• 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!

Tame inflation in US reflects pressure on household budgets

I'm just going to assume you're trolling.

notice whats it like talking to a liberal?
did the liberal think every hospital in America charged the same low price when liberal socialism removes the incentive to do so?

Price of a common surgery varies from $39,000 to $237,000 in L.A. ...
Price of a common surgery varies from $39,000 to $237,000 in L.A. - Los Angeles Times
Jun 2, 2015 - Joint replacement surgeries are Medicare's most common inpatient procedure ... put heat on hospitals to explain wildly different charges for the same treatment ... from Medicare than a third of the 242 California hospitals listed.
 
totally wrong and naive of course! If you look at socialism/capitalism in East/West Germany and dozens of other examples you see what the difference is in what people can afford. Did you even know that competition brings prices way way way down? Notice what talking to a liberal is like? Sad for our country!

You're clearly trolling.
 
You're clearly trolling.

translation: i lost that debate so will call names but I'll remain a liberal anyway. I care more about violence than truth. ever see a conservative have to run from a debate. What does that teach you?
 
I said that the free market has never worked for health care, deadbeat. Now stop trying to dodge responsibility and pay up.

That’s correct. There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.

This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.

This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.” This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need — not everyone agrees, but most do — this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.

The second thing about health care, apart from Trump’s comment, is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.

You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don’t trust them — they’re profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.

Between those two factors, health care just doesn’t work as a standard market story.
 
I said that the free market has never worked for health care, deadbeat. Now stop trying to dodge responsibility and pay up.

Because unlike other market items insurance is highly controlled by the government. state government set minimums on coverage and now the federal government
has set minimums on coverage.

that has major costs associated to it. it is why obamacare never was going to work and costs have continued to climb.
there is little market movement in insurance because of that.
 
Because unlike other market items insurance is highly controlled by the government. state government set minimums on coverage and now the federal government
has set minimums on coverage.

that has major costs associated to it. it is why obamacare never was going to work and costs have continued to climb.
there is little market movement in insurance because of that.

An unregulated insurance industry would be even worse.
 
An unregulated insurance industry would be even worse.

unregulated would expose them to competition and health care price would drop of around 80%. Do you understand?
 
That’s correct. There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.

This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.

This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.” This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need — not everyone agrees, but most do — this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.

The second thing about health care, apart from Trump’s comment, is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.

You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don’t trust them — they’re profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.

Between those two factors, health care just doesn’t work as a standard market story.

totally 100% wrong of course! if exposed to competition insurance companies would have to compete on basis of price and quality. This would reduce prices about 80%. Imagine what would happen if libcommie government made competition in automobiles illegal? There is no explaining the pure ignorance of our libcommie government.
 
That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code,

everyone in business is supposed to and if they don't the Republican free market immediately bankrupts them!
 
unregulated would expose them to competition and health care price would drop of around 80%. Do you understand?

"totally 100% wrong, of course."

Unregulated insurers would rake in premiums and hardly ever pay - leaving taxpayers like YOU stuck with the bills.
 
"totally 100% wrong, of course."

Unregulated insurers would rake in premiums and hardly ever pay - leaving taxpayers like YOU stuck with the bills.
See, that's where competition comes in. Sure, some company might TRY to pull something like you say, but it's a guaranteed losing strategy in a competitive market. If I find a HCI provider that gives me the coverage I want at a reasonable price I'm buying it and telling others about it.
 
See, that's where competition comes in. Sure, some company might TRY to pull something like you say, but it's a guaranteed losing strategy in a competitive market. If I find a HCI provider that gives me the coverage I want at a reasonable price I'm buying it and telling others about it.

But you still get stuck with the bill, Sunshine.
 
Unregulated insurers would rake in premiums and hardly ever pay - leaving taxpayers like YOU stuck with the bills.

this is why unregulated insurers would be subject to competition. Do you know what that is??

they would hardly ever pay is like saying an unregulated car company would hardly ever put an engine in their cars. Liberals are actually that slow. Believe it or not this is the world we live in! Liberals don't stop anymore than Stalin stopped when the first million slowly starved to death. They just keep doubling down. It's human nature. The more you kill the more you have to prove you were right.
 
But you still get stuck with the bill, Sunshine.
WTF are you talking about. Yeah, I have to pay the premium for whatever plan I choose and maybe a copay or deductible. That's the way it works.
 
But you still get stuck with the bill, Sunshine.

if he was the first of millions who bought without recommendation he might but not after that no worries and prices would be down 80%. A very good deal!!
 
WTF are you talking about. Yeah, I have to pay the premium for whatever plan I choose and maybe a copay or deductible. That's the way it works.

You, the taxpayer, would be stuck with the deadbeat insurers. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that. (Jimmy, of course, is a hopeless cause...)
 
You, the taxpayer, would be stuck with the deadbeat insurers. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that. (Jimmy, of course, is a hopeless cause...)
Deadbeat insurers wouldn't survive long. There STILL are regulations on the books the insurers have to adhere to. States have insurance commissions. It's not like I can start Bulleye's Insurance company and start selling policies. It's not the wild west
 
free market was not discovered until 19th century so none of them or no country relied on it. Then it was discovered and it instantly transformed the previous 50,000 years of human history. Do you understand?

12,000 years of human history. There were no markets prior to that, free or otherwise.
 
You, the taxpayer, would be stuck with the deadbeat insurers.

there would be few deadbeat insurers and with prices down 80% everyone would be very very happy!!
 
no idea what your point is. Care to tell us???

You said 50,000 years. That's a pretty null number for homo sapiens.

About a quarter million overall, 30-35,000 for sapiens-sapiens, 12,000 for abandonment of hunting and gathering and the adoption of the sedentary lifestyle.

There were no markets, no wealth as we conceive it now prior to the adoption of the sedentary lifestyle.

Limited trade of handmade and decorative things prior to that.

But you may be speaking of some event 50,000 years ago that I am unaware of or have forgotten.

If so, please elaborate.
 
You said 50,000 years. That's a pretty null number for homo sapiens.

About a quarter million overall, 30-35,000 for sapiens-sapiens, 12,000 for abandonment of hunting and gathering and the adoption of the sedentary lifestyle.

There were no markets, no wealth as we conceive it now prior to the adoption of the sedentary lifestyle.

Limited trade of handmade and decorative things prior to that.

But you may be speaking of some event 50,000 years ago that I am unaware of or have forgotten.

If so, please elaborate.

still no idea what subject you are on and what important point you would make on that subject
 
12,000 years of human history. There were no markets prior to that, free or otherwise.

feel embarrassed yet?

Sometimes you run across a grimy, tattered dollar bill that seems like it’s been around since the beginning of time. Assuredly it hasn’t, but the history of human beings using cash currency does go back a long time – 40,000 years.

Scientists have tracked exchange and trade through the archaeological record, starting in Upper Paleolithic when groups of hunters traded for the best flint weapons and other tools. First, people bartered, making direct deals between two parties of desirable objects.
 
translation: i lost that debate so will call names but I'll remain a liberal anyway. I care more about violence than truth. ever see a conservative have to run from a debate. What does that teach you?

We are not debating. You are making things up.
 
Back
Top Bottom