The Free markets simply CANNOT manage affordable healthcare.

Where did you get the loopy notion that you have a right to something being given to you?

 

All of this takes it out of "insurance" realm. It is probably something else, but it is not insurance.

 

What do you think, a tax on fat people?

 

The ongoing argument is purely semantic and has nothing to do with government obligations; see posts 284 and 346.

 

I will agree the free market could IF the governments local to Federal completely got out of medical licensing and overseeing safety and all other aspects then let people pay what they can and let providers make money based on people paying cash, then you would have all kinds of medicine competing the good and the bad and see what happens. My guess former medics would be "street docs" for the poor and the wealthy would have good doctors.

 

What does that have to do with anything? Your statement indicates a personal position you hold. I'm going to ask you again! Where did you get the loopy notion that you have a right to be given things?

 

I thought liberals liked choice.

 

Your partisan bias causes you to use the wrong definition - that's on you, not me.
Entitlements created by the state cannot be rights, by definition.

 

Nothing here meaningfully addresses what I said.

 

I'll try again:
Please cite the text of the law that GIVES us the right to free speech, as per your claim.
In this case:
Please cite the text of 1st Amendment that GIVES us the right to free speech, as per your claim.

 

I never saw our system as working for everyone though.

I grew up very poor. Poor enough that some nights we had to pick who got to eat dinner or not. I can tell you for certain that the medical system does not work very well for people in that situation.

I guess for me, I dont think being poor should be a death sentence literally and financially figuratively. SOMEONE has to be the Janitor after all.

I also have many friends in Canada and family in the UK. All of them, to a person, LOVE their healthcare systems, and would never in a million years trade their system for ours. I have had some experience with the NHS myself in the UK, and it was phenomenal.

No system is perfect I understand, but I think that health care needs to be a field of compassion, and not for profit.

 

Republicans are not interested in compassion.

 

This is true, but only because liberals believe only they can define compassion.

 

wow. seriously.
How would you maximize profit in the health insurance industry or ANY industry? You cut costs and increase prices as possible. How do you do that in the health insurance business?... You utilize various strategies to sign up more healthy people and fewer sick and old people. You CERTAINLY don't cover pre-existing conditions if you don't have to. You use statistics to determine deductibles so as to avoid as much expense as possible.

Healthcare means providing quality, appropriate care as needed, when needed, and paying to provide it as needed. Health insurance profitability means cutting costs, which means minimizing service, while manipulating premiums, deductibles, copays, and "lifetime benefit maximums" to increase revenue.

Reduction of services while maximizing revenue conflicts with the needs and purpose of health insurance, and I'm not going to debate something so painfully obvious. Facts are facts and you should have realized this immediately. Actually I suspect you did but hoped for a way to wiggle out of an obvious situation in order to preserve your right wing spins.

 

Or... you cut prices to increase volume.
So much for your strawman.

 

Right. "Insurance" implies insurance businesses and profits and maximizing those profits. But to provide healthcare properly care must be provided as needed, when it is needed, and then paying for those services. And that implies national healthcare.

 

Good to see you have also mastered the non sequitur as well as unsupportable nonsense.

 

You should stop feigning surprise when someone disagrees with you. Many thinking people do.

Exactly. And what limits the ability to cut costs and increase prices, Kode? It wouldn't by chance be competition, would it?

Or - like the ACA does - demand that healthy people sign up for ACA premiums. Because? Because without healthy people paying premiums and not consuming services, the sick people cannot be paid for.

And you think this is a condemnation of private insurance? I just proved to you that such a variable exists in PUBLIC CARE TOO.

And - even worse - you certainly don't cover pre-existing conditions unless a LOT of people - young people in particular - are required to pay premiums.

Just like ACA. Right?

There are high-risk pools available in the free market, as well as scads of charitable sources for pre-existing conditions. I'm heavily involved in CF, for instance. That charity raises millions of dollars per year for CF care.

And - in the free market - what limits any private entity's ability to do so? It wouldn't be competition, would it?

Just like any other market. You name a private market, and I'll point out exactly how unlimited prices increases and unlimited cost cutting isn't possible. Piss off the customer, and another business is there to step in and pick up the slack, and provide the needed satisfaction.

But when Government pisses off the customer...

You don't want to debate? What the hell are you doing here? Reduction of services while maximizing revenue is a fact of life in ANYTHING, including Government.

:facepalm:

Tell me how competition solves the issues you are worried about. Stop worrying about spins, and actually tackle the debate.

 

Actually, I'm surprised at the blind stupidity of some people who argue black is white.

Nope. That's obvious.

EVERYONE would be included in national healthcare.

WRONG! Let me say it in terms that you will understand and not be able to spin: Private insurance tries to cut costs AND increase revenue by granting coverage to a smaller percentage of sick and old people than actually exists in society (as a percentage of population). IOW they find ways to EXCLUDE sick and old people (that's what Medicare is about) and to collect a larger percentage of healthy people. National healthcare would cover the exact percentage of sick/old/healthy people that exists in society. There. Try wiggling out of that with twisted logic.

Yes, just like ANY private insurance program. You talk as though you think the ACA is "national healthcare" and in doing so you actually just refuted your own point.

Yes, and that's a problem. High-risk pools mean higher premiums for many who cannot afford it. Hence healthcare is not available for many of them.

Of course not. (Are you aware of what you actually just said..... -again?)

Consider: This whole struggle, fight, controversy over healthcare and drug prices exist not because businesses are concerned about making a profit (which they're doing in spades) but because of public outcry to government. People are forcing government to act because people can't force insurance companies and drug makers to play nice when they control a life-saving product or service. People have no real choice but to pay all they can. It's GOVERNMENT that can be forced. So you are far better off to have government controlling healthcare than private business. Government needs your vote. Business only needs your money. Your vote is unimportant to them. And your inability to see this and all the above is shocking and it's the whole cause of this controversy and healthcare problem. Congrats.


[/QUOTE] Reduction of services while maximizing revenue is a fact of life in ANYTHING, including Government.[/QUOTE]
That's nonsense to the max! The point is that private health insurance is a conflict of interest, and I've proven that fully. The only issue here is your own refusal to admit to the obvious truth. Your partisan loyalty is more important to you.

IT DOESN'T!! IT CAN'T!! Our decades of experience proves it. All you can do is spout theories tailored to appear oh so nice and agreeable. You can't deal with the facts of every other developed country having national healthcare and their per-capita costs being half what ours is. You can't deal with the fact that we are the only developed country relying on just private insurance that is costing us TWICE what the rest of the developed world pays using national healthcare. You can't deal with the fact that even though Medicare covers the most expensive section of society, Medicare's overhead is about 20% or less what it is for the private insurance industry.

 

Costing less does not equate to spending less.

Do you think your healthcare system is broken?

Because, if you do, you know, think it's broken, then doesn't sheer common sense dictate that you fix your broken system before you over-lay it with another system?

Why don't you learn why your healthcare system is as broken as it is -- and the cause is entirely federal and State government laws, regulations and polices -- and try to fix that first?

 

Oh you want to compare the spending of a country with 312 million people to that of a country with 40 million? Or do you want to compare spending per capita, in which case the U.S. spends twice what other developed countries spend per capita and they have national healthcare?

No. The evidence is in. The facts are clear. The problem is the attempt to make healthcare, -services and drugs and equipment, -profitable.

Well right, the problem is that the government doesn't offer national healthcare or a "public option". Every developed country has proven this.

 

We have (had) the best health care system in the world for 80% of our population. To "fix" it for the other 20%, we shouldn't have destroyed what the other 80% had.

 

Or make the other 80% pay for it.

 

This. It cannot be said enough. The problem is the cost of healthcare. The fact that so many Americans equate insurance companies to healthcare providers is sickening.

 

And why I have him on ignore even though I agree in principle with him on this issue.