• 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!

2010 Midterm Results Discussion

You said that we removing profits from health care is the right way to go. When I asked how to determine the price you used a business designed to turn a profit to explain how prices are set. You have completely failed to answer my initial question

I did mention competition, but only to show how in the real world, prices can go down because of competition. In the real world, if you set a price too high, I can come in and steal your business with a better price. But making money is the key. I can’t set the price so low that I lose money in the transaction.

Now you reluctantly see that government has to determine the price. How? What information do they have to determine the correct price? If they set it too high, how can we show them that the price is too high? Nobody has an incentive to sell for less since they aren’t going to profit from doing so.

I’ll completely ignore the other issue of the lack of incentive to even think of new clothes and styles for the Barbie dolls since it isn’t going to make money anyway.


I think you misread what I've said, but the government would set it the same way we did. Doctors in Canda still get paid. Make a hundred thousand or more, depending on field, yearly. So do hospitals and nurses, and suppliers. they negotiate and use a formual to set prices. It's not a mystery.

And profit isn't the only incentive. A good number of the break throughs in medicine are done at state univeristies, with state money. I believe you're premise is flawed. People don't stop solving problems just because they are paid by the government.

Huh? There are no profits, remember. Not large profits, not small profits. No profits. This is what you said. Don‘t change it now.

Who said there is NO profit? That too would be a flawed premise. No one I know of suggests no profit for anyone.
 
I see the talk from the right wing about "competition" and "profit" seems to ignore a few realities. One is that businesses have tried to reduce competition and form monopolies, resulting in sky high prices and sky high profits for them. Now, this probably would not work in your antiques business, since antiques are not a necessity, and you could easily price yourself out of business if your product or service is not a necessity.

So you are so scared of monopolies that you give the biggest monopoly the power to protect you? Government is a monopoly. Do you understand this reality?

However, if your product or service IS a necessity (food, shelter, health care, fuel) and you get together with your competitors to form a monopoly and/or agree not to compete on pricing, then you could get away with a a certain amount of price gouging.

And a valid function of government monopoly is to make this illegal. So your straw man is a non starter.

I haven't had time to read through all 78 pages of this thread, but of the 60 or so that I have read, I just haven't seen anyone call for making profits illegal.

Ignorance is not a valid debate tactic. Boo indeed said that we must take profits out of the equation.
 
Not sure why you think I said that, but let me clarify: I do not anywhere mean NO profit for anyone. We all have to make a living. So do people in medicine. But, the consumer is at a disticnt disadvantage, so profits have to take a backseat, as it were, to need. Everyone will still profit. But, everyone needs to be able to have adequate care, regardless of wealth. I call for a universal payer, (means paying money and not providing free care where no one gets paid).
 
The way GOPers have thought about "moderation" all these years? :lamo

Moderates cost us the elections in '06 and '08. Taking advice from ones adversaries is always a foolish idea. All moving to the middle did for conservatives was allow the left to move further left, which they did and cosequently the reason they suffered the worst defeat in the House since 1938.
 
Moderates cost us the elections in '06 and '08. Taking advice from ones adversaries is always a foolish idea. All moving to the middle did for conservatives was allow the left to move further left, which they did and cosequently the reason they suffered the worst defeat in the House since 1938.

Wish we actually had three parties that were actually conservative, liberal and moderate.
 
I think you misread what I've said, but the government would set it the same way we did.

You set prices with the end goal of making a profit. So the government is also trying to make a profit?

Doctors in Canda still get paid. Make a hundred thousand or more, depending on field, yearly. So do hospitals and nurses, and suppliers. they negotiate and use a formual to set prices. It's not a mystery.

there is competition in Canada amongst Dr’s, nurses, and suppliers.

And profit isn't the only incentive. A good number of the break throughs in medicine are done at state univeristies, with state money. I believe you're premise is flawed. People don't stop solving problems just because they are paid by the government.

Universities compete heavily with one another.


Who said there is NO profit? That too would be a flawed premise. No one I know of suggests no profit for anyone.

You said nobody competes.

I asked how pricing works if we aren’t competing for profits. In your simplistic unicorn and sunshine world, you might not see the direct correlation, but it does exist.

Health care is a huge industry.

I’ll list a few players, and you get to tell me which ones are free to compete, and which ones are indentured to the state.

inventors
nurses
dr’s
insurance companies
scientists
midwives
government
 
You set prices with the end goal of making a profit. So the government is also trying to make a profit?

No, but the people providing the service will be. The fomrual will be similar.


there is competition in Canada amongst Dr’s, nurses, and suppliers.

A similar system here would be structured similarly. We could even do it differently, but providers would still make money.

Universities compete heavily with one another.

Sure, but in a different way. The point is, government money hasn't prevented them from creating and discovering. This system would not change.


You said nobody competes.

I think you are badly misreading what I'm saying. I am perplexed as to how or why.

I asked how pricing works if we aren’t competing for profits. In your simplistic unicorn and sunshine world, you might not see the direct correlation, but it does exist.

Health care is a huge industry.

I’ll list a few players, and you get to tell me which ones are free to compete, and which ones are indentured to the state.

inventors
nurses
dr’s
insurance companies
scientists
midwives
government

Inventors will still invent. Having a univerisal payer for health care wouldn't change that at all.

Nurses still will get a pay check, probably as limited as they are now (little growth in nursing salaries).
Dr's will still get paid (hence payer) and make a good living.

Insurance companies would be focused on wealtheir buyers, and would not have to worry about those who likely don't use them now anyway. No mandates. No reason to make everyone buy their service.

Scientist would still be scientists. Nothing changes.

Same with Midwives.

No one is indentured to the state. That too is a misrepresentation. Doctors are not indentured in Canada or in the UK or even in France. Nor are nurse, or inventors or scientist or midwives or anyone else. Your premise is false.
 
I think you are badly misreading what I'm saying. I am perplexed as to how or why.


I’m perplexed what you think people are competing for?

Do we compete to work long hours for nothing?

Do we compete for who can have the most stress?

Do we compete for the least about of free time?

Profit is what we compete for. It’s ridiculously simple. The problem is you are so close minded about your class warfare views that you are simply refusing to allow these facts into your consciousness.
 
I’m perplexed what you think people are competing for?

Do we compete to work long hours for nothing?

Do we compete for who can have the most stress?

Do we compete for the least about of free time?

Profit is what we compete for. It’s ridiculously simple. The problem is you are so close minded about your class warfare views that you are simply refusing to allow these facts into your consciousness.

We copmpete for all kinds of reasons. I largely compete with myself. Other than having enough to eat and live, I rarely consider profit. Some are actually passionate about something. Some would do a job if no one paid them. It's a msitake on your part to think there is only one thing we seek.
 
We copmpete for all kinds of reasons. I largely compete with myself. Other than having enough to eat and live, I rarely consider profit. Some are actually passionate about something. Some would do a job if no one paid them. It's a msitake on your part to think there is only one thing we seek.

until you start being honest with yourself, their is no hope.

you didn't price barbies because you were in a competition with yourself.
 
until you start being honest with yourself, their is no hope.

you didn't price barbies because you were in a competition with yourself.

No, I didn't. But I didn't do it for competition either. I was not competing with anyone. I was shocked anyone would by these things at all, let alone pay whatthey were paying.

However, you skip the point. What motivates us differs from person to person. It is inaccurate to say only profit and competition for profit motives us.
 
Just curious why so many Canadians are willing to cross into the States and pay out of their own pockets for treatment?
 
Just curious why so many Canadians are willing to cross into the States and pay out of their own pockets for treatment?

So many? How many? And if you look at polls, most wouldn't trade their system for ours. Same around the world. We are actually less satisfied then canada and other countries are with their system.

One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).


Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada
 
Last edited:
So many? How many? And if you look at polls, most wouldn't trade their system for ours. Same around the world. We are actually less satisfied then canada and other countries are with their system.

If the only people that had to pay taxes are the ones that had a last name that began with Z, most people would want to keep that system.

your replies are increasingly pathetic and easy to counter.

sophomoric economics.
 
If the only people that had to pay taxes are the ones that had a last name that began with Z, most people would want to keep that system.

your replies are increasingly pathetic and easy to counter.

sophomoric economics.

:lamo :lamo declaring victory is often a sign of losing. But, do go on.

The person I repsonded to say a vague many cross the boarder. How many is a valid question. And polls about statisfaction also are valid. There are other valid points on both sides, but your response includes none of them. But good for a smile. ;)
 
Ran across this and thought I'd sahre;

It has become increasingly apparent, as data accumulate, that the overall improvement in health in a society with tax-supported health care translates to better health even for the rich, the group assumed to be the main beneficiaries of the American-style private system. If we look just at the 5.7 deaths per thousand among presumably richer, white babies in the United States, Canada still does better at 4.7, even though the Canadian figure includes all ethnic groups and all income levels. Perhaps a one-per-thousand difference doesn't sound like much. But when measuring mortality, it's huge. If the U.S. infant mortality rate were the same as Canada's, almost 15,000 more babies would survive in the United States every year.

If we consider the statistics for the poor, which in the United States have been classified by race, we find that in 2001, infants born of black mothers were dying at a rate of 14.2 per thousand. That's a Third World figure, comparable to Russia's.8

But now that the United States has begun to do studies based on income levels instead of race, these "cultural" and genetic explanations are turning out to be baseless. Infant mortality is highest among the poor, regardless of race.

Vive la différence! Genetically, Canadians and Americans are quite similar. Our health habits, too, are very much alike -- people in both countries eat too much and exercise too little. And, like the United States, there is plenty of inequality in Canada, too. In terms of health care, that inequality falls primarily on Canadians in isolated communities, particularly Native groups, who have poorer access to medical care and are exposed to greater environmental contamination. The only major difference between the two countries that could account for the remarkable disparity in their infant and adult mortality rates, as well as the amount they spend on health care, is how they manage their health care systems.

The facts are clear: Before 1971, when both countries had similar, largely privately funded health care systems, overall survival and mortality rates were almost identical. The divergence appeared with the introduction of the single-payer health system in Canada.

The solid statistics amassed since the 1970s point to only one conclusion: like it or not, believe it makes sense or not, publicly funded, universally available health care is simply the most powerful contributing factor to the overall health of the people who live in any country. And in the United States, we have got the bodies to prove it.

Canadian Single-Payer Health Care Program: Is it Better than US Health Care?
 
:lamo :lamo declaring victory is often a sign of losing. But, do go on.

The person I repsonded to say a vague many cross the boarder. How many is a valid question. And polls about statisfaction also are valid. There are other valid points on both sides, but your response includes none of them. But good for a smile. ;)


The Canadian health care system was implemented via mob rule. The majority voted for it and the majority benefit financially from the system. A minority of people are far, far worse off financially

Yet somehow, you seem to think anybody gives a rats ass that the majority that voted for it like it.

Duh! They benefit from it, that is why they voted for it. Next up you going to tell me the sun rises in the East?

And do everyone a favor and run your nonsense through a spell checker. A few misspellings here and there are one thing, but this is a comedy of errors, and speaks volumes about how much you actually have to offer on damn near any topic.
 
So many? How many? And if you look at polls, most wouldn't trade their system for ours. Same around the world. We are actually less satisfied then canada and other countries are with their system.

One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).


Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada

Peakes woman loses her baby, dignity while awaiting hospital treatment - Local - News - The Guardian

CBC News - Health - Wait times for surgery in Canada at all-time high: study

In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option - Los Angeles Times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Just a touch of reading for you.
 
The Canadian health care system was implemented via mob rule. The majority voted for it and the majority benefit financially from the system. A minority of people are far, far worse off financially

Yet somehow, you seem to think anybody gives a rats ass that the majority that voted for it like it.

Duh! They benefit from it, that is why they voted for it. Next up you going to tell me the sun rises in the East?

And do everyone a favor and run your nonsense through a spell checker. A few misspellings here and there are one thing, but this is a comedy of errors, and speaks volumes about how much you actually have to offer on damn near any topic.

So, what a majority wants is invalid because a majority want it. Is that your argument?
 
So, what a majority wants is invalid because a majority want it. Is that your argument?

Boo, what you have a problem understanding is the old adage, "the grass is always greener on the other side" until you get there. You continue to buy the rhetoric about how good healthcare is in Canada and Europe while ignoring the other point of view. Be careful what you ask for because once committed there is no going back. The healthcare in Canada and Britain have their problems which you seem to ignore. The question is why?
 

I gave some reading above, but I'll give you some more:

What country endures such long waits for medical care that even one of its top insurers recently admitted that care is "not timely" and people "initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable?"

If you guessed Canada, guess again. The answer is the United States.

Scrambling for a response to the popular reaction to Michael Moore's SiCKO and a renewed groundswell for a publicly-financed, guaranteed health care, single-payer health care solution like HR 676, the big insurers and their defenders have pounced on Canada, pulling out all their old tales of people waiting years in soup kitchen-type lines for medical care.

But, here's the dirty little secret that they won't tell you. Waiting times in the U.S. are as bad as or worse than Canada. And, unlike the U.S., in Canada no one is denied needed medical care, referrals, or diagnostic tests due to cost, pre-existing conditions, or because it wasn't pre-approved.

Deborah Burger: Ugly Health Care Waiting Times? Look at the U.S
 
Boo, what you have a problem understanding is the old adage, "the grass is always greener on the other side" until you get there. You continue to buy the rhetoric about how good healthcare is in Canada and Europe while ignoring the other point of view. Be careful what you ask for because once committed there is no going back. The healthcare in Canada and Britain have their problems which you seem to ignore. The question is why?

No, that's really not the case. I recognize and realize all sytems have problems. What I dispute is the claims made by your side that the other side is a sbad as you say. I think we need a universal payer for a couple of reasons, access and cost being primary reason why. and when I speak of cost, I mean more than just eliminating paper work and reducing the cost of the actual care. I mean also that we remove it from the employer and allow business to compete with the rest of the world competition who don't ahve to provide health care for their employers. We spend more for less access than the rest of the world. Sure, it likely won't be perfect, and I don't expect prefection. I seek better. And not just better for the few, but across the board.
 
No, that's really not the case. I recognize and realize all sytems have problems. What I dispute is the claims made by your side that the other side is a sbad as you say. I think we need a universal payer for a couple of reasons, access and cost being primary reason why. and when I speak of cost, I mean more than just eliminating paper work and reducing the cost of the actual care. I mean also that we remove it from the employer and allow business to compete with the rest of the world competition who don't ahve to provide health care for their employers. We spend more for less access than the rest of the world. Sure, it likely won't be perfect, and I don't expect prefection. I seek better. And not just better for the few, but across the board.

Boo, right now the burden on hospital and doctors is excessive and that burden is going to increase. There aren't enough doctors, enough hospitals to serve the needs of the public now and what the healthcare bill has done is reduce the incentive to even go into the business. We have had this argument over and over again and still you make the same claims that have been refuted by actual results. IMO healthcare is a state issue, not a Federal taxpayer issue. If someone doesn't have the money to pay for ER services the taxpayers in the state pay the bill, not the Federal Taxpayer. What national healthcare and a single payer does is put the Federal Govt. in a position it has no history of doing right and you have created a major bureaucracy that will not improve healthcare and will bust the budget. Stop buying what you are told and think about all the successes the Federal Govt. has on other entitlement programs. History isn't on your side.
 
Boo, right now the burden on hospital and doctors is excessive and that burden is going to increase. There aren't enough doctors, enough hospitals to serve the needs of the public now and what the healthcare bill has done is reduce the incentive to even go into the business. We have had this argument over and over again and still you make the same claims that have been refuted by actual results. IMO healthcare is a state issue, not a Federal taxpayer issue. If someone doesn't have the money to pay for ER services the taxpayers in the state pay the bill, not the Federal Taxpayer. What national healthcare and a single payer does is put the Federal Govt. in a position it has no history of doing right and you have created a major bureaucracy that will not improve healthcare and will bust the budget. Stop buying what you are told and think about all the successes the Federal Govt. has on other entitlement programs. History isn't on your side.

As I've told you before, you overstate that problem. We'll adjust fine. Had we adopted a universal payer, we'd have cut some 160 million from the deficit in paper work alone. We'd ahve done well with a public option. But evenw ith what we did, we'll still do better in terms of acess than we were doing. hopefully, we can improve the problems and move forward. But, you're skipping the conversation we're having to bring a realatively minor problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom