American Politics 19

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I though you people dumped those for a reason.

Yeah, the federal gummint wanted more power (specifically more powers of taxation).

[Shryke]

I thought it was cause they prevented the US from actually acting like a country instead of just a collection of smaller countries that loved to yell at one another.

[TrackerNeil]

A truly free market would not be shackled with the burden of taxation.

Shackled with the burden of taxation? I don't know in what Ayn Rand pamphlet you found that, but it makes me giggle like a little girl. The government created the housing market through the establishment of federally subsidized loans, mortgage interest deductions, the GI Bill and, in the suburbs, the interstate highway system, all funded by "the burden of taxation." How many untold billions have the banks made from this arrangement? I wish I were so burdened.

Fact is, the free market is a total myth. Markets aren't laws of nature like gravity or thermodynamics; they are constructs of humanity, usually through government action. Government mints money, sets interest rates, and requires fair practices. As such, it is entirely appropriate that government ensure these markets function for the benefit of all, not just a select few. And it has done so, for example, by ensuring that minorities have the same access to goods and services as everyone else. Douglas Massey writes pretty eloquently about this, if you're interested.

[mcbigski]

Where are they planning to get the money?

Actually, they seem to be planning an adjustment to the medicare reimbursement projections, which will instead be funded in a separate $250Billion bill in an effort to make the Baucus bill look affordable. Like using two credit cards instead of one. I think I found the reason that the Baucus bill isn't effective until July 1, 2013 as well. Congress scores budget items on a ten year time horizon, so we're effectively only seeing about 60% of the true ten year cost. It also has the nice side effect of letting Obama and Congress run for reelection on the awesome job they did with health care reform before people actually had to experience it for themselves.

The "cadillac" nickname applies to the most generous insurance plans. Lots of government workers, well-compensated private workers, and union members have these. The tax is one way to bring in money but it's also an attempt to discourage these plans which may lead to excessive health usage.

Of course, they're excluding government and union workers from many of the more onerous provisions of the bill, not sure if this is one of them or not off the top of my head. And they're defining Cadillac on cost, not usage. Often times the high benefit, low sales frequency executive products will have much higher margins than the run of the mill mass marketed plans. In which case they would be already indirectly subsidizing the mass market plans, and this will just be another way to kill off the profit margins for private insurers and force the public option.

I mostly had gave up on educating rightwing ignoramus who keep sprouting the same debunked talking points, but such an idiotic attack on the British health care system cannot go uncorrected ............. so after a quick google search:

US doctor let patient die to steal his Rolex

Once again, wingnuts are indeed lazy and uninformed.

Killing someone off to rob them happens all the time, this just happens to be a doctor doing it. A doctor deciding to starve someone just to stay on budget is far more chilling to this right wing ignoramus, because it seems avoidable. Individual choice is more just than central command, and more effective.

Which is why all you bold free market warriors keep failing to convince anyone on this debate. An actual free market of health insurance companies would be wonderful. But we don't have that. What we really have is a hodgepodge of feudal robber-barons doing their best to maximize their profits on a mostly captive populace.

So if Obamacare does go down in flames, would you be in favor of making a freer market in health insurance? Because it sounds like you're saying more choice is great, so let's move to less.

[DanteGabriel]

So if Obamacare does go down in flames, would you be in favor of making a freer market in health insurance? Because it sounds like you're saying more choice is great, so let's move to less.

If your dreaded "Obamacare" goes down in flames, I would absolutely love something approaching a free market in health insurance. But believe me, the corporate welfare queens of the insurance industry will spend just as much money and energy fighting that effort as they have fighting universal health care.

I have no faith in the "free market" because the oligarchs of the insurance industry are far too invested in keeping their oligarchy and squeezing out true competition. Which is why I giggle every time one of you self-professed free market capitalists gets so righteous in your wrathful defense of the corporate welfare state.

[Shryke]

So if Obamacare does go down in flames, would you be in favor of making a freer market in health insurance? Because it sounds like you're saying more choice is great, so let's move to less.

Some services and products simply don't work with supposed "free markets".

Like Fire Departments. Or Health Care.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I thought it was cause they prevented the US from actually acting like a country instead of just a collection of smaller countries that loved to yell at one another.

Haha, aren't you all telling us to act more like Europe all the time anyway?

The government created the housing market through the establishment of federally subsidized loans, mortgage interest deductions, the GI Bill and, in the suburbs, the interstate highway system, all funded by "the burden of taxation." How many untold billions have the banks made from this arrangement?

Not sure that you're making a great point, the housing market went down in flames due to supply vastly outstripping demand. To say that government created the housing market is the most rank ignorance. Are you saying people wouldn't buy houses without a large welfare/warfare state?

Fact is, the free market is a total myth.

I agree, wherever there has been someone with money, there has been someone else with a pointy stick saying that he should get some of it.

Government mints money, sets interest rates, and requires fair practices.

They aren't required to, these things come up organically on their own without them.

Douglas Massey writes pretty eloquently about this, if you're interested.

I see your Douglas Massey and raise you a Freidrich von Hayek

[Noontidal]

I'm a libertarian with anarchist ideals. I wish for anarchy, but am more of a minarchist in practice. Were I in charge, I would probably fund the government entirely off import tariffs. (then again, were I in charge the federal government would probably all fit into one building, and the articles of confederation would probably still be around ;) )

Funny. We're both anarchists-ish, but I doubt we agree on much. Just the nature of the ideal, eh? :cheers:

[The Progressive]

Killing someone off to rob them happens all the time, this just happens to be a doctor doing it. A doctor deciding to starve someone just to stay on budget is far more chilling to this right wing ignoramus, because it seems avoidable. Individual choice is more just than central command, and more effective.

And we already have an example of an insurance company deciding to stop providing coverage to an entire STATE so that they could let one man die because the cost of treating him would hurt their profit margin.

Your silence on that speak volume.

[Noontidal]

Your silence on that speak volume.

But you 'just' said it. He hasn't had time to be not silent on that issue yet.

[Shryke]

But you 'just' said it. He hasn't had time to be not silent on that issue yet.

Huh? I posted the article last night and people have been talking about it a ton since.

[DanteGabriel]

But you 'just' said it. He didn't have time to be not silent on that issue yet.

Shryke posted the link about the insurance company pulling out of a state a while ago. Mcbigski has had ample time to address that concern, and has posted several times without saying a damn thing about it. Intellectual honesty might compel some people to at least pretend they'd read the article before going off about EVUL GUBMINT DEATH PANELS but mcbigski seems to rarely respond to that call.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Funny. We're both anarchists-ish, but I doubt we agree on much. Just the nature of the ideal, eh?

Anarcho-socialist?

[Noontidal]

Shryke posted the link about the insurance company pulling out of a state a while ago. Mcbigski has had ample time to address that concern, and has posted several times without saying a damn thing about it. Intellectual honesty might compel some people to at least pretend they'd read the article before going off about EVUL GUBMINT DEATH PANELS but mcbigski seems to rarely respond to that call.

Ahh, that explains it. Still have shryke on ignore.

Anarcho-socialist?

You're asking what my mix is? I haven't properly chategorized my particular brand of anarchism, and I feel providing a label at the moment would give the wrong idea.

[Noontidal]

I have a question, in case anyone has a good answer.

The US spends slightly more than double what Canada spends per capita on healthcare (3k vs 6.4k per person). and Germany is #2 on per capita healthcare spending at around 3.4k-ish. These figures are based off the World Almanac current edition.

What could the US get for 5k per capita?

and where would we put our 300b in savings? (I would like a national bicycle path)

[Shryke]

Shryke - As much as it would be a radical shift and will never happen, do you think free market care could work as long as there is catastrophic coverage for everyone? This was part of the proposal in that big article from The Atlantic this summer. They guy proposed a mandated catastrophic coverage for everyone, but then people pay out of pocket for the more routine stuff. This encourages people to be more careful with their health spending. Some companies are actually giving their employees the choice of having a cheaper premium but with a much higher deductible for the same reason. It'll be interesting if this trend continues and what impact it will have.

1) What is defined as "Catastrophic"?

2) This just continues the problem the US has now of "people wait till they get really sick to get treated".

3) I'd imagine the savings from not also covering routine care would be minimal at best (although I can't be certain on this without numbers obviously). It would seem to me that the cost of catastrophic care would be so much higher that the cost of routine care, in comparison, would be a joke. Essentially, why NOT cover routine care at that point and save money on efficiency.

Ahh, that explains it. Still have shryke on ignore.

:lol:

A bad idea in the Miscellaneous section. Especially in these threads. :P

[mcbigski]

And we already have an example of an insurance company deciding to stop providing coverage to an entire STATE so that they could let one man die because the cost of treating him would hurt their profit margin.

Your silence on that speak volume.

Have any of you ever dealt with insurance in the state of New York? The New York state insurance commission is such a royal pain in the ass to deal with that life insurers routinely set up two companies, one to do business in New York, and one to do business in 49 other states. I'm assuming their health care mandates and regulations aren't less insane, and what I've heard about the cost of providing health coverage in NY would seem to indicate they are, in fact, also insane. If a company decides to stop covering an entire class of people, as was the case here, it's a valid business decision. If it was profitable to operate in NY then why would they give up premiums for an entire STATE? Talk about pennywise and pound foolish. Even more shocking is that you guys think this sort idiocy demands a response.

Some services and products simply don't work with supposed "free markets".

Like Fire Departments. Or Health Care.

How many hundreds of millions of people have health care in our only 'supposed' (I'll readily concede) free market for health care? Christ, talk about brainlessly parroting talking points.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

1) What is defined as "Catastrophic"?

Just for the sake of argument, lets say a single treatment that costs more than....$5000.00 or a series of treatments for the same issue whose cummulative cost is greater than $7500.00.

[Tempra]

I have a question, in case anyone has a good answer.

The US spends slightly more than double what Canada spends per capita on healthcare (3k vs 6.4k per person). and Germany is #2 on per capita healthcare spending at around 3.4k-ish. These figures are based off the World Almanac current edition.

What could the US get for 5k per capita?

and where would we put our 300b in savings? (I would like a national bicycle path)

If this gets bicyclists off the road, i fully support this idea! :thumbsup:

[Shryke]

Have any of you ever dealt with insurance in the state of New York? The New York state insurance commission is such a royal pain in the ass to deal with that life insurers routinely set up two companies, one to do business in New York, and one to do business in 49 other states. I'm assuming their health care mandates and regulations aren't less insane, and what I've heard about the cost of providing health coverage in NY would seem to indicate they are, in fact, also insane. If a company decides to stop covering an entire class of people, as was the case here, it's a valid business decision. If it was profitable to operate in NY then why would they give up premiums for an entire STATE? Talk about pennywise and pound foolish. Even more shocking is that you guys think this sort idiocy demands a response.

So what your saying is that this company has been collecting premiums from it's "customers" for years despite not being able to actually provide the service it's "customers" are paying for? And that the minute the state forced them to, they left the state because suddenly they realised this?

Quality industry right there....

How many hundreds of millions of people have health care in our only 'supposed' (I'll readily concede) free market for health care? Christ, talk about brainlessly parroting talking points.

And how many don't? How many go bankrupt anyway despite having health insurance? How many can't even buy it in the first place because they have a "pre-existing condition"? How many are removed from or priced out of their insurance the minute they actually try and use it? Why are you paying so much more then the rest of the world for all this? How long will wages continue to stagnate due to rising health costs before they start going down?

If you think US Health Care is currently "working", you aren't paying attention and are just "brainlessly parroting talking points".