Page 106 of 122 FirstFirst ... 65696104105106107108116 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,060 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #1051
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Oh, I had no idea you were now an expert in Health Care....What are your credentials?



    yeah, like the commercial of what was supposed to be Paul Ryan pushing Grandma off a cliff...? Now, I had no idea that conservatives made that ad....Oh wait.... :


    j-mac
    As I have at leasted worked in the field in a few different areas from selling medical supplies to careing for patients in their homes and in hospitals, I would say I have more expertice than you. But frankly, there is plenty written on this that either of us can look up and learn.

    And again, no where did I say only one side uses the politics of fear. I said it works. And when we hear the death panle nonsense and the socialist/communist/facist nonsense, it is clear your side understands this as well as any.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #1052
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Bravo, you itemize your deductions....As do I. So? That also shows me that you are maximizing the available income you can keep for yourself, good for you. However, it is striking that you should be in the realm of speaking of the "wealthy" paying more, as you yourself minimize the amount you pay in taxation. But, the question that does make sense is this: Should you, or I as a tax payer, be responsible for others lifestyle choices in terms of health? Or, better yet, What claim to the fruits of MY labor, do others have the "right" to take?
    And I said nothing against Romney when he revealed (Oh, what a Shock!) that he did the same thing. That's the rules by which we all live; I'm no different and nether is he.

    I've already said we either shouldn't be responsible for any of it or we should be responsible for all of it - not this halfway hellhole where we are. Right now we ARE responsible for their choices to some extent. If they choose not to buy insurance and get hurt we often end up paying because we've taken away a hospital's reasonable right to deny treatment.

    Your last part is libertarian mish-mosh. We all live in society and partake of its fruit.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    That is interesting Mo....As I have said before, Health insurance anymore, is not insurance, but rather, subsidy. If you want to control cost, and improve quality, then move closer, IMO, to HSA's, with catastrophic policies.
    Call health insurance what you want but from what I've seen UHC is the best choice all around for a couple of good reasons. One: a lot of young people don't have a good choice. They couldn't have saved enough and seldom have jobs that provide insurance. It's a shame when someone young can't get the treatment they need when they could be a productive member of society. The other way they could easily end up being a lifetime drain on it, instead. Two: taking over health coverage from American businesses would give them a huge boost in a global market where most of their competitors don't have to deal with it. And UHC isn't on any WTO or trade agreement of any kind, so other countries can't call it a business subsidy. Why Republicans fail to see this aspect has always been beyond me to explain.
    (HSA's are just a tax dodge unless you're talking about attaching some kind of card to it, similar to a debit card, that EMTs can somehow scan to determine where to take you, the nearest ER or County. Even then, is that really what we want these guys doing - or do we want them out there saving lives?)

    Making people pay what to them may be a lot of money for semi-annual check-ups is ignorance. Nurse's calls shouldn't cost much, if anything, either. Most major medical issues (no, not all) can be handled relatively cheaply if caught early. To me that means encouraging people to see a doctor, or at least call for a nurse's consultation, when there's something wrong. Of course, that means a slightly better educational system than many have because you should be able to read a thermometer and know that 100° isn't a big deal but 104° is. The Internet might help with that, too, but they've got to be able to use it for something other than games and YouTube. Funny how all that stuff, like health care and education, kinda' mixes together, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Why give the false choice? Truth is that there are a myriad of things that we could do other than UHC that would work better, and not stifle innovation.
    Why make unfounded assumptions about innovation? I didn't realize research was part of the issue. (It actually is and it falls on the UHC/mandated side - but it's a small part so I haven't brought it up.) But if you're talking about another kind of innovation ...

    My question to you is, if there are "other things" and they're so simple, then - Why aren't they being done already? Why did we have to get to this point for someone to start beating another drum? Does it really take a whip of this kind to beat those financial innovators into shape? Where have they been for the past decade - off somewhere, beating something else?

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    If I am to approach you without assumptive conclusions, then wouldn't it be fair to say you should do as you preach?
    You started off attacking me. You shouldn't be surprised if I respond in kind. That doesn't mean I wanted to fight in the first place. I was taught never to start a fight but do your damnest to finish it.

    And you're still assuming things right here in this post. I have a liberal outlook on this issue so you assume I must be a Liberal. There's a reason I don't post a "Lean". Stop in at the military threads some time, or gun control. When it comes to gun control you're probably the liberal from my viewpoint.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 04-08-12 at 02:37 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  3. #1053
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,722

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Why? Why not let the market, unencumbered by politics, provide everything people actually want instead of what a panel of busybody bureaucrats select for them?


    This is what you wrote, "but how sure are we that the states are going to deliver a uniform system that will treat all needs?"
    I believe you are easing away from your totalitarian point of view. That is a good thing.


    If they do not overturn it in its entirety our task of killing this monster will be much harder. Let us hope they throw out the whole law.



    This is simply nonsense. Your desire for socialism is strong. I hope there are still enough people who recognize just how great a gift freedom is to defeat people dlike you and ideas like yours.

    The unencumbered market never works, as we can see by today’s economic reality. The unencumbered health care market has whittled down to seven primary companies, which of course equal less choice and fixed gouging prices creating the problem we have with health care today. So, no, leaving the market to decide healthcare practices and value is not a good idea.

    but how sure are we that the states are going to deliver a uniform system that will treat all needs
    When I said that, I was responding to someone who suggested that we leave it to the states. How you translate that into [i]I’m advocating for the states to cover health care{/i], (chuckle), I have no idea: I think that’s what you want me to say.

    And you close by saying “my desire for socialism is strong”??? And then you further insult the principal of freedom and try and weave that principal into health care???

    I’m afraid your post doesn’t say anything at all with respect to this subject.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  4. #1054
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    The unencumbered market never works, as we can see by today’s economic reality. The unencumbered health care market has whittled down to seven primary companies, which of course equal less choice and fixed gouging prices creating the problem we have with health care today. So, no, leaving the market to decide healthcare practices and value is not a good idea.
    The health care market has virtually never been a free market. I suggest you do some research
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  5. #1055
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,722

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    The health care market has virtually never been a free market. I suggest you do some research
    Nowhere do I sugest that health care has been in a free market; I said, "the unencumbered market never works". The unecumbered health care market (meaning: left to its own devices) has whittled down choice to only seven parent companies: less choices, fixed pricing and prices that prevent the average person from affording good polices. And all that's quite true. I suggest that you do some research into monopolies and then reply.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  6. #1056
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Nowhere do I sugest that health care has been in a free market; I said, "the unencumbered market never works". The unecumbered health care market (meaning: left to its own devices) has whittled down choice to only seven parent companies: less choices, fixed pricing and prices that prevent the average person from affording good polices. And all that's quite true. I suggest that you do some research into monopolies and then reply.
    most of what you are comparing about is a direct result of government intervention is my point
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  7. #1057
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Nowhere do I sugest that health care has been in a free market; I said, "the unencumbered market never works". The unecumbered health care market (meaning: left to its own devices) has whittled down choice to only seven parent companies: less choices, fixed pricing and prices that prevent the average person from affording good polices. And all that's quite true. I suggest that you do some research into monopolies and then reply.
    I give you some expert opinion...

    Myth No. 10: The free market in health care has failed in the U.S.

    What has failed in the U.S. is government micromanagement of the health care system. Over the past 40 years government's role in the health care system has continually expanded, from programs like Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, to regulations like HIPPA and COBRA. Like most government interventions, it has only made the problem worse.

    The fact is we do not have a free market in health care in the U.S. Ask yourself: How many markets in the U.S. do you get a tax break for buying a product, but only if you buy it through your employer, as we do with health insurance? In how many markets are you prohibited from purchasing a product out of state, as we are with health insurance? In how many markets are employers prohibited from providing bonuses to employees for improving quality and productivity, as hospitals are prevented from doing with doctors? If government policy inhibited other markets that way, those markets would be dysfunctional too.

    The solution to our health care problems is to reduce the role of government, not increase it by switching to a single-payer system.

    Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care
    And another opinion in Forbes:

    The most famous exposition of this theory that markets can’t work in health care comes from Stanford economist Ken Arrow. In 1963, the Ford Foundation approached Arrow—an up-and-coming economist, albeit one without prior health-care experience—about applying his theories to the practical problems of health, education, and welfare. With Ford’s support, in December of that year, Arrow published a paper in the American Economic Review entitled “Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care.”

    In it, Arrow endorsed the view that “the laissez-faire solution for medicine is intolerable,” that the delivery of health care deviates in fundamental ways from a classical free market, and therefore, that government must intervene to correct these deviations.

    Arrow’s paper energized those who were already predisposed to skepticism about free markets. Indeed, many people credit Arrow with inventing the field of health economics. Arrow went on to share the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1972: the youngest person to ever garner that honor, although it was for his work outside of health care.

    With characteristic understatement, Paul Krugman wrote in 2009, “Economists have known for 45 years—ever since Kenneth Arrow’s seminal paper—that the standard competitive market model just doesn’t work for health care…To act all wide-eyed and innocent about these problems at this late date is either remarkably ignorant or simply disingenuous.”

    Ken Arrow’s critique of health care markets

    Arrow identified five principal distortions in the market for health care services and products:

    Unpredictability. Arrow points out that people’s needs for health care are unpredictable, unlike other basic expenses like food and clothing. But while we can skip the occasional meal or sale at Old Navy, our need for health care can be far more urgently necessary.
    Barriers to entry. Arrow notes that you can’t just set up shop on the side of a road and practice medicine: you must have a license to be a physician, and gaining that license requires years of expensive schooling and training. As a result of this constraint on the supply of physicians, there is a constraint on the supply of medical services.
    The importance of trust. Trust is a key component of the doctor-patient relationship; if a surgeon makes a serious mistake during an operation, for example, the patient may die or become permanently disabled. The patient must trust that the surgeon knows what he’s doing, and can’t test-drive the surgery beforehand.
    Asymmetrical information. Doctors usually know far more about medicine than do their patients. Therefore, the consumer of medical services (the patient) is at a serious disadvantage relative to the seller (the doctor). Patients are therefore vulnerable to exploitation. In addition, third-party payors of medical bills, such as insurers or the government, are that much more removed from the particulars of a given case, and unable to effectively supervise medical practice.
    Idiosyncrasies of payment. Unusually, patients pay for health care after, not before, it is received (that is, if they pay for health care at all). Because patients don’t see the bill until after the non-refundable service has been consumed, and because patients are given little information about price and cost, patients and payors are rarely able to shop around for a medical service based on price and value. Compounding this problem is the fact that patients rarely pay for their care directly.
    Arrow wasn’t wrong to point out these distortions. Where Arrow goes wrong is in contending that these distortions are unusual, or unique to health care. Indeed, Arrow’s prescriptions for addressing health care’s distorted market involve…further distortion.

    Yes, Virginia, There Can Be a Free Market for Health Care - Forbes

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #1058
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    I don't know why hospitals would be prevented from giving out bonuses. Then again, I don't know why we have so few new doctors each year, either - and apparently a large number of residency positions are funded through Medicare. So what happens if government pulls out of healthcare completely? Who picks up the bill for all those residency positions that Medicare is paying now? The AMA is screaming we need more doctors, which means more residents, but if we stop paying for the residents then where are we?


    Of course, no one has an answer to the "Idiosyncrasies of payment" problem. Sure you can shop around for some things but we're still stuck paying for the uninsured if they have an accident or something. Or we possibly leave them to die while they wait for care at a government facility. You can't have it both ways. To avoid an untimely death someone has to pay and if it's not the patient then it has to be US.


    Ed:
    I did forget to add in the last few posts - I do NOT believe in a Cadillac in every driveway. But I do still think we need basic UHC, what most of us have to deal with year to year, not the $800k heart transplant.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 04-08-12 at 06:17 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  9. #1059
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    The AMA is part of the reason why we have a shortage of health care providers

    This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  10. #1060
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,722

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    most of what you are comparing about is a direct result of government intervention is my point
    Uh, wrong.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •