• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NPR - The Costs of Health Care, Political and Financial

Because one should not have the bottom line as the end product.

Do you get a paycheck from a company?

The insurance companies hire people to figure how to get away with the least amount of care for people in order to save dimes, even when those kinds of care are included in their package. It's a way to find loopholes in the structure so that the company can profit on people's pain.

This is an outright lie plane and simple. Why do Liberals feel compelled to LIE in order to support their failed notions about how the REAL world works?

I don't know why people are for profit health care. It makes no sense at all. Many of the arguments from the right in this regard are incredibly disingenuous. It's an immoral system.

Gee let me list the ways; because they have to pay their shareholders, they have to pay their loans off; they have to pay their overhead and labor and at the end of the day, need to pay themselves in order to pay their own bills.

Good lord; when someone in this nation has to ask such a painfully foolish question, it seriously brings into doubt what education we are giving our children.
 
I think profits are great in many sectors. People should be able to do the jobs they want, own businesses, and become rich if they can. But, when it comes to health care, no. Health care is a different thing altogether.

Because? ..............
 
Just because the American system has flaws doesn't mean it needs to resemble the same failed systems in Europe and Canada.

Never said we need to emulate their systems.

I had an argument the other day with a Canadian who, in their defense of waiting times, chimed that someone needing lesser care should have to wait because perhaps the Doctors have more pressing diseases/operations to deal with and this could wait.

although the canadian's argument was pretty simplistic, from the standpoint of pure efficiency, that may be an important rule to discuss. These types of rules are discussed all the time in hospital scheduling or organ donor systems. I would prefer that individual hospitals ("firms") layout these rules over the government, but some rules that have proven themselves regardless of the situation could be codified in law.

My response was; "say what?" Why does ANYONE have to wait for ANY level of care if a system is working correctly?

there will ALWAYS be waiting times. This is because medical services is costly and scarce. In fact, one thing in this country I would like fixed is the extreme regulation of the number of doctors allowed to practice in this country by institutions like the AMA. Relax, these restrictions, and you would increase the supply problem.

You see my Liberal friends, government managed healthcare systems control the never ending increases in costs by limiting services, demanding lower pay for doctors and nurses which results in decline in such professions as they go where their services demand more pay and the Government won’t allow you to sue them.

I don't advocate government controlled health institutions. You're assessment is obvious from a free market standpoint, and I agree with it.

People die every day for surgery that in this great nation they would have gotten immediate treatment for.

There are stories of denial of care in the US as well.

Do we need reform; you betchya. But the notion that the ONLY option is to allow the most incompetent and inefficient organizations on earth, our Governments, take them over defies common sense.

I agree. I believe in government intervention that helps promote proper market incentives.

Folks, these are the people who have spent us into a $1.8 trillion hole without any idea how to pay for it and you want them to manage your health? You have GOT to be kidding me right? :roll:

Again, I agree. I believe government intervention would be helpful in establishing rules of law that help ensure stable, ethical practices from all parties in healthcare.

Healthcare IT, I believe, is crucial to reducing costs. However, effective healthcare IT requires standardization. I think the government should work at coordinating standardization efforts, so that various IT systems will be able to interact effectively.

As earlier stated, the efforts of NPR are to promote "liberal" agendas and distort the facts to fit their narrow and closed minded views about what "reform" constitutes.

In my experience, NPR is not that closed minded. I am sure depending on the program, speaker, etc., this bias changes.

Dogma underpins the ideas of both liberals and conservatives when it comes to economics.

The best definition of reform is to put or change into an improved form or condition, or to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses and not to destroy it.

I agree, but I think its stupid for people to have a knee-jerk reaction to anything "government." Like it or not, people have chosen government as an institution to voice their individual choices.

A good government, through trial and error, (just like firms and corporations), and learning from other governments, can balance economic policies with basic market principles. There is always going to be some sort of planning when you have an institution. Economic planning exists in corporations, firms, non-profits, and governments. We just have to decide how much.
 
Last edited:
Nurses, doctors, images tech's etc should be able to pay for more than their necessities I guess.... :confused:
Companies exist to make a buck. What's wrong with that?
Regarding health care, is that more or less sinister than the government taking over?
 
Companies exist to make a buck. What's wrong with that?
Regarding health care, is that more or less sinister than the government taking over?

Everyone should be able to make a buck.

What I was getting at was that nurses, doctors, imaging techs etc all make a profit and they are in health care.

These silly people don't take that into account when saying that there should not be profit in health care.
 
Everyone should be able to make a buck.

What I was getting at was that nurses, doctors, imaging techs etc all make a profit and they are in health care.

These silly people don't take that into account when saying that there should not be profit in health care.

Well, you know, Health Care is SO important that the private sector cannot be trusted with it.
 
Well, you know, Health Care is SO important that the private sector cannot be trusted with it.

It's sad that people who support government nationalizing this almost never review the actual laws and government mandates in Europe.
What I have found out is that all the European countries with some sort of government health care make a point to deny people care to save money.

That is why it is cheaper, they deny care.
 
It's sad that people who support government nationalizing this almost never review the actual laws and government mandates in Europe.
What I have found out is that all the European countries with some sort of government health care make a point to deny people care to save money.

That is why it is cheaper, they deny care.

....AND, you cannot SUE them. :2wave:
 
It's sad that people who support government nationalizing this almost never review the actual laws and government mandates in Europe.
What I have found out is that all the European countries with some sort of government health care make a point to deny people care to save money.

That is why it is cheaper, they deny care.
You DO know that this whole Health care thing is all about gaining and maintaing power for the Democratic Party, and little else- right?
 
You DO know that this whole Health care thing is all about gaining and maintaing power for the Democratic Party, and little else- right?

I'd say it's more about general political power mainly because no one is proposing to do away with Medicaid or Medicare which are on the road to ruin as it is.

Once something like that is enacted, the representatives go back home and say, "look what I did for you."
 
Last edited:
You DO know that this whole Health care thing is all about gaining and maintaing power for the Democratic Party, and little else- right?

I think everyone KNOWS this but Liberals still like to pretend that it is all about "caring." :cool:
 
I think everyone KNOWS this but Liberals still like to pretend that it is all about "caring." :cool:

I don't think you understand who runs this country!? The reason that H.C. reform is hung up is due to the friction between the industry gorillas and the accountants in gov't. The AMA, Insurance companies and Big Pharma are happy to have reform proceed as long as their particular government sheltered share of H.Care profits remain intact. Insurance companies are eager to expand their customer base. A public option gets in the way of that goal. Unfortunately, it is near impossible to reform H.C. without crossing some of these powerful entities.
 
I don't think you understand who runs this country!? The reason that H.C. reform is hung up is due to the friction between the industry gorillas and the accountants in gov't. The AMA, Insurance companies and Big Pharma are happy to have reform proceed as long as their particular government sheltered share of H.Care profits remain intact. Insurance companies are eager to expand their customer base. A public option gets in the way of that goal. Unfortunately, it is near impossible to reform H.C. without crossing some of these powerful entities.


Ama will reap benefits as long as they can effectively regulate the amount of doctors trained. I think this needs to be relaxed.

How will a public option help, esp. in the long run?
 
How will a public option help, esp. in the long run?
A public option would be a large insurance pool administered as a non-profit. What do for-profit insurance companies add to the system? I know what they do for themselves- The profits of the 10 largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428% from 2000 to 2007.
 
I don't think you understand who runs this country!? The reason that H.C. reform is hung up is due to the friction between the industry gorillas and the accountants in gov't.

WRONG......again; it is because a vast majority of American is telling their representatives that this idea stinks to high heaven; and low and behold, some are listening because they don't want to get run out of town in the mid-terms.

I am fascinated how people like you can bloviate such nonsense when there isn't a shred of evidence to support your arguments.

The AMA, Insurance companies and Big Pharma are happy to have reform proceed as long as their particular government sheltered share of H.Care profits remain intact. Insurance companies are eager to expand their customer base. A public option gets in the way of that goal. Unfortunately, it is near impossible to reform H.C. without crossing some of these powerful entities.

WRONG....but at least you are consistent. They know that the Guvuhmint option is going to destroy their businesses and make Americans dependent wards of the State who are stuck with a mediocre healthcare system that will only get worse with time.

But alas, it is so easy to blather with hyperbolic rhetoric to fabricate enemies out of our insurance and medical industry, which I might add employ a LOT of people and create wealth for a LOT of people.

Here's a question people like you, who have been brain washed into thinking Government is suddenly great and efficient merely because Democrats are in charge, need to ask your representatives: Are YOU all going to have the same healthcare program as the rest of us? The answer to that of course is a HUGE NO; just as it is in Canada and other nations.

Now someone with a brain may be curious enough to jump to the next logical step which would be; why would you exempt yourselves from having the same options you want everyone else to have if this is such a GOOD idea?

Perhaps then, with a slight bit of intellectual curiosity you have yet to display in this debate, the light of wisdom may finally begin to shine down on you.
 
A public option would be a large insurance pool administered as a non-profit. What do for-profit insurance companies add to the system? I know what they do for themselves- The profits of the 10 largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428% from 2000 to 2007.

I find the notion that a Government run option would create a larger pool of insurance. How does anyone with a modicum of common sense and facts arrive at such a conclusion?

Government intervention does only ONE thing; reduce competition which then creates LESS choice and when they attempt to control costs they will indeed cut your options and choices even more.

I want someone to name ONE thing the Government does that is cost effective, actively encourages more competition and creates better services and more choice. Go ahead; rack your brains out on this one.
 
A public option would be a large insurance pool administered as a non-profit. What do for-profit insurance companies add to the system? I know what they do for themselves- The profits of the 10 largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428% from 2000 to 2007.

For-profit adds competition, something that can be stymied with addition of non-profits backed by government funding. Competition is useful in maintaining efficiency in institutions, and ensuring long-term. Who cares if profits rose, as long as business is being conducted in a proper manner?

The problem of course is that the healthcare industry is full of bad regulations, misaligned incentives that cause faulty business practices from all parties.

Instead of calling it a market failure and increasing consolidation and control, the government should find ways to promote the healthy competition. This could be rules or restrictions on how for-profit firms operate, legal issues on patient care, altering the business model to align a doctor's profit model with quality of care, or allowing for information access and free-flow of information.
 
I find the notion that a Government run option would create a larger pool of insurance. How does anyone with a modicum of common sense and facts arrive at such a conclusion?

Government intervention does only ONE thing; reduce competition which then creates LESS choice and when they attempt to control costs they will indeed cut your options and choices even more.

I want someone to name ONE thing the Government does that is cost effective, actively encourages more competition and creates better services and more choice. Go ahead; rack your brains out on this one.

I agree with your first two paragraphs. The last one is easy to answer. Laws and regulations that promote competition directly. The most basic one is the establishment of property rights. I'm probably getting you on semantics for the last one.
 
For-profit adds competition, something that can be stymied with addition of non-profits backed by government funding. Competition is useful in maintaining efficiency in institutions, and ensuring long-term. Who cares if profits rose, as long as business is being conducted in a proper manner?
My goodness, You would think , from these posts that Americans receive H.C. from insurance companies. For profit insurance companies add competition? Where do you get this stuff? In what way do insurance companies provide efficiency? And "in a proper manner"?
Did you hear or witness the House hearings with insurance execs on the practice of recission?? That is how insurance companies compete. But it is nice to know that some Americans are happy to throw their H.C. $$ into the maw of investors as long as it has nothing to do with government management!
The problem of course is that the healthcare industry is full of bad regulations, misaligned incentives that cause faulty business practices from all parties.
Which is why the marriage of the profit motive and the administration of H.C. should be divorced. It is a really bad (accidental) idea.
Instead of calling it a market failure and increasing consolidation and control, the government should find ways to promote the healthy competition. This could be rules or restrictions on how for-profit firms operate, legal issues on patient care, altering the business model to align a doctor's profit model with quality of care, or allowing for information access and free-flow of information.
You may have missed this, but Health Insurance companies have ALREADY consolidated - they call it merging and say it promotes "efficiency". For those of us living in small states, it means there is MacDonalds or Burger King when you go health insurance shopping.
 
My goodness, You would think , from these posts that Americans receive H.C. from insurance companies. For profit insurance companies add competition? Where do you get this stuff? In what way do insurance companies provide efficiency? And "in a proper manner"?
Did you hear or witness the House hearings with insurance execs on the practice of recission?? That is how insurance companies compete. But it is nice to know that some Americans are happy to throw their H.C. $$ into the maw of investors as long as it has nothing to do with government

Profit as a goal breeds competition... direct consequence of human nature.
Competition allows for efficiency through innovation. simple economics

Which is why the marriage of the profit motive and the administration of H.C. should be divorced. It is a really bad (accidental) idea.

Profit by itself is not the problem. Its the "rules of the game" that are the problem.

You may have missed this, but Health Insurance companies have ALREADY consolidated - they call it merging and say it promotes "efficiency". For those of us living in small states, it means there is MacDonalds or Burger King when you go health insurance shopping.

my point exactly.

From an analytical point of view, one needs to try to understand why the companies consolidated in the first place, how that affects health care delivery, and what kind of policies can be put into place to change these incentives.

I suggest you read the following article. It explains clearly the opposing position to Obama's reform plan... better than most of us on the forum could... there are just so many factors to consider when you look at health care as a whole.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa638.pdf
 
Back
Top Bottom