Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 4/10/10 08:56 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If the US government lasts long enough, i can imagine an Establishment Republican party defending Obama care when the free market is blamed for the old plan's failings and finally a single payer system is introduced.

I should have said wouldn't have proposed it at this stage in time.
If they were to have a more stable supporter base in the future, then they certainly could have. Especially with deals done with drug companies etc.

But I mean given that the biggest thing going for them right now is the who anti-big government sentiment, to go so blatantly and obviously big government would be completely stupid.

---

At 4/10/10 09:55 AM, thedo12 wrote: ok this is what you need to prove in order to convince me that pure capitalism will lead to lower prices, better care ect:

It's kind of intuitive, no? More competition always leads to lower prices, supply and demand and so on

It happens with every other kind of industry, though we often see it in reverse i.e. as the market becomes increasingly less free, prices go up etc.

The only way really you could prove this is by going to countrys with mostly captialized healthcare (most of which are 3rd world countrys in africa)

Countries*

As smilez said, the idea that Africa is lassiez-faire is absurd.

For one thing, many of these nations have corrupt governments/military dictatorships that consume a huge portion of their respective nations' resources. Hardly what you would call freedom, and hardly a system conducive of prosperity.

Secondly, given the instability in these nations, it would be dumb to even consider any sort of investment in them, so no help there either.

Now, if there's no wealth being created, then obviously there's going not going to be money for hospitals and education and drugs etc, and so regardless of how free the market is, if people, and the nations themselves (for example, nations such as Djibouti have GDPs which are equivalent to something like the first few hours of production for the year in America) then there's not going to be quality healthcare.

to suggest that more government control would help is absurd because government can't create wealth, They can allow wealth to be created, but that is achieved with the opposite of government control, freedom.

and showing that it has a better system. Or doing a small scale experiment where you pick random farmers , doctors , business ect: and get them to create a "libertarian utopia" and then record health care prices , polices , and care over the period of 10-25 years. Of course you couldn't let them know what the true purpose of the study was.

I have a question:

Do you believe places such as Canada are good models for what Obama care could/should achieve?

---

Not to drop in and put out the fire that started here, but let me cool your tongues with some facts. My friend read through the whole thing (thats right, the WHOLE THING) and said (he is credible at least by my standards) that this bill really doesn't change anything in the slightest. Its not universal healthcare, its not an overhaul of the healthcare already in place; Its just further regulation on the one that already exists and quite frankly Im disappointed.

If you are all talking about socialized healthcare in general, you have to take into account everything else in that country. You just cant throw together piecemeal policies and hope they all interact with each other well. You need just the right recipe of policies to get something to work, so to argue arbitrarily if socialized healthcare is better than privatized healthcare without setting any sort of ramifications like the cultural/economic/political climate of a country is just silly. Socialized healthcare works if the system in general is socialized. Thats why it works so well in the Scandinavian countries, but might not work in some incredibly capitalist country (which America is not, we are a piecemeal hybrid, which is why we have a lot of ideological conflicts). Conversely, if you were to start a free market system in the Scandinavian countries, i fear it wouldn't stand so well.

AKA stop arguing about what doesn't exist with bullshit generalities because in the end it just comes down to preference of ideologies rather than economic effectiveness.

---

At 4/11/10 05:02 PM, zero-gravity wrote: because in the end it just comes down to preference of ideologies rather than economic effectiveness.

sigh....it would be good if you weren't so dumb okay.

---

At 4/11/10 08:51 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

sigh....it would be good if you weren't so dumb okay.

Its funny because intelligent people usually contribute to the topic and hand and have intelligent ways of refuting their opponents. Funny post you got there eh?

---

At 4/11/10 04:15 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
It's kind of intuitive, no? More competition always leads to lower prices, supply and demand and so on

That's the capitalist rhetoric yes, although I have yet to be completely convinced of this.

I have a question:

Do you believe places such as Canada are good models for what Obama care could/should achieve?

No not really , maybe in basic principle like everyone should have access to healthcare regardless of personal wealth .Which I think is a good idea however going about it the exact why Canada dose would lead to same problem the Canadian system has.

So basically I think he should strive for the same principles , but not the same methods and if that leads to socialism or capitalism I don't care as long as it works.

---

At 4/11/10 02:33 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 4/11/10 01:29 AM, TheThing wrote: Like I said, there are plenty of countries that don't consume more cholesterol, sodium and saturated fat.

You didn't say that.

I didn't say every country; I just said that there were plenty of countries that did consume as much as we did.

I don't make more than 40k a year and I pay full price for health insurance.

I didn't say everyone making 40k a year. But there are some people who can't afford insurance making that kind of money. Usually, those people have some kind of illness currently (after they already had insurance), then saw their premiums go up because of that. Or they can't afford their plan because it leaves too many out of pocket expenses up to the person.

I'll give you that. But as you said earlier, fat, high cholesterol, etc., isn't the only thing people go to the doctor to fix, or can be prevented by changing your diet (family history, etc.)

Ok, I'll give that to you too. Genetic predisposition is a fact. One may get cancer/disease at an early age. It has a lot to do with lifestyle (which you state as an individual responsibility).

Yes, certain things can be prevented or mitigated with a change in lifestyle, and the only person who can change their lifestyle is that person. It's up to the individual to recognize what in their life needs to change in order for them to live healthier. Yes, a doctor can say "do this if you want be okay", but it's up to the person to follow that.

But a doctor's visit does help. Have you ever heard of free clinics or other forms of pro bono healthcare?

The problem with clinics/pro bono doctors is that they usually aren't too good, or are brand new have very little knowledge. Besides, it would be seen as a waste for the government to help those places out, since they service very few people compared to hospitals and local doctors.

They'll stick a sign outside their office, like the one I drove by today that said "Accepting Mass Health", except it will say "Accepting National Health". More low quality health service providers.

It's not a public option, which is something a lot of people don't realize. The government is not providing the healthcare. They are providing a way for most people to buy from Company X.

Maybe I'm a bit optimistic, but maybe they'll start to think twice about eating McDonald's 4 times a day. A lot of those people just don't know, and a Doctor's visit can change that.

If they eat McDonalds four times a day, they aren't poor. I feed 140 people for under 5 dollars each daily. Even the dollar menu couldn't beat that.

It's an example. Besides, how do fat people become fat? They have to have a decent amount of money, otherwise they wouldn't be able to buy all of that food. But whatever, a doctor's visit can help open people's eyes to the damage unhealthy choices can do.

I get smoking and gambling, but how is being fat or catching an STD from a hooker generate profit for the government?

McDonalds pays taxes generated from those 4 meals a day. How about getting an STD from a tramp you met drinking at a bar? The govt made a profit off of the drink you bought that impared your judgement. Stupid example.

You could say the same for meth or cocaine. We're spending money to fight it, when we could just legalize it and tax it to make money. But those evil progressives what to impose consumer protections, and make sure that people can't enjoy the benefits of meth.

Which, you say, my taxes help pay for. And I don't want to help pay for those 32 million new plans.

Well, we could have had a public option. Imagine you have a $500 plan. But the government passes a law that says you have to get insurance from the government for free. But they increase taxes to pay for it. You're now paying $300 more in taxes. This means you're ahead by $200.

Obviously, this kind of scenario doesn't work with everyone, as a percentage increase would raise your taxes over what you spend on healthcare at some income level. But most people wouldn't understand that would be saving $200 in my hypothetical world. They would just see that their taxes went up by $300.

To be honest, I don't think the government is really doing any of that with the insurance companies.

Don't be ignorant. UMASS Memorial, a private company. Look it up. Ultra-subsidized by the state. One of the largest employers in my region. They offer ONE insurance company to their employees. Is that not favoritism?

Almost all government programs have significantly lower administration costs than competing private companies. For example, the Post Office runs at about 10% administration cost, while FedEx runs at about 30%.

According to your argument, FedEx should be out of business. But behold, they must offer a better service (or at least a more convincing brand).

Remember what happened when gas was $4.00+ a gallon? People drove less, and car companies made a fortune on fuel efficient cars. In the long run, gas companies will lose more per year then they gained at the time.

Bad example. I remember specifically the summer of 08. And I remember the big economic crisis occuring those same months. You can't make this claim without acknowledging the BIG picture.

Gas was going up and up before then. It was starting in late 2007, and went on through the spring of 2008. It was before the economic collapse, which happened in the fall.

You'll probably defend it til your dead, whether you get elected to office or not.

Not always. There are things I disagree with the government about, but healthcare isn't one of them.

To elaborate on my prediction, Republicans will make the Senate 54-46 (+ or - 1) in favor of Democrats, and in the House, depending on how many seats are open, will go something like 235-200 in favor of Democrats.

Wow, party predictions. How do you independent candidates will do? I hope better than you will predict.

Well, there are 2 independents in the Senate, but they are essentially Democrats. The only independents that have a shot are the ones from the Libertarian and Conservative parties. But they'll just split the votes with the Republicans, and lose the seat to the Democrats. Just look at New York's 23rd district back in the winter.

If you want a ideology prediction, the Senate will go 54-46 (+ or - 1) Liberal, and the House will go 235-200 Liberal. I just don't see Conservatives picking up a majority of the seats.

---

At 4/11/10 10:57 PM, thedo12 wrote: That's the capitalist rhetoric yes, although I have yet to be completely convinced of this.

It's the most basic of basic economics. If more people are trying to sell something, the lower prices they charge the more business they will get.

heck, you want a health based example?

lasik eye surgery is not heavily regulated in any way like insurance nor is it subsidised by government health programs etc, and the price has fallen dramatically in the past decade due to its popularity and, more importantly, the competition the popularity has caused

Do you believe places such as Canada are good models for what Obama care could/should achieve?

So basically I think he should strive for the same principles , but not the same methods and if that leads to socialism or capitalism I don't care as long as it works.

I ask because you said you wanted an example of a free market healthcare system that works, and yet (unless there is somewhere else that has a public health system you like in practise, not just principle), you don't think that the best known example of "free" healthcare doesn't work well.
basically, in order to prove to ME that your socialised healthcare system will work is to show me a good example of it working in practise.

---

its fucking bad cuz we dont have health insurnce we'll get fined just like having no insurnce while driving

---

At 4/11/10 11:17 PM, TheThing wrote: I didn't say everyone making 40k a year. But there are some people who can't afford insurance making that kind of money.

I don't feel Washington has ANY idea of what I can afford.

a doctor can say "do this if you want be okay", but it's up to the person to follow that.

So a doctor is like a teacher, but not a motivational coach? I don't know about the doctors you see.

The problem with clinics/pro bono doctors is that they usually aren't too good, or are brand new have very little knowledge. Besides, it would be seen as a waste for the government to help those places out, since they service very few people compared to hospitals and local doctors.

You don't know what you are talking about here.

a doctor's visit can help open people's eyes to the damage unhealthy choices can do.

And maybe the government should subsidize the motivational life coach that will help them lose the weigh?

meth or cocaine. We're spending money to fight it, when we could just legalize it and tax it to make money.

Or allow companies to sell synthetic version while taxing the product's sale in pharmacies by government-funded doctors working for government-owned(or specific "highly favored") insurance companies, through government programs in a socialized healthcare scenario.

But those evil progressives what to impose consumer protections

OK, the healthcare bill being about consumer protections? Like it will save us money, or from evil healthcare providers? Just have the fucking balls to say this is a welfare program.

Well, we could have had a public option. Imagine you have a $500 plan. But the government passes a law that says you have to get insurance from the government for free. But they increase taxes to pay for it. You're now paying $300 more in taxes. This means you're ahead by $200.

Oh cause a bankrupt government is great at administering cost effective welfare programs.

$200 in my hypothetical world

Your very ideal world.

Gas was going up and up before then. It was starting in late 2007, and went on through the spring of 2008. It was before the economic collapse, which happened in the fall.

Prices didn't drop significantly til the economic crisis. So you or I really have no idea to the long-term economic impact the high gas prices because at the same time people had lost huge money in stocks and retirement funds, property value, etc.

Not always. There are things I disagree with the government about, but healthcare isn't one of them.

Reconsider your 'health as a right' dogma.

I just don't see Conservatives picking up a majority of the seats.

Who really cares? Like I said, your side won, it is law. However, there still is a debate to be had.