How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[Dimmauk]

Pretty sure Fall of Roy is Sirrus

Yup.

[The_Fall_Of_Roy]

Yup.

It's true guize. Its all an elaborate ruse to get your money.

[Olo401]

Okay there Randall..

[Priran]

As Ann Coulter brilliantly writes,

Thread should have ended here

[Olo401]

A couple days ago there was a story about a woman who was ejected from a town hall meeting because she "tore up a poster of Rosa Parks".

Well.. here's one of the reasons why independent citizen journalism empowered by the Internet is so important and should NEVER be limited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGiLZF--ehA

[Not not Mattaru]

Well this is refreshing.

Mattaru, I'd like to challenge you on some of the critiques made in your response. I'll begin by saying that no insurance company in America has the ability to issue currency, so your reference to competition is a bit obtuse. Neither can any insurance company unilaterally assign tax to individuals, whether they, as you say, choose to participate or not. I guess that's not precisely true, a insurance company could attempt to tax everyone, but said bills would be largely laughed at all the way to the trash bins.

So when you say, that choice isn't really gone, and that people seemed to have chosen a different agent, what type of choice are you talking about? The one between paying or spending a century in a rape room? But it's just the same, as you say, if people act rationally, they will just pay for this other choice provided for them, whether they utilize it or not, especially considering the consequences.

Also I'm a little worried that you might be confusing Clinton's plan with the current one. Yes they are virtually similar, but unlike Clinton's plan, no such discussion was taken place regarding lowering the standard of employer's offered plan to ease payroll costs. That took place in 1994-5.

Now I couldn't agree more in regards to the time difference, what worked century ago should be taken with a grain of salt. However my appreciation for your account of historic relevance seems to be misplaced. Looking back at the past 100 years of this countries history would show you how government programs start out rather well, but within a few generations begin to stagnate.

Sorry, I can't honestly extend you the same greeting. Not because I disdain civility, I just don't want to lie and give you some illusion about the depth of your response.

Challenging critique points:

1) Well obviously no insurance company can print currency. I know you are trying to point out unique options open to the government that can give them a competitive edge, but it really isn't relevant to this discussion. I say this mainly because many politicians support for healthcare reform is hinged on its payment coming from correcting inefficiencies within the system that creates wasteful spending. The question of the efficacy of above statement is another question, but not at all applicable to the first rebuttal you provide.

2) You can basically apply what I said above since it again is a question of taxation. While yes taxation can support a policy that isn't particularly efficient etc. if we look at the debate at hand it is obvious to see that the private option is not efficient in America currently and the trend is not positive. So an argument discussing pumping money into a broken system only happens in the public realm is not unique, it can happen on both sides and on both sides it can come to a boiling or crisis point.

On the question of choice. First, I'm going to pass over the choices you offer me, because its a silly false dichotomy - I am unsure as to why I am limited to your poor analogy. I will better outline what I mean in the choice department. If you happen to be insured by a private insurance company: no one is saying you have to choose the public option as far as government officials are concerned. To state otherwise would be about as true if I had said insurance companies can print legal tender. Now, if you are under a private insurance company which is offered by your employer than the restriction on choice is your employer. If your employer chooses to switch to a public option the agent restricting your choice has not changed - in other words you can not claim a unique harm or benefit out of this position. You ought to be focused on a different agent if this is your concern. The last obvious (I am sure there are others that are realistic but not as obvious) situation being you don't have health insurance or it is vastly inadequate for your needs - naturally the public option is going to be beneficial.

Seeing as I am not familiar with that plan (the Clinton plan), any confusion would be quite incidental...and probably not true seeing as to be confusing it I would have to be seeing it recently in the media etc. Which I am not.

Looking at the past 200+ years history of our country, despite failures abound in policies etc. I think America is doing pretty good. But could be doing better, I don't think that is arguable, the difference is how we perceive that is to occur or should occur. I could continue expanding this, but it leads into an entirely different debate dealing with things I probably disagree with in your fundamentals if I am correct in your political persuasion.

[guartz]

Mattaru

This is where I think your error in judgment lies. The power to issue currency is not irrelevant to the discussion, it's in fact the central theme. It may have been a bit outside the scope of our earlier conversation, but I intend to focus on it a bit clearer.

Imagine for a moment, the political will necessary, to raise a billions of dollars without having fiat banking system at your disposal? What about a trillion dollars? It's political suicide, no politician would propose such a undertaking simply because no man would accept doubling or tripling their tax debts. The circumstances would need to be extremely dire for this to even come up.

Since however, politicians do have the ability to inflate currency, such undertakings become quite within reach. That is, projects that no sane person would fund become possible. I always fancied the idea, as to how long the Iraq war would last, if every household in America got a monthly bill in the mail from the U.S treasury?

I know, I know, thanks to central planning our civilization has positively burst at the hinges with advancements. Things like recessions and rampant speculation are the thing of the past, and our brilliant economists continue to fix the problems of the freemarket, so long as you nevermind the growing national debt. After all somebody needs to "correct the inefficiency of wasteful spending". So the idea that anything could run efficiently by printing money becomes laughable to a person who takes a moment to think and say "Efficient, compared to what?"

In as far as the private sector inefficiency, I don't want to give an impression that the private sector and the public sector are opposite ends of a coin. In fact, there has been this unhealthy merger between the two, quite naturally, since profit seeking entrepreneur need only but petition the right senator and provide the right motivation to gain advantage in the market place. No decree of separation of Business and State exist. Herein lies the flaw and the misconceptions of a free market. The flaw, is that markets are susceptible to force. The misconception is that a "free" market is possible with central control of it's medium. That is, you can't have capitalism with communist money. You can't have a "free" market with force. As wiki says "no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies."

And yet the solution is chosen based on the assumption that insurance companies have created this system's "inefficiencies" ? It's like putting a bandaid on a decapitation victim.

So if you can enlighten me with your deep understanding on how any of this makes any sense, perhaps we can talk about the ethics behind taxation, choice and freemarkets.

Also, although it's irrelevant, this health plan is very similar to what Clinton proposed, I just haven't realized that until recently. So I guess it was on somebody's agenda for 10+ years now.

[Beckwin]

guartz, the vast majority of national debt was not accrued in attempts at "fixing the inefficiencies of the free markets" but in bullshit "defense" spending and cowboy free-marketeer presidents cutting taxes too much while not cutting expenditures.

[guartz]

guartz, the vast majority of national debt was not accrued in attempts at "fixing the inefficiencies of the free markets" but in bullshit "defense" spending and cowboy free-marketeer presidents cutting taxes too much while not cutting expenditures.

taking recent bailouts into account, yes. I am right.

[eunhye]

Do you remember Vector(knives) ?

Wanted: Obama healthcare reform volunteers willing to be paid $15 an hour | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Too funny.

[Olo401]

Do you remember Vector(knives) ?

Wanted: Obama healthcare reform volunteers willing to be paid $15 an hour | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Too funny.

And to think I was volunteering for free. Hey if it worked for Blackwater I mise well right?

[Not not Mattaru]

Mattaru

This is where I think your error in judgment lies. The power to issue currency is not irrelevant to the discussion, it's in fact the central theme. It may have been a bit outside the scope of our earlier conversation, but I intend to focus on it a bit clearer.

Imagine for a moment, the political will necessary, to raise a billions of dollars without having fiat banking system at your disposal? What about a trillion dollars? It's political suicide, no politician would propose such a undertaking simply because no man would accept doubling or tripling their tax debts. The circumstances would need to be extremely dire for this to even come up.

Since however, politicians do have the ability to inflate currency, such undertakings become quite within reach. That is, projects that no sane person would fund become possible. I always fancied the idea, as to how long the Iraq war would last, if every household in America got a monthly bill in the mail from the U.S treasury?

I know, I know, thanks to central planning our civilization has positively burst at the hinges with advancements. Things like recessions and rampant speculation are the thing of the past, and our brilliant economists continue to fix the problems of the freemarket, so long as you nevermind the growing national debt. After all somebody needs to "correct the inefficiency of wasteful spending". So the idea that anything could run efficiently by printing money becomes laughable to a person who takes a moment to think and say "Efficient, compared to what?"

In as far as the private sector inefficiency, I don't want to give an impression that the private sector and the public sector are opposite ends of a coin. In fact, there has been this unhealthy merger between the two, quite naturally, since profit seeking entrepreneur need only but petition the right senator and provide the right motivation to gain advantage in the market place. No decree of separation of Business and State exist. Herein lies the flaw and the misconceptions of a free market. The flaw, is that markets are susceptible to force. The misconception is that a "free" market is possible with central control of it's medium. That is, you can't have capitalism with communist money. You can't have a "free" market with force. As wiki says "no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies."

And yet the solution is chosen based on the assumption that insurance companies have created this system's "inefficiencies" ? It's like putting a bandaid on a decapitation victim.

So if you can enlighten me with your deep understanding on how any of this makes any sense, perhaps we can talk about the ethics behind taxation, choice and freemarkets.

Also, although it's irrelevant, this health plan is very similar to what Clinton proposed, I just haven't realized that until recently. So I guess it was on somebody's agenda for 10+ years now.

This is where I think the error in your judgement lies. Poor reading comprehension, or more likely never learning how to be responsive to a particular argument. In other words, not answering the issue at hand and making it into something else.

The only reason issuing money is the central issue to you is you are debating about something else: you are debating about a particular economic and political philosophy - which I am guessing is Libertarianism because it isn't conservative in a recent Republican vein, it isn't reactionary (in the sense a Libertarian world only exists in poor books, magazines and the wild imaginations of irresponsible university students), and it isn't left wing. If you want to debate about that make another thread.

Back to healthcare. Since you didn't even respond (I think we can agree that when someone brings up a point, and in response someone says something off-topic that could be called 'unresponsive') I can only assume that you agree that most politicians, even those with veto power are only going to vote for this bill if it is deficit neutral. So money isn't being printed out to support it, some people will probably be taxed, but money is not going to be issued to pay for it. So a good starting point is to show that money will be issued, and not from some cranks website, then the discussion can progress.

[Blahblah you talk about some more irrelevent stuff because you'd rather preach than debate, skip over it.]

Starting from your fourth paragraph. I take a different view on markets and market economics. I would be willing to discuss that when I have time to do so, in another thread. Not here. Otherwise I feel the discussion on this issue in particular just becomes muddled down. Apply that to the rest of your post.

[Olo401]

The only reason issuing money is the central issue to you is you are debating about something else: you are debating about a particular economic and political philosophy - which I am guessing is Libertarianism because it isn't conservative in a recent Republican vein, it isn't reactionary (in the sense a Libertarian world only exists in poor books, magazines and the wild imaginations of irresponsible university students), and it isn't left wing. If you want to debate about that make another thread.

This is a point I've been making all along. On the issue of keeping people in society healthy, applying capitalist free market principles simply doesn't work because the commodities are human lives and the health & survival of the society itself. You can't morally justify putting a price on that, but that's exactly what the health insurance industry is doing and has been doing for a few decades.

[Sirrus_Asura]

This is a point I've been making all along. On the issue of keeping people in society healthy, applying capitalist free market principles simply doesn't work because the commodities are human lives and the health & survival of the society itself. You can't morally justify putting a price on that, but that's exactly what the health insurance industry is doing and has been doing for a few decades.

Don't you have to put some price on it? People don't work for free and whatnot.

[Not not Mattaru]

Don't you have to put some price on it? People don't work for free and whatnot.

You can put prices on whatever you want, based on whatever standard. The question Olo is asking is does it havea moral justification. If we are to extend putting a price on a life as morally justifiable in a Kantian manner (in other words extending it as a universal maxim of action) you are in fact saying it is morally justifiable to put a price on your life, which can be paid, and the buyer can do what they please. I mean lets say your value monetarily is how much you over your remaining years create added value to products - we can probably make a rough estimation of that and unless you are a world innovator in disguise I am sure someone could pay it. That is a conundrum in capitalism that is avoidable mind you, but many people like yourself seem to welcome it for some perverse reason.

In other words to say it is morally justifiable to put a price on a life is the discursive equivalent of murder for hire.

The more useful question is to ask - is it valuable to find a way to spend less to keep people alive and healthy? I think it is.

[Olo401]

I should have probably said that if a price is necessary to cover costs, such as manufacturing medicines & equipment, or paying workers, then that's fine. My mistake.

The objectionable practices such as insurance companies limiting coverage and rejecting claims on policies that people have paid for regularly for years need to stop - it hits everyone across the board, which makes the overall health in society deteriorate.

[eunhye]

Health reform: Where things stand - Jul. 31, 2009

Opponents of the insurer tax -- including unions -- say the tax is likely to be passed on to consumers in the way of higher costs.

you have to remember these important details. when bills like these are passed that not only add to the national debt, but are questioned as who pay for it.

the dollar menu will become the two dollar menu. mcdonalds will pass along their "costs" as will all businesses.

[Olo401]

What you left out of that quote..

On the revenue side, it has been considering a tax on insurers for very expensive health plans -- those whose cost well exceeds the average cost of a policy for individuals and for families.

Who would have insurance that's this expensive anyways? The number would be so minute that "passing the cost on" would be minor. And as I understand it passing the costs on to everyone else is one of the ways how the insurance companies are screwing everyone anyway, and that kind of usury practice would be eliminated. (Health Insurance Consumer Protections).

[guartz]

The only reason issuing money is the central issue to you is you are debating about something else: you are debating about a particular economic and political philosophy

You must be confused, since the debate is against government intervention, so everything I said is wholly on topic. If you want me to debate the particulars of this healthcare bill, then like I told kuya and beckwin, I'm not gonna do it. The reason behind it is because neither you, nor I, (nor anyone else at that matter) know exactly what the impact of these regulations and introduction of government insurance will have on the healthcare market. All you have, in essence, is politician's empty promises.

Back to healthcare. Since you didn't even respond I can only assume that you agree that most politicians, even those with veto power are only going to vote for this bill if it is deficit neutral.

you are sincerely this naive?

[guartz]

This is a point I've been making all along. On the issue of keeping people in society healthy, applying capitalist free market principles simply doesn't work because the commodities are human lives and the health & survival of the society itself. You can't morally justify putting a price on that, but that's exactly what the health insurance industry is doing and has been doing for a few decades.

Olo401, there is something very important you need to understand. Insurance companies are financial institutions. No different from car insurance, or home insurance. They take your money, put most of it away, and pay the doctor with that money when you see them.

Health insurance is a contract, between you and a financial institution. It usually says that you will pay X amount for Y amount of time, in turn, the financial institution will pay X amount for very specifics things. Like all contracts, if it is broken, you can sue. In turn, if whatever you are doing is not in the contract, the financial institution doesn't have to pay.

If you ever picked up and actually read the contract, they are very specific in what they will or will not cover. The good news is that you have a choice between thousands of different companies who offer this service, and they are all, different.

Whatever is left out is between you, and the doctor or a hospital. Whom, by the way, will still treat you, regardless if you can pay or not. However, since the doctors like to get paid for their work, they will peruse you for money if you don't pay.