Why Private Health Care doesn't work

#427
#427
utgibbs said:
Concerning health care:

And let's remember, at NO TIME has there been an honest dialogue with the American people that, actually, every national health system out there has better health metrics at much lower cost per person.

If you were to put half spent on the propaganda into this honest dialogue, the historical 60%+ figure in favor would soar to 80% or so.

@float, you are nuts if you want to abolish the first amendment. You are nuts if you want to toy with the Bill of Rights full stop.
Click to expand...

We don't get that until a bill is passed.
 
#429
#429
utgibbs said:
@float, you are nuts if you want to abolish the first amendment. You are nuts if you want to toy with the Bill of Rights full stop.
Click to expand...

I have no desire to limit or abolish any part of the Bill of Rights. My post was in jest at the assertion that it would be easy to flag an individual for "mental illness" in relation to firearm purchase.

Much easier to flag someone for argument, as that typically requires only what comes out of the mouth, not what goes through the mind.

I guess you missed the point of the post.
 
#432
#432
utgibbs said:
, every national health system out there has better health metrics at much lower cost per person.
Click to expand...

When you say lower cost per person, are you stating lower costs to the person, or lower costs by the hospital?

Because the cost is covered mostly by the increased tax rate, right? So, obviously secondary out of pocket costs will be decreased.

Seems fishy to me, especially if costs per person due to increased tax rates weren't factored into overall cost per person.

Which do you mean?
 
#433
#433
fl0at said:
When you say lower cost per person, are you stating lower costs to the person, or lower costs by the hospital?

Because the cost is covered mostly by the increased tax rate, right? So, obviously secondary out of pocket costs will be decreased.

Seems fishy to me, especially if costs per person due to increased tax rates weren't factored into overall cost per person.

Which do you mean?
Click to expand...

don't bother. His health metrics gibberish is selective stats, and very poor ones for trying to measure actual healthcare. His stats are lifestyle silliness and have nothing at all to do with the actual debate.
 
#434
#434
IPorange said:
The fair price for those simple jobs is below what those Americans will accept.
Click to expand...
That is part of the problem though, right? People who are certain that the are too good for a job will take roughly the same pay as an "entitlement". These leftist programs have corrupted the "pride" of a whole class of people. Those people are helping to drag the overall economy down. It has to be fixed rather than expanded as the left wants to do.
That's WHY they're leaving. If they have little skills, why should they be paid more simply because of their nationality than people with little skills in other places?
Click to expand...
There are many issues here. One is that we should not have "free" trade with countries that effectively use slave labor. Our tariffs should be designed to punish countries that refuse to treat people "fairly".

A second issue is that in spite of what was said earlier, necessity is the mother of invention... and hunger is a strong motivator. I am not suggesting we starve people but it is ridiculous for people who are "too good for these low skill jobs" to make enough of the taxpayers to have tv's, cell phones, expensive clothes/jewelry, etc.

The reality is that those lower workers are not competitive in the global market place. That isn't going to change by protective measures. They're going to have to retool or change their expectations.
Click to expand...

We might not get all of those jobs back and our entitlement programs will continue to be a problem for raising the productivity of these lower skilled people. However if we simply level the playing field with nations that are as bad as the robber barrons of 125 years ago... then we can get some of them back.

Lastly, what the left has done to the poor in this country is a travesty. I have worked with this level of worker in the past. Being a "good American", I came in and tried to use some American temps instead of Hispanic migrant workers. For $2 more per hour... I got nothing but attitude, complaints, and half the productivity.

The difference between these groups as cruel as it sounds is that the mostly Mexican temps had seen REAL poverty. They really had been to the point of not knowing whether they would eat the next day. They appreciated the job and were very protective of it.

It will be hard to get back to that in America... but it has to happen. It either happens because we make tough choices in time or else after debt collapses us into a 3rd world economy.
 
#435
#435
subsidizing americans with higher wages only encourages them to continue working in jobs with no economic future. you aren't doing anyone any favors by keeping wages artificially high (unless you do so for their entire life i guess).
 
#436
#436
utgibbs, socialized healthcare has NOT been rejected in America because of lies... it has been rejected because its flaws have been exposed and it is counter-intuitive to the American ideals of rights and freedom.

You keep using "metrics" that have been doctored to support a conclusion.

The problem with healthcare costs and delivery in America is NOT that we have too little gov't involvement. We have way too much. The core of the problem is that the current system which enjoys gov't protection has corrupted the supply/demand relationship. The problem will NEVER be fixed until the consumer is re-engaged in determining the value point and price equillibrium.

Once again, you continue to prescribe a medicine that would actually kill the patient faster.
 
#437
#437
droski said:
subsidizing americans with higher wages only encourages them to continue working in jobs with no economic future. you aren't doing anyone any favors by keeping wages artificially high (unless you do so for their entire life i guess).
Click to expand...

I don't think I said anything about subsidies. I do not think that would be a good idea.

However even if you did... it would be better for that person and the economy as a whole for them to contribute something for what they consume.

There is also value in earning your own way beyond the simple material benefits. People feel better about themselves... it changes their behavior. I believe it would also have a direct impact on crime if people were working rather than sitting around waiting for something to get into.
 
Last edited:
#438
#438
sjt18 said:
I don't think I said anything about subsidies. I do not think that would be a good idea.

However even if you did... it would be better for that person and the economy as a whole for them to contribute something for what they consume.

There is also value in earning your own way beyond the simple material benefits. People feel better about themselves... it changes their behavior. I believe it would also have a direct impact on crime if people were working rather than sitting around waiting for something to get into.
Click to expand...

i was agreeing with you actually. i think :)
 
#439
#439
I think we mostly agree, sjt. I am just not so certain that what seems like "slave labor" from our perspective always is. Making a dollar a day in some places is the greatest opportunity a family ever had, and the alternative is to take that opportunity away and replace it with nothing.
 
#440
#440
lawgator1 said:
In prior economies, there was some empirical support for your argument. But in this economy, the opposite has occurred.

After slashing millions of jobs, many corporations are posting record profits. But, they and their managers are sitting on that money, pumping up stock prices and their own bonuses as a result, but not re-hiring layoffs or hiring new workers.

If you ask why, they will tell you its because of the uncertainty moving forward and they want to see more demand before they start hiring again. I am skeptical about many of them when they say that is their motive.
Click to expand...

Companies exist to make money, not to give people jobs. The Obama administration loves big labor and hates the Chamber of Commerce. Business is just dealing with the awful political environment that has created for them. 1/20/2013 will be a great day for those unemployed and under employed.
 
#441
#441
sjt18 said:
utgibbs, socialized healthcare has NOT been rejected in America because of lies... it has been rejected because its flaws have been exposed and it is counter-intuitive to the American ideals of rights and freedom.

You keep using "metrics" that have been doctored to support a conclusion.

The problem with healthcare costs and delivery in America is NOT that we have too little gov't involvement. We have way too much. The core of the problem is that the current system which enjoys gov't protection has corrupted the supply/demand relationship. The problem will NEVER be fixed until the consumer is re-engaged in determining the value point and price equillibrium.

Once again, you continue to prescribe a medicine that would actually kill the patient faster.
Click to expand...

Before the government got into healthcare with Medicare and Medicaid (and regulations), insurance prices were affordable.

It is one of the methods used by liberals to get what they want ... create a problem and decry the need to government involvement (regulations, etc) to fix it . As a non-healthcare example: the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent problems plugging the hole. Oil companies are forced to drill off the continental shelf in deep water because liberals policies keep them from drilling closer to shore.

The healthcare issues are no different. The government has so screwed up the supply/demand relationship that who knows what the actual prices for healthcare would be if government got out entirely. The solution offered by liberals is...wait for it...more government involvement.

Liberals love this country so much they want to change everything about it.
 
#442
#442
fl0at said:
When you say lower cost per person, are you stating lower costs to the person, or lower costs by the hospital?

Because the cost is covered mostly by the increased tax rate, right? So, obviously secondary out of pocket costs will be decreased.

Seems fishy to me, especially if costs per person due to increased tax rates weren't factored into overall cost per person.

Which do you mean?
Click to expand...

I mean the National Health Services spend less of their GDP on health care, and their health care services have better metrics.

People pay taxes instead of premiums, co-pays, etc for comprehensive universal coverage that performs better than our current private system.

And it is no wonder. There is no incentive in a private system to make people better or prevent them from becoming unwell.
 
#443
#443
sjt18 said:
utgibbs, socialized healthcare has NOT been rejected in America because of lies... it has been rejected because its flaws have been exposed and it is counter-intuitive to the American ideals of rights and freedom.

You keep using "metrics" that have been doctored to support a conclusion.

The problem with healthcare costs and delivery in America is NOT that we have too little gov't involvement. We have way too much. The core of the problem is that the current system which enjoys gov't protection has corrupted the supply/demand relationship. The problem will NEVER be fixed until the consumer is re-engaged in determining the value point and price equillibrium.

Once again, you continue to prescribe a medicine that would actually kill the patient faster.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the real world suggests what you have written is true.

Better health metrics at lower cost with every national health service.

If ideology is more important than a basic human right, then carry on. But there is no sense in denying the facts (nor denying most of the human race regards health care as a basic human right).

And it is fundamental: a private health service has NO INCENTIVE for efficiency.
 
#444
#444
No response about the Gallup poll Gibbs? In case you missed it, please tell me specifically what you believe the Gallup poll is saying - what is it that Americans want based on that polling data.
 
#446
#446
IPorange said:
I think we mostly agree, sjt. I am just not so certain that what seems like "slave labor" from our perspective always is. Making a dollar a day in some places is the greatest opportunity a family ever had, and the alternative is to take that opportunity away and replace it with nothing.
Click to expand...

I think the notion that working for a dollar a day for most people is "their best bet" is largely myth. It has generally been foisted upon people by the appropriation of the commons. This is exactly what China did to move 400M into the cities.

The same was accomplished in England some 200 years before.
 
#447
#447
volinbham said:
No response about the Gallup poll Gibbs? In case you missed it, please tell me specifically what you believe the Gallup poll is saying - what is it that Americans want based on that polling data.
Click to expand...

Page 1 of the Gallup poll proved me right as rain, as I remembered it did.

What else is there to add?

I said the propaganda surrounding Obamacare reduced the current poll to 50/50. Just as it did during the Clinton attempt. The Gallup poll showed a supermajority of Americans want government provided health care from 2000 - Obamacare.

So, thankee! I love it when people do the legwork for me. :hi:
 
#449
#449
utgibbs said:
That's why it's such a roaring success....

:eek:lol:

It has NO INCENTIVE. Healthcare is not "widgets." It's yet another market failure.
Click to expand...

so if company A can offer healthcare cheaper and better than company B your argument is that no one will select company A because it is not "widgets?"
 
#450
#450
utgibbs said:
Page 1 of the Gallup poll proved me right as rain, as I remembered it did.

What else is there to add?

I said the propaganda surrounding Obamacare reduced the current poll to 50/50. Just as it did during the Clinton attempt. The Gallup poll showed a supermajority of Americans want government provided health care from 2000 - Obamacare.

So, thankee! I love it when people do the legwork for me. :hi:
Click to expand...

Tell me what you mean by "government provided" because the question does not ask if they want government to "provide" HC. In fact the data clearly show (if you go past page 1) that the highest support ever has been for government run HC is 41%.

The study concludes that the "super majority" want a private insurance HC system.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top