How government regulation destroyed the healthcare market in the US

distraff said:

If you need a strong medication, you really should see a doctor.

Click to expand...

I agree, you should.

But the state shouldn't punish you if you decide not to. It's an issue of personal liberty. No one should be punished for ingesting a drug without government permission.

The state is not your mommy, no matter how badly you want it to be.

aociswundumho said:

I agree, you should.

But the state shouldn't punish you if you decide not to. It's an issue of personal liberty. No one should be punished for ingesting a drug without government permission.

The state is not your mommy, no matter how badly you want it to be.

Click to expand...

And I will agree that it shouldn't illegal to put something bad in your body. But that doesn't mean it should be legal for grocery stores to sell them. The societal cost of putting powerful drugs in grocery stores is much worse than just calling your doctors for a perscription.

aociswundumho said:

Well then if Trump declares himself President for life, then the American people would benefit since government limiting their choices is a good thing.

Click to expand...

So, what you are telling me is you believe in dissolving the United States of America. Smallest government is no government. You intend to overthrow the United States, which makes you a traitor.

aociswundumho said:

Well then if Trump declares himself President for life, then the American people would benefit since government limiting their choices is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Who do you think would be more in favor of Trump doing such?

Liberal democrats?

republicans?

Which group is holding the president accountable for his actions...

and which group says "but Obama did it.. but Hillary".... whenever the president tramples the constitution. Like using an executive order to ban bump stocks.
Or to publically say that he would accept help from foreign governments in order to help him politically?

Could you imagine what "republicans" would have said if Obama had sat in the oval office and mocked congressmen for being afraid of the NRA and publically contemplated an assault weapons ban and removing firearms from people without due process?

The truth is.. our healthcare system doesn;t cost because of over regulation. In fact.. our healthcare system works better for the most part because of government involvement. Such as Medicaid, Obamacare and Medicare.

Imagine what the current crisis would be like.. with 30 % of americans without healthcare insurance. And sorry... but private companies were not prevented from providing healthcare insurance to elderly people with risk factors.. or poor americans... private companies didn;t provide it.. because its not profitable for them... period.

aociswundumho said:

I agree, you should.

But the state shouldn't punish you if you decide not to. It's an issue of personal liberty. No one should be punished for ingesting a drug without government permission.

The state is not your mommy, no matter how badly you want it to be.

Click to expand...

The problem is.. what if you are being told that this drug doesn;t have any dangers by the company producing it.. which is a complete lie?

That's the problem with the libertarian belief. They don;t really understand why and how a lot of regulations came to be. People died, children died.. because of snake oil medicine. With little to no regulation.. companies produced "remedies".. and drugs that knowingly were killing people.. they knew they were killing people.. but they did it because it made them money.

So.. there is regulation. Which is when that person goes into a pharmacy to pay for gout medication.. they can be pretty dang sure they are getting gout medication.. and not some concoction that will kill them.

Deuce said:

So, what you are telling me is you believe in dissolving the United States of America.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that if you're going to take the position that a grown adult should have his choices restricted by the state (because the government know what's best for him), then why bother with elections.

jaeger19 said:

The truth is.. our healthcare system doesn;t cost because of over regulation. In fact.. our healthcare system works better for the most part because of government involvement. Such as Medicaid, Obamacare and Medicare.

Click to expand...

Do you support medicare for all? If medicare is a success, why not allow everyone to have access to it?

aociswundumho said:

No, I'm saying that if you're going to take the position that a grown adult should have his choices restricted by the state (because the government know what's best for him), then why bother with elections.

Click to expand...

You really missed the point.

You're extrapolating our side of this argument to extremes. You're saying if any regulation or restriction is acceptable, then ALL regulation or restrictions are acceptable. But for some reason, you don't hold yourself to this. Too bad. I will hold you to your own standards. You believe in small government, therefore you believe in anarchy.

You are a traitor.

aociswundumho said:

Do you support medicare for all? If medicare is a success, why not allow everyone to have access to it?

Click to expand...

I do not. And that's because medicare is a success because you pay into it for your whole working life.. and then when you are at an age when you are not profitable to insure and no private insurance company would take the risk on you.... the government can provide medical insurance to you.

It doesn't work for everyone for a ton of reasons... but lets start with the fact that its not fiscally feasible,, because instead of putting in your entire working life.. and then finally taking out. With medicare for all.. you would be able to take out.. when you have not even put money into it.

Then there is the fact that medicare works because though it is a very low payer.. it has a ton of volume.. which means that providers can make it and break even or profit because of the volume it provides. If all insurance was medicare however, the low reimbursement rate would cause facilities to close and huge economic hardships in most communities as healthcare is a major employer.

That's the problem with a lot of you libertarians. Its either no regulation whatsoever.. and if not that its complete government take over. There is no sensible middle ground with you.

jaeger19 said:

I do not. And that's because medicare is a success because you pay into it for your whole working life.. and then when you are at an age when you are not profitable to insure and no private insurance company would take the risk on you.... the government can provide medical insurance to you.

It doesn't work for everyone for a ton of reasons... but lets start with the fact that its not fiscally feasible,, because instead of putting in your entire working life.. and then finally taking out. With medicare for all.. you would be able to take out.. when you have not even put money into it.

Click to expand...

First of all, medicare is funded by a payroll tax that everybody pays starting from their first day on the job. Second, the payroll tax could easily be increased and/or a VAT or something similar could raise the necessary revenue. Again, if Medicare is a net benefit for the country with 45 million people on it, then it should remain a net benefit when the rest of the country is added to the program.

Then there is the fact that medicare works because though it is a very low payer.. it has a ton of volume.. which means that providers can make it and break even or profit because of the volume it provides. If all insurance was medicare however, the low reimbursement rate would cause facilities to close and huge economic hardships in most communities as healthcare is a major employer.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't cause closures, instead everybody in the industry would have to take a pay cut. The lower price of healthcare would be a huge net benefit to the country, although the relatively tiny group who had to take a pay cut would be slightly worse off.

That's the problem with a lot of you libertarians. Its either no regulation whatsoever.. and if not that its complete government take over. There is no sensible middle ground with you.

Click to expand...

You own some kind of business in the healthcare industry, is that correct?

I suspect that your love for regulation is based entirely on self-interest.

aociswundumho said:

First of all, medicare is funded by a payroll tax that everybody pays starting from their first day on the job. .

Click to expand...

Yep..already said that.

Second, the payroll tax could easily be increased and/or a VAT or something similar could raise the necessary revenue.

Click to expand...

Sure.. it could be.. but that's not a political winner.. especially when it decreases peoples take home pay etc. and increases their level of taxation.

Again, if Medicare is a net benefit for the country with 45 million people on it, then it should remain a net benefit when the rest of the country is added to the program.

Click to expand...

Nope..thats not true as I pointed out. Medicares big benefit is that it covers people that are not fiscally insurable.. because they have too much risk and are too costly. That's its benefit.
The benefit doesn't extend to most of working America.

It wouldn't cause closures, instead everybody in the industry would have to take a pay cut. The lower price of healthcare would be a huge net benefit to the country, although the relatively tiny group who had to take a pay cut would be slightly worse off.

Click to expand...

Sure it would cause closures. Declining reimbursements have already been instrumental in a number of hospital closings. Like you said.. everybody would have to take a pay cut. Well that's nice but when the price of education, price of all other costs from labor, to supplies to building maintenance costs etc.. well then.. places would close. Its just economics.

You own some kind of business in the healthcare industry, is that correct?

I suspect that your love for regulation is based entirely on self-interest.

Click to expand...

Yep,I own medical facilities. And yep.. regulation is for my self interest.

I like the fact that there are regulations so that a person who doesn't have a degree in medicine, who has no expertise in surgery.. can't set up a clinic next to mine and start trying to do surgeries and ends up hurting thousands of people.

And it makes sense that if I have gone to the expense and ability and training to get a medical degree. Somebody who doesn't have any of that expertise.. should be allowed to lie.. and say that they do.

For my businesses outside of healthcare. Yeah.. regulation is in my self interest. ITs in my self interest that there is a regulation that prevents my upstream neighbor from dumping chemicals into the streams my cattle water from and making them ill or abort.

Quite frankly.. you benefit from that regulation as well. Because you can be assured that the cattle that I produce for market.. that you eat.. aren;t going to make you ill or kill you. Like what USED to happen before regulation.

jaeger19 said:

Sure.. it could be.. but that's not a political winner.. especially when it decreases peoples take home pay etc. and increases their level of taxation.

Click to expand...

You said it's not "fiscally feasible", now you're saying it's not a political winner. I say as time goes on and as US hospitals continue to price-gouge sick and dying Americans, it will eventually become a political winner.

Nope..thats not true as I pointed out. Medicares big benefit is that it covers people that are not fiscally insurable.. because they have too much risk and are too costly.

Click to expand...

If Medicare can cover the people who are not "fiscally insurable" because their high risk and high cost, then it surely can cover those who have less risk and less cost.

Yep,I own medical facilities. And yep.. regulation is for my self interest.

Click to expand...

It's always capitalists who fight the hardest for government regulation in their own industry. Milton Friedman pointed that out over 50 years ago. What's nice for you is that progressives support any and all regulation because it increases the size and scope of the state, so you've always got a segment of idiot leftists on your side no matter what. Of course the big loser is the general public who end up being forced to pay the sky-high prices. In a way, you are no different than a landlord in southern California who also luvs government regulation and for the same reasons you do.

aociswundumho said:

You said it's not "fiscally feasible", now you're saying it's not a political winner. I say as time goes on and as US hospitals continue to price-gouge sick and dying Americans, it will eventually become a political winner.
.

Click to expand...

Its not a political winner because for it to be "fiscally feasible"..it will mean a dramatic taxation of peoples take home pay.

I

f Medicare can cover the people who are not "fiscally insurable" because their high risk and high cost, then it surely can cover those who have less risk and less cost.

Click to expand...

Sure.. but there is no benefit there because they can be covered by private insurance companies. Which gives people freedom of choice, etc. I certainly would not want Trump in charge of my healthcare right now.

It's always capitalists who fight the hardest for government regulation in their own industry

Click to expand...

That is very true.. and not just in our own industry but in others as well. Like I said. I like that there is regulation that prevents the neighbor upstream from me from dumping poison into the streams that my cattle drink from.
I like the regulation that prevents my neighbors from spraying weed killer that will drift onto my pastures and kill them
I like the regulation that prevents someone with no medical knowledge whatsoever... being allowed to set up a clinic and claim they have a medical degree.

Capitalism and free markets cannot work without regulation. Without regulation, companies would and have killed consumers, have run out competitors and created monopolies to the detriment of consumers, and have hurt other industries with pollution etc.

You simply don't understand the purpose of regulation.. while enjoying all the protections that regulation affords you. Everytime you take a medication.. and actually get the medication and not a sugar pill. Every time you eat a steak and don't get salmonella or worse and die.. every time you take a drink and it doesn't burn your throat from chemicals.. you have regulation to thank for it. Just facts.