consumers from.
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI suppose any anti-monopoly laws violate free market principles.
However you define it, it is a result of willing buyers and willing sellers purchasing a product. Outlawing these "pre-pay programs" is violative of free market principles.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199255
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, mine is to simply allow a public option to compete against insurance. Private insurance wouldn't have to be banned. The free market would take care of it. That's why the Republicans and Lieberman killed the public option.
So your "free market" solution is to outlaw insurance?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199255
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarCertainly, but the irony is that free markets left to their own devices cease to be free. So while the "principles" might be violated by anti-trust action, free markets themselves are preserved.
I suppose any anti-monopoly laws violate free market principles.
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I said, this is a kind of monopoly where all the companies are in this together. It isn't just one company, it is the way the system is set up that creates the monster.
In some sense they do.
In any event, the "anti-monopoly" argument is hardly applicable to the health care market. There are many suppliers in almost every market.
The public option won't work either. The only way the public option will work will be when the government dictates to doctors what they can charge as they do in countries with Socialized medicine.
There is no way that the government can afford to pay doctors what they want and what they are allowed to charge under today's pre-pay system.
16 Jul 11
One other thing, I know you enjoy taking subjects off topic, but I'd really like to stop this worthless back and forth to allow conservatives to chime in and see what they say.
Come on conservatives, please explain to me how this is supposed to work? How can the poor be guaranteed that they will be able to afford their insurance even after government subsidies.
16 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooThis is in fact nearly the case in many European countries; you know, those places the right-wingers are always trying to scare us about by characterizing them as evil dystopias where grandmas are routinely fed to the dogs and fetuses are sold as soylent green. There's a "single-payer" system run by the government, but also private insurers are around to provide additional coverages if someone wants it. I only offer this up as proof that private insurers can coexist with "socialized medicine," although in my view the government-run programs seem sufficient in these countries, and any move they make toward "privatizing" health care is just a slippery slope that would lead them to something resembling the bastardized U.S. crazy-quilt of profit-crazed, bean-counting price-gougers.
Actually, mine is to simply allow a public option to compete against insurance. Private insurance wouldn't have to be banned. The free market would take care of it. That's why the Republicans and Lieberman killed the public option.
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastSoothfast, you are free to form 'free healthcare organisations' you do not have a right to make others suport your pipe dreams. I have lived in socialized healthcare utopia and it sure aint all it's cracked up to be on your left whinger sites, or as promoted by state sponsored polls. Here in Aus recently people have died while waiting in Ambulance queues, i.e. in an ambulance just outside the hospital. You belive in free healthcare, bully for you, get together with your mates and all pull together, make it work, but leave people free to choose whether to join your scheme or not.
This is in fact nearly the case in many European countries; you know, those places the right-wingers are always trying to scare us about by characterizing them as evil dystopias where grandmas are routinely fed to the dogs and fetuses are sold as soylent green. There's a "single-payer" system run by the government, but also private insurers are around to ...[text shortened]... esembling the bastardized U.S. crazy-quilt of profit-crazed, bean-counting price-gougers.
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by KunsooLeft whinger double speaker. The only monopolies possible are guvamint mandated ones. It's curious all the 'anti-monopolists' are the number one cheer leaders for the biggest baddest monopoly of all, the one true monopoly, the only outfit besides criminals with a sanction (by some) for the initiation of force and threats of force.
Certainly, but the irony is that free markets left to their own devices cease to be free.
16 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by WajomaSince government represents the people, I say government is the natural tool to use to create a health care organization. In fact we already have one called Medicare, which could serve as the germ for a larger scale organization that includes everybody. Don't stand in the way! You and I know that if you suddenly needed a liver transplant and you couldn't afford the surgery, you'd expect society to carry out the operation first and ask questions later. Please, no blustering that "No, I would die for my libertarian principles." Till you've been there and done that, you can't make the claim. So, it makes sense to come up with a system in which you're entitled -- yes, entitled -- to a live-saving operation if you need one, no questions ever asked. If you don't like it then shop for a different country or go live on a boat in the middle of the Pacific.
Soothfast, you are free to form 'free healthcare organisations' you do not have a right to make others suport your pipe dreams. I have lived in socialized healthcare utopia and it sure aint all it's cracked up to be on your left whinger sites, or as promoted by state sponsored polls. Here in Aus recently people have died while waiting in Ambulance queues, i ...[text shortened]... l together, make it work, but leave people free to choose whether to join your scheme or not.
You're not an island unto yourself. You take from society all the time, Wajoma -- and don't claim otherwise. Anything you might say to the contrary is egotistical, delusional blustering. Seriously. What the hell is a country for, in your mind? What the hell is the concept of society for? When you were born you were utterly dependent on your parents, and they in turn dependent on society's resources; and whenever you drive on a road or drink clean water, you've got society and its "guvmint" agencies to thank.
Here in the U.S. people also die from lack of medical care. And in far greater numbers (per capita) than in Australia or New Zealand, I'm fairly sure. It's because they don't have insurance, were denied insurance, had inadequate insurance, had insurance but were denied treatment by accountants, or couldn't afford insurance. I could go on and on, but you get my drift I'm sure.
You're a barrel of disjointed Randian fortune cookies gone stale. You and your kind should shove off to Antarctica and make your rugged individualistic utopia there.