The Free markets simply CANNOT manage affordable healthcare.

Just as easily, one could say that not believing in God or 'a god' requires a suspension of disbelief. Why? Because - based upon the most cutting edge science we can conjure - we cannot fathom the statistical probability of having our creation take place by accident. It is nearly mathematically impossible for such a long sequence of events - each with tolerances often measured in angstroms - to have taken place with the degree of accuracy and in the exact proper sequence...by accident.

That isn't proof, however. It is simply evidence, making the decision to hold such belief based upon more than simple faith.

No, you posited an argument which you offered to defeat the rational notion of a god, and I offered a corollary that was sufficiently compelling for you to have no answer for it.

You are really offering some contradictions. By claiming that 'energy' is our creator, you're simply choosing to rename God; not denying the existence of one.

 

Allowing 'perhaps' is the same thing as losing the argument, is it not? You went from insisting such Natural Rights do not exist, to ceding that they 'perhaps' do.

 

medicare works well,

You didn't debunk anything because facts cannot be debunked, you do realize this right? your posts are exhausting because they are 99% government hating ideology and not factual, just conservative rambling.

When i show you how badly US performs on healthcare relative to other Countries with single payer or nationalized systems, you respond with 'well, our costs are higher cause we are the richest country in the planet'. All i can do here is smile

first of all, we are not the richest Country in the planet where the avg. American is so rich that it explains the high costs of healthcare. Costs per capita is an efficiency metric, not a metric that points to overall wealth. The U.S. healthcare costs per capita is so high because it's an extremely inefficient privatized system, you can read up on how inefficient it is, there is plenty of material on this subject. There is also plenty of material you can read which will explain to you why a single payer system would be more efficient and cost effective. I'm sure you haven't read any of it because you don't care about solutions.

As far as us being the richest Country on the planet, wrong. Look up the CIA fact book, USA ranks #20 in GDP/capita and this metric is the truest measure of wealth. Total GDP is also meaningless unless you normalize it by factoring in population. There is also tremendous inequality in US , most Americans are middle class or lower class. We are truly not a rich Country when you take inequality as a measure of wealth because it's not distributed well. This means the avg. American doesn't make that much to justify the high costs.

So US is #20 richest Country when you use wealth per capita and guess what, several of the Countries above us have more cost effective healthcare systems. How come richer Countries don't have higher costs?

The fact is that the costs are so high because the largely privatized system is extremely inefficient and the US has probably the most unhealthy mix of people on the planet. Controlling costs would involve making the system more efficient (single player is more efficient) and making people healthier (preventive care and offering proper incentives).

 

Statistics and time is a very good reason for what we witness today. 14B yrs is a loooonnnnggg time. Even those with no Mensa Mind will be able to understand this.
So, it's no accident. And if you want statistics, time, energy to be a creator, fine.
But not what's written in antiquity texts by folks that had just developed a way to communicate.

You posited nothing. Saying humans don't have an ability to understand is a cop out.

I have never said there is no god, only that one of ancient texts as written isn't real. God/Creator, is undefined.
What is god?

 

I see all you do is make things up. Confusing posts and sentences.
And no, saying perhaps isn't losing anything. I am not in any contest. I could cede that one could give me an argument that a right to life is a natural right. Most every living creature will fight to protect it.
All other so called rights come from humans.

But as I asked another poster who claims some rights come from a creator, I am interested in seeing what those rights are and what creator gave them to mankind and how it gave them to mankind.
And why doesn't all of mankind have those rights, whatever you claim they are.

 

what have you debunked here other than offering your conservative position? let's see where here you have debunked anything. As far as your mentality that saving one's life should be left to one's choice, i agree but you are confusing things. If someone doesn't want to live and would rather forego treatment and instead focus on buying a wonderful car or spending $$ in other ways, fine. What about the person, like the person you mention above, that wants to save his life but can't afford it cause it's too expensive? I bet your friend would've preferred a situation where his wife's treatment was more affordable and he didn't need to spend every dime trying to save her? What about the many who want to treat their children but can't afford it? Is this a choice too? i guess it is but i can't think of too many people that would opt to not even try and just use money for other things. So, i'm not talking about the ones that just don't care about their lives and others, i'm talking about the ones that CHOOSE to save their lives and that of their children, spouses but can't afford the costs.

and when they need emergency care and run to hospital, who takes on the costs when they can't pay because of lack of insurance? someone does. Maybe President Reagan should've never signed that bill that forced ERs to treat people without insurance? I'd be okay with this - you don't want to buy insurance? you can't afford the 20k emergency surgery? then die.. but then i'm sure these free loaders would want the emergency treatment, which others pay for? So you talk a big game but would you not pay insurance and then be okay if saving your souse of child is too expensive to the point where you tell yourself 'it was my choice, sorry son, i can't pay for this, good bye'. All talk..

no-one is talking about wanting healthcare for nothing, it would come from taxes. If everyone paid taxes to fund a medicare for all, it would actually be cheaper than paying for insurance and everyone would have access to healthcare, not just the rich.

so you point to Mexico, a poor country as a comparison but ignore the #36 countries above the US, largely developed nations with nationalized systems or single payer systems? getting desperate?

nobody said WHO is factual, it's an independent analysis, ranking which you can discredit all you want, another sign of having little substance. I see no reason why WHO would just target US and deliberately rank it so low relative to other developed nations.

as far as population mix goes, do you know that there are studies that show that where there are more latinos, the population is healthier? it's because they have better eating habits. I'm not sure about blacks but let's not make these desperate excuses about population mix, white americans eat like SH&T and probably the most unhealthy of all the races, white people are the ones that are the fattest, eat the most junk and have obesity problems. So let's not get desperate and throw in race mix into the equation as if it explains why costs are higher, it's the American unhealthy habits, largely white people. Incidentally, France has had a massive arab influx but they still rank high.

cherry picking charts that show US ranks high in specific areas is also an act of desperation. The WHO ranking is an overall ranking that takes into account costs and access for everyone, who cares that the US does some specific things better than any other Country. Pathetic attempt here.

you can tell me government can run anything more efficiently than free markets but facts are not on your side, facts show single payer systems are more cost effective, these are simply FACTS. Study them, you obviously don't.

and you claimed you debunked what? this was a feeble attempt to back up your opinions, you need to up your game.

 

You don't get it.
Your SS, Medicare, etc, benefits are not (1) a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract.
Your SS Medicare , etc, benefits ARE (2) a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
The government GIVES you those benefits; it does not anywhere say you have a right to them.
Why do you choose to be wrong?

 

It does. Nowhere can you cite the text of the Constitution or federal law that grants the right to free speech, as per your claim
You know this, and thus, you know your claims is false.

 

If 'We the People', by the laws of the gov't grant them a right, then they are a right. Medicare is a right for those who need.

By definition of entitlements, they are rights. And the only rights we have are those we choose to give us.

 

Nothing in the law does this. You do not have a right to SS/Medicare benefits; the laws that crease SS/Medicare in no way create a right to same.

Nowhere can you cite the text of the Constitution or federal law that grants the right to free speech, as per your claim
You know this, and thus, you know your claims is false.

 

IMO, when empathy is a priority consideration, but when implementation of plans will cause greater problems or will produce no benefits.

Life and health CANNOT arbitrarily be assigned price tags; cost should only be a consideration when exploitation is involved.

GENERALIZATION FALLACY???????????

 

Nonetheless, no one is ever going to prove the existence of a god. Just like no one is ever going to prove Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exists, or that you are a member of Mensa.

 

What would happen is we would then become inundated with so many quacks and shuckstets that the people would be demanding the government do something.

 

If I recall correctly, a man who went by the name of Thomas Jefferson once wrote something about people being endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them, life and the pursuit of happiness. Without healthcare, it can be difficult for some to secure that life and happiness.

 

In other words you are unable to prove a god exist. Your smarmy absence of proof silliness doesn't change the fact that you believe in something that you can't prove exist.

Do I think that I am more intelligent than those who believe in gods and other such silliness? Absolutely. After all, the reason innovators are almost always freethinkers is because we freethinkers don't clog our minds with religious nonsensew.

 

That's because Medicare Administrative Contractors do all the work, not the government.

 

so let's do medicare for all, you for it?

 

these comments make me smile.

So let's create an Island and call it - 'thinkitout Island'

In thinkitout Island, there are no regulations or laws, there is no government, it is an island co-owned by it's citizens (everyone is a share owner).

Here, medical coverage is expensive because doctors make on avg. 500k, insurance companies have to pay for employees, admin costs and make a profit and hospitals have to cover admin and facility costs. The drugs are not cheap and neither is the state of the art equipment used to care for people. The insurance companies have to abide by no laws and are free to do as they want, in seek of profits. How would this system work?

The insurance companies will assess everyone's health and do as follows:

1. healthy young person - basic coverage $250 a month
2. someone with pre-existing conditions - classification A (most costly to treat ) $5000/month, classification B - $2000/month
3. Over 40 and healthy - $500/month
4. Over 50 and healthy - $1500/month
5. over 60 - $5000/month

additionally, there are lifetime limits so if you have a health problem that has cost over 200k to treat, at 200k, you are cut off from the system and you have to pay the rest of the costs.

Here, insurance companies have set prices and schemes in a way that covers costs appropriately so they are guaranteed profits and survival. Knowing most people actually choose to live and get healthcare, these insurance companies know they can set prices high with little effect on demand, demand is inelastic.

Now here's the deal, the few that don't choose to pay for insurance, get 0 access to healthcare unless they can pay of it directly and if they can't prove they can pay for it, they are sent home to die if the situation requires life saving treatment. The idea is - buy insurance or assume the risks, it's YOUR CHOICE. If you cannot afford the insurance, then you must take good care of yourself because if you don't, you can possibly be in serious jeopardy of dying, even if the situation is treatable.

So here is a completely realistic system based on free markets where empathy takes second seat to profits.

now here are a few questions.

1. How many rich people would like to live in this Island?
2. How many young healthy people would like to live in this Island?
3. How many poor -> lower class people would like to live in this Island?
4. How many elderly would like to live in this Island?
5. How many people with pre-existing conditions or serious long term illnesses would live here?

I'll let you answer these questions but there is one thing that is clear here, this Island would mostly be inhabited by rich and healthy people, you wouldn't find many others. Is this a system you think is what we need in USA? a system that discriminates against the poor, the sick and elderly? I think you do - survival of the fittest (rich and healthy)!

 

I agree but the free market could organize them into some kind of guilds or such to handle medicine based on specialty and cost, then if you have only this much you might get some medic treating you or an herbalist or some other kind of "expert" but it would offer lots of options some very good if you have ample money to quackery and well charities could run medical facilities like in the old days to. But you hit the nail on the head to free the market means lots of bad operators and no real rules if the government imposes rules that limits the field of providers costs go up.

 

No, it does not.

 

Actually, there was up until the early 1930s.

I can understand why you live in abject fear of a Free Market healthcare system.

No, the first health insurance plans were offered by hospitals, not insurance companies. You'd know that if you do some research.

"...the opportunities for fraud [in health insurance] upset all statistical calculations ... Health and sickness are vague terms open to endless construction. Death is clearly defined, but to say what shall constitute such loss of health as will justify insurance compensation is no easy task."

From the Insurance Monitor July 1919, vol. 67(7), page 38

You can read this voluminous tome to learn more about the evolution of healthcare in the US:

https://books.google.com/books?id=z...surance Monitor July 1919, vol. 67(7)&f=false

The first "health insurance plan" is believed to have been offered by a hospital in Baylor, Texas, which offered 20 days of hospitalization for $6 per year in 1928.

Local hospitals were hardly "businesses interests".

 

In the current historical era, Healthcare and education have become basic needs in a society. But most free market countries, trying to provide them, are struggling to make their system affordable and effective, or both. The US is having the highest difficulties.

Democracy has proven its value as a political system, especially by the American experiment, beyond any doubt. Free market economy is its natural companion. Thus the ideas of democracy and capitalism are deeply entrenched in the human mind.

Using these systems the West, and especially the US, achieved great successes and prosperity over the last 3-4 centuries. This has made us too attached to the systems. We are afraid to go back to the basics.

Society makes all kinds of rules, curtailing some individual freedoms for the good of the whole. The rules, which are to be rigidly enforced, are signed to the part of the society called the government. Others form traditions and customs. Thus, no society can function without some socialism. The systems of democracy and capitalism are made for the well being of the society, and not the other way around.

Fortunately, democracy is the best political system available, so far. But capitalism is getting in the way of the basic needs of education and healthcare. We are afraid of the idea of socialism, because we equate that with communism. Let us face it: communism is an extremely bad system, because too much government is tyrannical. What we need is a very prudent amount of socialism. Too little control causes anarchy. What we have now is economical anarchy. Socialism is a good thing; only too little or too much of it is bad.

 

You put too much faith in the mythical market. If free market health insurance was working there never would have been the political will to pass the ACA. Republicans talk about patient centered care. It is kind of difficult to be patient centered if it is not financially available.

From my point of view, a public option should be offered. After all the United States Postal Service, even after Republican meddling, is the cheapest, most reliable way to send letters and small packages around the country.

 

these guys on these forum are just ideologists, they aren't pragmatic.. it's all naive, theoretical stuff. When i present facts to them, they run away and start theorizing.

btw, why are conservatives so afraid of a public option? don't they want competition?

 

If the free market is mythical, then it's never been given a chance to work or not to work. Thus your argument dies.