6,867 Forum Posts by "SadisticMonkey"
At 6/28/12 02:29 AM, Feoric wrote: credit card companies aren't government run industries.
?
everything was lower a century ago. it's called inflation.
So when it suits you, you'll gnash your teeth over how healthcare costs have risen so much, but when it suits you you'll demand proof that prices were lower. Make up your mind.
you need to demonstrate to me it was specifically fraternal societies that caused the prices to be low,
The point of fraternal socieites is that they were bargaining to get lower prices, so the fact that they were used at all proves that they lowered pirces, otherwise people wouldn't have used them.
And still, I don't need to demonstrate that at all. Government had almost nothing to do with healthcare back then compared to today, so that fact alone is enough.
your point consists of comparing the treatment of dogs to humans, which is really silly. if this was such an inherent problem you wouldn't be seeing this in only canada. where else is this happening?
I don't know. The fact that it is happening at all in what is being used as a model for a UHC system is damning enough.
the "raw figures" mention that point specifically. you don't seem to get that going to see doctors early on and treating the disease before it conflagrates will bring down the number of people living with the disease (any disease) down dramatically, even if a certain race is genetically predisposed to having it. it will always be above average for that certain race for whatever disease is in question, but early treatment of it controls it and saves money in the long run. a lot of these diseases arent being treated because, lo and behold, a lot of blacks in this country have an income below 35,000 dollars, and can't afford regular doctor visits.
IT DOESN'T MATTER. Regardless of how good medical treatment is, different predisposition to disease WILL ALWAYS drag down health stats.
you say they "choose" not to, how do you know this?
Because eating healthy is cheaper than eating mcdonalds
are you on a welfare program?
Nope, I live off of savings.
given enough time? yeah, it really does.
Well you're saying they're eating DRI of calories, which should mean that they're not getting obese.
uh, the government is paying for health care. you think an official policy would be to smuggle money to drug companies? you want me to talk you out of your paranoia? i don't think i'm able to do that, i'm not a psychologist. u.s. healthcare does not include higher pharmaceutical spending than other countries; it's around the average or even slightly lower.
I mean, for example, awarding no-bid contracts to healthcare companies, like what is done in military contracts.
Apparently it's a compelling enough argument that you can rule out deregulation of the insurance industry, but suddenly doesn't apply to UHC.
where is your 17 trillion coming from? you already were mislead by large numbers. how long is this projection? 20 years? 50 years?
not really
Providing healthcare for 300 million people (+population growth) for 75 years won't result in trillions more in deficits than the ACA? You crazy bro?
well i have good news for you! with a UHC system there is no profit motive and it's very strictly regulated so none of the conditions of a monopoly would actually be in place! looks like this is the health care system for you!
So basically, if you don't like the service, bad luc. And if government sues their monoipoly privilege to help out their corporate buddioes, bad luck its a monopoly.
You can say "No profit motive!" all you like, but at the end of the day politicians are just as, if not more so, greedy as everyone else.
this is coming from the guy who's every post has something to do with a libertarian free market philosophy that doesn't work in real life?
]
You mean, has worked whewnever it has been tried but no longer exists because poltiicians can't profit from it? Yeah.
ya, toll revenues from privatized highways go to private corporate profits and shareholders, rather than the government. free market, folks!
You're an idiot.
you're still not reading the things i am kindly taking the time to show you, aren't you?
They don't explain it
this isn't an issue, though. the united states can find a reasonable way to pay for uhc; \
NO THEY CAN'T
jesus christ, how can you not understand this. There is no more money for this.
march onward, comrade!
No seriosuly though, why not?
At 6/28/12 03:26 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Racism though is illogical.
I really don't think you know enough about the subject to draw that conclusion.
At 6/28/12 05:21 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Rambling non sequitur! RACIST!
Non sequitur? You're the one saying that 'race realists' like Mr taylor are 'racist fuckheads'.
The cause is everything, and saying that the cause is race is blatantly untrue and just fucking stupid.
Are you denying that blacks commit many multiples more crime than any other race? Are you saying that you weren't incorrect that black neighbourhoods would steal as much as poor white neighbourhods?
Yeah i didnt want to type anything so I just put that.
At 6/28/12 03:25 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Ah yes, The Color of Crime, published under the supervision of journalist and self described "race realist", Mr Jared Taylor. Race realist, a phrase which ought to appear instantly familiar to anyone who has spent any amount of time browsing the forums of Stormfront.org where it is a very popular replacement for the more common "racist fuckhead".
Do you believe that agriculture ocurred and that evolution didn't stop at the neck? RACIST
In the end, it is simply poor analysis to claim that one factor is responsible for a phenomenon as complex as crime. Researchers have been exploring the causes of crime for decades, and there is wide agreement that there is no answer as monolithic as that which Taylor offers: race, and specifically the black race.
NOPE LOL, COC is merely a statistical report. It is objectively true that blacks commit more crime, regardless of the cause.
At 6/23/12 09:54 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Obama
Deporting children is evil, but bombing them is fine
amazing
Hey if government monopolies are so fantastic, why shouldn't they monopolise everything? Why not have communism?
At 6/28/12 12:42 AM, Feoric wrote: so i don't know where you're drawing that conclusion.
You said the post office isn't a monopoly so it can't be used for a comparison, and I said that there are private insurance providers in UHC countries o its not a monopoly either.
uh, no? but does that mean the scenario i brought up won't happen? because it kinda already did.
Which is a compelling argument against government run industries
okay, demonstrate that to me.
this doesn't need deomstrating, its pretty clear health care costs were lower a century ago
for simple, routine
I don't think you get my point. Animal healthcare is not a UHC system,and so there is a plentiful supply of MRIs, whereas human UHC can't afford as many MRIs because they need to keep costs down.
when it comes to diabetes (18 million people in america have type 2), the average cost per year is about 10,000 dollars, with an average of 1,600 out of pocket expenses. here's the thing: 40% of diabetics have family incomes below $35,000 per year. so we're talking about 7.2 million people who struggle to pay the costs of maintaining the disease, but i guess that's somehow their fault.
sigh...controlling for diet, blacks GET diabetes more than whites. Thus, all other things being equal, a population with a lolt of blacks should inherently be expected to have worse health outcomes than one with less blacks. Which is why the raw figures on america's health outcomes and life expectancy are misleading.
no, you don't HAVE to, but it sure is a good step.
The health problems americans face have literally nothing to do with not eating organic vegetables.
when you have 200 bucks a month with SNAP food stamps, you'll quickly realize how expensive vegetables are:
the price of frozen vegetables is up 6.1 percent from last year. it's virtually impossible to not eat inexpensive unhealthy garbage when you simply don't have the money to buy healthier food, i don't see the controversy in this.
I'm a poor student. Eating healthy is cheaper than eating unhealthy.
you can easily get the recommended calories per day off the dollar menu.
People don't just eat a few dollars of mcdonalds a day. You don't get obese eating a few dollar menu items a day.
you somehow think that interstate sale of insurance would be a good thing.
gee, why would cheaper insurance be good. HMMMMM...
i'll repeat to specify: with a uhc system there is no profit motive and it's very strictly regulated so none of the conditions of a "monopoly" would actually be in place. as for the second part, for such a proponent of markets the answer should be apparent. private insurance companies distort the market for drugs (read the intro) in a way that is detrimental to both society and the marketplace. pharmaceutical companies do not operate inside a free market and the marketplace for drugs cannot by definition exist in the manner upon which free market principles are predicated. and, you know drug companies are already dependent on government departments (mainly the NIH) and top universities to fund research, right? without the information from research projects, drug companies don't have anywhere to start working. so the government already has a leg up on drug companies.
Sorry, you haven't explained why the government won't help funnel money to their corporate friends, like how they do in every other industry.
no wonder why you think i didn't address your post! i'll start all over again, then.
That doesn't prove anything. The affordable healthcare act alone is adding $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. UHC would be far, FAR higher.
At 6/28/12 12:48 AM, Feoric wrote: yes! you finally did it! you finally understand what a monopoly is!
yes, a very bad thing.
what the hell difference does it make? how's that working out for us?
there are other factors you're not considering
yes
jesus christ
you \'re not so great on the whole economics stuff are you
decades? do you have a source for this prediction? or is this one of those "friedman units" i've been hearing about so much?
Its pretty obvious. It takes close to a decade for someone to be a practising physician, and it will take more than one generation of increased doctor supply to undo the damage that has been done.
lol. you want a private highway?
Um, these already exist and are cheaper and better maintained than public highways. Oops.
wow, you're better than i thought. this is, in fact, what i've been trying to say this whole time.
Expalin how this could possibnly be the case.
But still , it's money that has been committed to spend but the government won't have.so?
You..don't understand why the government committing to spend money that won't possibly have when they need to spend it, ISN'T disastrorous?
Jesus christ
At 6/27/12 08:54 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: because I can gar-uhn-tee that you'd get just as many bites on that bike in any poor neighborhood, no matter the racial composition, 100% white or 100% black. Poverty and poor quality of education are the common denominators.
here's the source, couldn't find it earlier.
"Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery."
"The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic. "
At 6/27/12 04:14 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: When people are done fighting each other to see where the balance of power lies they negotiate, the resulting collective decision making process is a government.
Nope, governmetns did not start from people coming together and deciding a government should be established to make decisions.
Governments started from kings and religious leaders seeking to increase their power over society.
The purpose of government is to prevent a return to violence by representing the balance of power so most parties involves can agree to cooperate.
No, it's to monopolise violence to acheive certain ends.
At 6/27/12 05:52 PM, Feoric wrote: the industry would put its money into buying the legislature
Government is corrupt, therefore its a good idea to give them a monopoly on healthcare.
faceplam.jpg
prices are higher. they're higher than anywhere else in the world,
For the tenth time, americians receive different treatment for those prices.
if they can't make money then they'll just raise their premiums like they have been.
So you're saying insurers don't cara bout costs at all and can just raise rpices whewnever they want.
facepalm.jpg
there's several points that can be drawn from that, but it basically boils down to healthcare not being a normal market due to the lives of yourself/loved ones coming into question;
This just means huge demand, therefore a free market would providse a huge supply to meet this huge demand.
the two are not mutually exclusive. it has been lifted, and to fill the gap, they're lobbying for more.
In any case, it will be decades before the supply returns to 'proper' levels, and so THIS REMAINS A FACTOR.
public utilities are private natural monopolies who have their prices set by government bodies and provide much cheaper service than would be provided.
You have no proof of this.
The free market has no solution to industries which tend towards natural monopoly. with a uhc system there is no profit motive and it's very strictly regulated so none of the conditions of a "monopoly" would actually be in place.
You're missing my point.
You're saying thje UHC providing LESS services will result in BETTER care. Nuts.
uh, where is this 100 trillion number coming from? i'm going to guess that it's an estimate of what they (social security and medicare, possibly?) are expected to pay out over the next several decades (50-75 years).
It's actually 100 including teh 17 trillion from obamacare over the next 75 years, my mistake. But still , it's money that has been committed to spend but the government won't have.
i guess we might as well chalk up "breathing air" and "needing to drink water" as liabilities.
You're a fucking moron.
At 6/27/12 08:54 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: If the cops exclusively target black neighborhoods with this kind of sting, then yes, I'd call it an excuse to arrest more black folks, because I can gar-uhn-tee that you'd get just as many bites on that bike in any poor neighborhood, no matter the racial composition, 100% white or 100% black.
Nope. Controlling for income, blacks still commit more crime. The blackness of a neighbourhood has a far bigger impact on crime than its wealth.
Poverty and poor quality of education are the common denominators.
It has nothing to do with education. Blacks in schools with far higher spending generally do not better than poorer schools.
At 6/27/12 06:37 PM, Feoric wrote: yes, there is. what's your point?
You say I cant compare teh post office because its not a total monopoly
interestingly it seems to come from republicans, but they're part of our government so i wil have to say "yes."
Really? You think republicans bow down to public unions and give them a heap of unsustainable pensions and shit?
the US never had a free market. free markets don't exist, never have, never will.
The system in place with fraternal societies was essentially a free market, and saw much lower prices.
huh?
In canda, there's a longer waiting period to get an MRI for people than for dogs.
it's not race,
No, it is. It necessarily is. You have millions of people inherently more prone to chronic disease, so yes it is race.
so the lower class can't afford the elevated costs of buying locally and organic foodstuffs,
You do NOT have to buy local/organic shit to be healthy. Theyt can easily afford supermarket vegetables but choose not too. Also, government nutrional guidelines are complete bullshit. 11 servings of grain per day? Get fucked.
and as a result they wind up eating absolute shit (like mcdonalds) which creates a lifestyle of unhealthy eating that leads to these diseases..
McDonalds is NOT cheaper than eating even moderately healthy. Eating exclusively mcdonalds is fucking expensive, and is done out of laziness and lack of self-responsibility.
almost exclusively conducted by the several states and their insurance departments. the federal government has explicitly exempted insurance from federal regulation in most cases.
Except, you know, the most important regulation which stops interstate sale of insurance.
so when you say "the government" which one are you referring to? local? state? federal? federally speaking the government has very little to do with the regulation of insurance providers, the bulk of it occurs on the state level.
This has nothing to do with what I said, ffs. Read it again.
what drives down healthcare costs is what comes with uhc.
It doesn't reduce costs, it reduces services.
a single payer plan eliminates insurance company overhead, and gives the government the power to dictate prices and availability. in a public option plan, all providers must take its payments as full payment. the rates are tied to medicare (perhaps plus a percentage), and the medicare rates themselves are decided by an independent rate setting commission. on top of that, several european countries dictate that health plans must return 85% to 92.5% of the premium paid in as medical services paid out. in the u.s. it's as low as 60%. there are loads of other ways the price will be brought down, like the ability for the government to negotiate drug prices, increasing the supply of medical service by expanding medical and nursing school enrollments, etc etc etc.
Why is it that we can't unregulate insurance because teh government is corrupt and will favour certain companies, but if there's a monopoly, teh government is magically benevolent and won't help out their drug company buddies and shit
STILL, you ahven't adressed my first post. AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD UHC.
At 6/27/12 04:15 PM, Warforger wrote: Hurrrrrr durr durrr DEM LIBRZZZZZ.
Do you think black people came up with the concept of "wehite privilege"? Do you think blacks were responsible for getting "black studies" or whatever victimisation calptrap courses into colleges?
It's mentioned, but not actively talked about because what is there to do about it? It's like people umping off the Golden Gate Bridge, it happens alot but its rarely reported except as a statistic.
One person, Travon Zimmerman, is killed whilst beating someone to death, and it's the biggest news story of the year. The fucking president offers his moronic two cents. Liberals decalre that blacks are under attack and that white supremicists are out in force.
meanwhile, the fact is that there is more black on white hate crime per capita than vice versa, and yet you would never hear anything about them.
Look at this. How many americans heard about this shit? Approximately none.
Or how about the whole Rodney King debacle?
You mean one of the biggest news stories of the ninties?
Wow....
every single uhc system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the american health care system; how does more of what we already have make things better?
Making american healthcare more free market is NOT "more of what we already have". It is the opposite. Are you forgetting that 50 cents of every dollar spent on healthcare in america is spent by the government and that government restricts the supply of insurance providers and medical professionals? That is the opposite of free market.
only the government has the power to ensure that everyone has access to medical care and the leverage to counteract the inherit inequities of profiting from disease.
Doctors bargaining with fraternal societies were 'profiting from disease', and this lead to lower prices. On a free market, profit attracts capital, capital drives down prices.
At 6/27/12 04:20 AM, Feoric wrote: ...what? insurers face very little competition; virtually no competition at all. health insurance is one of the most concentrated markets in the u.s.
Yes, because supply is restricted due to laws preventing sale across state lines. I already explained this.
i can't find anything that definitively makes the case that the government ruined healthcare.
Medical societies like the AMA imposed sanctions on doctors who dared to sign lodge practice contracts. This might have been less effective if such medical societies had not had access to government power; but in fact, thanks to governmental grants of privilege, they controlled the medical licensure procedure, thus ensuring that those in their disfavor would be denied the right to practice medicine.
Such licensure laws also offered the medical establishment a less overt way of combating lodge practice. It was during this period that the AMA made the requirements for medical licensure far more strict than they had previously been. Their reason, they claimed, was to raise the quality of medical care. But the result was that the number of physicians fell, competition dwindled, and medical fees rose; the vast pool of physicians bidding for lodge practice contracts had been abolished. As with any market good, artifical restrictions on supply created higher prices âEU" a particular hardship for the working-class members of fraternal societies.
be honest, did you read any of the sources i linked?
No, because you used them in explaining cost differences and the such, not in explaining why costs were higher.
because that's the case. the demand for healthcare really sees no limit, especially if cost is not a factor for the consumer. shopping around for emergency care when you really need it is impossible. tell me, then, how do you put a limit on how much youâEUTMre going to demand if your life is literally at stake?
Emergency care is free for everyone. In any case, if you want to to make the case that demand for healthcare is completely elastic, then why aren't prices even higher?
the supply of physicians and providers is not driven by normal market forces.
Because of the aamc. We've already established this.
the first is that consumers have price/quality information so they can shop around for the best value;
The reason they can't shop around is because of laws preventing sale of insurance across state borders. But this still fits supply and demand, because it is effectivelya restriction on supply.
the second is that consumers actually pay the price of what they buy.
What
it wont help them make more money if everybody is blindly shooting in the dark.
Do you have any evidence to suggest people are 'shooting in the dark when they choose healthcare providers?
innovation is stifled without that incentive. to go back to healthcare, why would a doctorâEUTMs office make an innovation, such as to install an electronic medical record that would temporarily disrupt process flows and require a large upfront cost if it wonâEUTMt help convince more patients to come? (hint: because they can).
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but in that particular example, an electronic database would be established to same time and labor, not to get more paitents.
secondly, although consumers pay the full cost for their healthcare, they have already done it through insurance premiums or reduced salary. but they donâEUTMt see that full price directly like itâEUTMs coming straight out of their wallet, so they donâEUTMt perceive that theyâEUTMre paying the price, so they donâEUTMt care so much what the price is. this inflates demand in a big way!
Insurers are going to care what the price is, otherwise they can't make money.
think about the man whose father is about to die. heâEUTMll tell the doctor to do whatever it takes to keep the father alive, but how willing would he be to do that if the man knew he was going to have to pay 750 grand right out of his own bank account?
Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say and how it relates to the topic.
yes and no. the restrictions were in place, but it's worth mentioning that they aren't anymore.
Nooo, you said they are currently lobbying, which means they will (/might) be lifted in the future.
no, more is not better. it's pretty apparent: i've shown you how much the u.s. pays for healthcare related expenditures and compared our health statistics to other countries and we're far far behind every developed nation in the world. it may seem counter-intuitive (doesn't buying more of the best stuff put you in a better position?!) but the numbers don't lie.
So your argument is that government should monopolise healthcare, provide less services, and this will result in better health outcomes.
O-kay....
no, it isn't, because we don't know how much insurance they're getting. what plan are we talking about? not all insurance is the same.
How is this relevant to the fact that X million americans don't have insurance?
you're welcome to start another thread for this, i'll gladly debate you on this but it'll just clog up this thread.
America has $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. It has committed to spending money on existing social programs that it doesn't have and according to it's own projections won't have (and these projections usually lean towards things going better rather than worse). There is simply no way it will be cover the additional trillions in spending that UHC requires.
i'm not too sure if there is a problem with either of those departments, are you?
I'm not sure, but they almost certainly operate inefficiently and spend way too much money.
because the government isn't going to handle mail the same way they're going to handle healthcare?
Why?
the post office isn't quite a monopoly
There's private health insurance in UHC countries.
mandated employee superannuation investment that has now resulted in some 70 years of pre-invested pension pay.
So you agree government programs have to deal with a lot of bullshit?
the "free market" isn't some magical cure-all solution. you fail to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government.
Except, this isn't the case, and prices were far lower when america did have a free market.
canada, which is one of the worst performing UHC systems, is also one of the most 'free market'.
There is no such thing as "free-market UHC". Free markets are better at everything, but entirely government controlled *can* be better than half-controlled/half-private.
on average, better care.
You're going to have to expalin this, because it takes longer for a human to get an MRI than a dog.
seriously, look at how much we spend, only to be ranked 72nd in overall health.
There are other factors. America obviously eatrs a lot worse than most countries, which alone can probably explain most of the difference. Further, you have to control for race. Blacks are much more prone to diseases such as diabetes and heart disease (controlling for diet), and so tend to drag down statistics regarding health outcomes.
At 6/27/12 03:15 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I can all but guaruntee you if women were allowed to run topless, and a significant number of women actually wanted to run topless, the only ones complaining would be other women (the religious folk, obviously).
AND the religious folk.
I can all but guaruntee you if women were allowed to run topless, and a significant number of women actually wanted to run topless, the only ones complaining would be other women (the religious folk, obviously).
At 6/27/12 12:26 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: which is a criminal situation
Death to tyrants who say we should use words based on their definitions!
Fisking my post makes no sense, especially considering you change between attacking indiviudal facts, and attacking their relevance to the topic. Clearly my entire post wa making a unifed point, which was that demands for the government to provide healthcare to everyone is particuarly stupid and dangerous given the enormous economic problems america is facing the tremendous budget problems the government will have in the near-future. How many times does it have to be said before liberals will understand, the american government has no money, and this will only grow more true over time.
At 6/27/12 12:39 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Which this law does. It makes people continue to be dependent upon insurance companies for any kind of healthcare insurance...which has become absolutely essential to getting healthcare. So you already have what you want...why are you upset again?
This law is obviously designed as a stepping stone towards single-payer, and it is reasonable to assume that essentially everyone who supports this act supports a single-payer system. Do you really think liberals support this because it means more money for insurance companies?
Which comes from things that aren't actually what's under discussion...but ok.
The government isn't coming close to covering current spending. There's no way that they will be able to cover the cost of a single-payer system.
I've never overly concerned myself with debt as much as I've concerned myself with who holds the IOU and for how much.
Is this meant to be reassuring?
borrows $4 billion a day,Link? Something? Why do people claim these things without a hyperlink to back it...when did we stop demanding that in here when we are going to claim things that might not be "common knowledge"?
If you are unaware of facts that should be common knowlege, I think the onus is on you to perform the 5 second google search. This is not exactly an obscure statistic.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/may/0 4/national-republican-congressional-committee/gop-congressio nal-committee-says-us-borrows-4-bill/http://www.politifact.c om/rhode-island/statements/2011/may/04/national-republican-c ongressional-committee/gop-congressional-committee-says-us-b orrows-4-bill
I reiterate the above.
is presiding over an economy ultimately headed towards a depression,
Spoiler alert: We HAD a depression. That wasn't a recession, it was a depression,
i agree, but most people don't use the terms like that so I avoid it too.
we're digging out of it right now. The only thing that kept it from being as BAD as the '29 collapse were the GOVERNMENT safeguards that prevent such things, and public trust in those safeguards. See? Government does get it right sometimes (not often, but sometimes).
There's going to be a collapse, it's inevitable (essentially). Government made the depression softer, but they've delyaed the real crash, which is going to be far worse as a result. Additionally, they were responsible for the boom in the first place, which was responisble for the crash and hence the depression.
They've also prolonged the (non-existent) recovery. There was a depression in 1921 caused by a stock market crash WORSE than that in 1929 (and 2008), but the economy recovered quickly because Woodrow Wilson had a stroke and so he was unable to implement the kinds of "recovery" program we saw after 1929 and 2008, and so depsite there being a more pronounced ecpnomic contraction, bad investments were able to be liquedated and reallocated to productive uses, instead of being tied up in projects that s\artificially appeared profitable due to boom conditions.
So government has nothing to be proud of.
"more then likely" but you can't prove it...ok...I see where we're going here...well, we know what they say about assumption.
jesus christ
so they've been catastrophically wrong in the past, but THIS TIME, now that our black messiah is in charge, they'll magically be right.
At 6/26/12 07:31 PM, Warforger wrote: Fact is that race was not an issue 2008
hhahahahah YEP, it was all about the issues
At 6/26/12 11:34 PM, Warforger wrote: so it does not seem to be a horrible idea.
It does because America has no hope of affording it now, and even less hope in the future.
Except when you keep it paid for it means it puts barriers for those people in lower economic classes, when it's free everyone has an equal chance.
America already has way too many people going to college. Poor people who currently don't receive scholarships are unlikely to be smart enough to complete demanding and useful programs and so are unlikely to benefit significantly from college, and so are just wasting everyone else's money.
Oh, and once again america can't afford it.
Oh wow the famous "F" word of the Feminists, oh will those women ever learn that in a society in which they are the group with more college graduates yet still are hired less than the other and are judged on their looks not by character (as opposed to men where it doesn't matter) is one where they're equal.
Women are more likely to major in useless subjects. Graduates ain't graduates.
Highly doubt it.
Millions of poor, uneducated people flooding into a failing economy won't turn america into a third world country. Got it.
That doesn't seem that unreasonable and sounds perfect. In fact it may be their most realistic demand. The problem is that often times when you get hired for a job you have to join a Union or you're automatically enrolled in one, this is done so that the Unions can keep their strength and keep workers organized, otherwise you have industries where workers are unorganized. However with the way the modern labor unions are and how questionable they've become I think this is good.
Agreed.
Ahhhh good ol' insults to let you know the speaker is so open-minded.
No, really, most OWS are morons, and happen to be among the least open-minded people you could possibly ever meet.
At 6/16/12 11:12 AM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: They are deliberately distorting the truth, and misinform the public
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Turns out that they deliberately hid the man's face because he is actually BLACK
Fucking idiots.
At 6/26/12 08:53 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: Obama being black is also why the backlash is so bad.
Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever?
I think things like, you know, explicitly stating that the government should be involved in widespread redistributions of wealth probably frightened people just a little bit.
At 6/26/12 03:55 PM, Feoric wrote: but insurance is an overcapitalized industry. how do investors seeking a profit drive prices down?
Competition, duh.
you're assuming there will be reduced costs due to some sort of market mechanism, and in practice this has never occurred; every private healthcare system that has ever existed in world history has proved inefficient and been replaced by public systems, and given the demonstrable gains that have resulted the u.s. must follow
FALSE. Healthcare was working extraordinarily well in america until the government "fixed" it.
but we don't have a free market.
I know, I'm saying that the persistence of high profits means that it necessarily isn't a free market.
the high costs are a function of something entirely different, not supply.
You haven't proven that at all.
right, if it was federally regulated we wouldn't have that issue with health insurance.
I'm expalining why the prices are high. You're saying that supply and demand somehow doesn't apply to healthcare.
the restrictions were put in place a while ago to prevent a surplus of medical practitioners, and once they realized there were not enough they reversed their restrictions. the ama is currently lobbying for the expansion of medical education.
So, yeah, I was correct.
which is a symptom of overspending on medical tech. i don't even know if that's true but even if it is, it's not very surprising. per million people, the united states has 3 times as many mri units as the average among the 30 oecd nations (25.9 vs 8.4).
By what metric is it overspending? I don't necessarily disagree, but why do you think they're spending too much? Isn't more better?
tell me, then, of those people who are able to afford insurance, what are their plans like? how comprehensive is it? how much are their co-pays?
This is irrelevant to your point.
i don't think it will be a problem at all. how will that be a problem?
Read my first post. America is economically doomed.
sure they do. also, uhc will involve much less bureaucracy than is commonly assumed
So, you're saying UHC would be magically different to, you know, literally ever single other government department tht has ever existed?
there is absolutely no comparison of a post office and universal health care.
Of course there is. Why do you treat healthcare as some special thing.
By your logic, the post office should be running perfectly. They are a monopoly and they don't operate for profit. Why wouldn't it be performing excellently?
what evidence is there that profit motives drive down prices?
Um, logic. If people, say, started businesses in what they personally wanted, instead of trying to maximise profit, then there would be an oversupply of certain businesses and an undersupply of other businesses.
BEcause of the profit motive, people start businesses where there is an undersupply (i.e where profiots are highest) which results in lower prices because the same money chasing more goods leads to lower prices. basic supply and demand.
it's pretty apparent that this isn't the case.
Because america is very, very far from being a free market.
it is.
..which suggests that it's not as much to do with healthcare cost./quality as you were suggesting.
not too sure what you think you read.
Read my first post again. I didnt even say that UHC was bad, I said that america cant afford it and that its bad to make people dependant upon the government when there are going to be ENORMOUS budget problems in the near future.
At 6/25/12 11:38 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:right now, healthcare in america is provided mostly by private entities, who charge high fees. these fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense of medical professions,
No it can't.
Enormous profits are being made in healthcare, so over time we should expect to see capital move towards the healthcare industry away from relatively over-capitalised industries, to the extent that investors seek to maximise returns. Think high pressure to low pressure.
Thus, abnormally high prices, and hence profits, can only ever be fleeting on a truly free market. Clearly, the high healthcare costs are persistent, and so it can be concluded that there exists a restriction on supply. In the case of america, this takesa number of forms. Firstly, health insurance cannot be sold across state lines, creating mini-monopolies in each state. secondly, the AMA and the AAMC restirct the number of medical professionals that can be trained, so as to artificially create a shortage of medical profesionals and so drive up the wages of exisiting professionals.
It's important to note, however, that the products under consideration are not identical. For example, Pittsburgh has more MRIs than Canada.
Yet another factor is tax laws that have created the system whereby employers pay for insurance, which drives up the price, which is fine if you're employed, but shitty if you're unemployed/between jobs.
this system has enormous problems. as of 2006, 44.8 million people in america do not have health insurance.
The number who are actually unable to afford insurance, however, is far, far lower.
universal health care refers to a wide range of different systems, the common characteristic of which is that a nation's government guarantees all its citizens access to healthcare. every nation that is a member of the oecd has uhc - except america. the single largest problem with healthcare in america is that many people don't have it. it's obvious how uhc solves this: by providing it to all citizens directly (or paying for it to be done). all developed nations other than the united states make this guarantee to their citizens, and have so far been able to uphold it. the two reasons which make a person uninsurable (insurer decisions and lack of money) will no longer exist.
My first post hinted at reasons why the latter may very well be a problem in the relatively near future.
uhc is far cheaper due to economies of scale,
Economies of scale don't exist in government. The opposite is true, in fact, which is why the administration costs of the government's voluminous bureaucracy are so ridiculously high.
the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries,
The american government already is responsible for 50% of all healthcare spending and spends more as a percentage of GDP than any other country. It's absurd to suggest that if they just have a bit more that prices will suddenly fall.
reduced administrative costs,
No, this is not how government works. The government has a monopoly on the post office and it is still heamaraging money.
and the lack of a profit motive.
The profit motive drives down prices (see my first paragraph). I think you mean to say that it is non-profit, and so costs can be lower.
life expectancy is below all other developed nations
Controlling for accidental death and diet, its entirely comparable to UHC countries.
it is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under uhc systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. this is incorrect. uhc is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result america's health related taxation is also the highest in the world. according to the oecd, in 2006, american government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison: australia: $2106, canada: $2338, sweden: $2468, united kingdom: $2372
so, that all being said, it's unambiguous that every single uhc system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the american health care system. better.
Cool, but you literally did not adress my post at all.
Perhaps, but its not directed at the race of police, which tend to be white. If all/most cops were black, it might be a different story.
At 6/25/12 03:25 PM, Feoric wrote: yeah, i, too, want millions of people without health insurance.
What I don't want is millions of people being dependant upon the government for healthcare, when said government is running multi-trillion dollar deficits, has enormous debts they can never possibly pay off, borrows $4 billion a day, only maintains the current level of revenue because the economy is being artificially propped up by investors who think the economy is 'recovering' (spoiler alert: It's not) and who see america *for the time being* as safer than europe, is presiding over an economy ultimately headed towards a depression, who can't possibly have future revenues sufficiently large to pay for existing social programs, and whose cost-projections for medicare and medicaid have been out by tens of billions of dollars and whose cost-projections for obamacare are more than likely out by as much or more.
If I didn't know better I'd almost say this was a plan to royally screw over poor americans on an absolutely grand scale, though you shouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity and all that.
