Quote: Original post by CirdanValen
So because "all presidential candidates have their 'questionable' associations" that makes it acceptable? There is no denying that ACORN committed voter fraud.

I'll believe in your righteous indignation when you articulate a comprehensive rather than selective position. In the meantime, grow up.

Quote: Original post by Goober King
I'm not too old yet, all of 31. I still have my fair share of issues tough, perhaps more than my fair share. Nothing too serious but used to be I could suck it up and go pay my 10-20$ copay and get an appointment and get whatever looked into or dealt with. The last couple of years things have been different. I now have $2500 - $4500 of fear in between me and my health insurance.

I have a couple of minor yet chronic conditions that I've been living with for the past decade. Because of job changes, being unemployed for durations (and unable to afford COBRA) or being employed as an independent contractor, I've never had insurance long enough to look into it. In fact, for the bulk of the 10 years that I have lived in the US as a basically independent adult, I've had no coverage. Fortunately I'm pretty healthy, but I worry what long-term damage might be avoided if I could look into these issues.

When I first moved to the US, I had mandatory student insurance in order to register at a community college. I visited a doctor to have a basic examination of my nose (one of my chronic problems is related to breathing). The insurer paid maybe $20, and left me with a $100+ bill. Honestly, even when I get insurance, I'm hesitant to go to the doctor because I don't know what my insurer will decide not to cover, leaving me with expensive bills.

I don't know what the right/perfect system is, but I know that what we have right now doesn't work.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
I'm not particularly well informed. I don't read or watch the news much (I simply observe the intermittent nonsense about which sensationalistic outcries erupt - like Obama, Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge police), but some of you purport to: why, then, do your arguments devolve into finger-pointing and yelling the same old tropes?

Its an effect of the internet, it makes it easy for people to play the expert on everything, and turn to google when they don't know what they're talking about. Lets be honest, we have the same people discussing every issue. You can't have that many experts on everything, and these topics are all so large they all need specialization. A specialization that extends far beyond news sources. How many of us here have read through half of the bill that was posted earlier? That's 1000 pages, and that's only new material. What about the pre-existing systems and legislation to which it applies? There's a reason why lawyers specialize in particular kinds of cases.

Quote: Original post by HelplessFool
Its an effect of the internet, it makes it easy for people to play the expert on everything, and turn to google when they don't know what they're talking about. Lets be honest, we have the same people discussing every issue. You can't have that many experts on everything, and these topics are all so large they all need specialization. A specialization that extends far beyond news sources. How many of us here have read through half of the bill that was posted earlier? That's 1000 pages, and that's only new material. What about the pre-existing systems and legislation to which it applies? There's a reason why lawyers specialize in particular kinds of cases.

So why do we all front?

What's so hard about something like this: "Well, I'm for privatized healthcare solutions because I believe that the government tends toward inefficiency and bureaucracy, and will simply continue to raise tax rates to provide marginal coverage quality. I also think that the government will use its power over regulation to coerce suppliers such as pharmaceutical industries, which is definitely not free market. That said, I think the private providers can do a better job in areas X, Y and Z. Maybe the government could focus on its real job, which is regulation? They could, for instance, stipulate A, B and C, which should at least push the private companies to respond, right?"

I want better coverage. I want a healthier country. I want a greater focus on preventive care, and a system that incentivizes doctors to encourage their patients to quit smoking or lose some pounds, because that frees up scarce care resources for people who really need them - which might be me someday! I'd like for this better care to be affordable. I don't mind paying reasonable sums for simple doctor visits and minor prescriptions - and I have in the past. I'd just like to know that my society has provisions in place to ensure that my getting really sick doesn't mean I lose my house, forgo retirement and cause my family to suffer.

How can we make that happen?

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
The problem with this approach is that to fix the private system would require a radical decoupling of regulatory and government bodies from the health care system. Billions of dollars from health care lobbies and pharmaceuticals are pumped in to D.C. every election cycle to insure this never occurs.

Okay, fine. But at least we can discuss it. I mean, the fact that the government might never implement it is a separate issue; why can't we, ostensibly free of pharmaceutical and lobbying influence, have an honest conversation on the issues?

I'm not particularly well informed. I don't read or watch the news much (I simply observe the intermittent nonsense about which sensationalistic outcries erupt - like Obama, Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge police), but some of you purport to: why, then, do your arguments devolve into finger-pointing and yelling the same old tropes?

I wasn't aware I was finger pointing or yelling out the same old tropes :)

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by HelplessFool
...stuff...

So why do we all front?

What's so hard about something like this: "Well, I'm for privatized healthcare solutions because I believe that the government tends toward inefficiency and bureaucracy, and will simply continue to raise tax rates to provide marginal coverage quality. I also think that the government will use its power over regulation to coerce suppliers such as pharmaceutical industries, which is definitely not free market. That said, I think the private providers can do a better job in areas X, Y and Z. Maybe the government could focus on its real job, which is regulation? They could, for instance, stipulate A, B and C, which should at least push the private companies to respond, right?"

I want better coverage. I want a healthier country. I want a greater focus on preventive care, and a system that incentivizes doctors to encourage their patients to quit smoking or lose some pounds, because that frees up scarce care resources for people who really need them - which might be me someday! I'd like for this better care to be affordable. I don't mind paying reasonable sums for simple doctor visits and minor prescriptions - and I have in the past. I'd just like to know that my society has provisions in place to ensure that my getting really sick doesn't mean I lose my house, forgo retirement and cause my family to suffer.

How can we make that happen?

It's intrinsic to the nature of many people never to admit being wrong. Hell, look at how people banded about the term "flip-flop" during the '04 elections. As if showing you can learn things is a crime!

You mentioned in past posts that you think extending who medicare covers is a reasonable measure (IIRC, there are so many posts, and I'm feeling lazy!). What do you think of the system Massachusetts enacted a couple years ago? I imagine MA's state income tax greatly helps their ability to do things like this, but it is fairly similar to what you were saying.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Maybe the government could focus on its real job, which is regulation? They could, for instance, stipulate A, B and C, which should at least push the private companies to respond, right?"

It is by government regulation that the pseudo-monopolies have been created. By creating artificial barriers to entry they make the market non-competitive.

Quote:
I want better coverage. I want a healthier country. I want a greater focus on preventive care, and a system that incentivizes doctors to encourage their patients to quit smoking or lose some pounds, because that frees up scarce care resources for people who really need them - which might be me someday! I'd like for this better care to be affordable. I don't mind paying reasonable sums for simple doctor visits and minor prescriptions - and I have in the past. I'd just like to know that my society has provisions in place to ensure that my getting really sick doesn't mean I lose my house, forgo retirement and cause my family to suffer.

How can we make that happen?

What you're describing is catastrophic insurance. This is the type of policy I have. I pay the first $2500 of any medical expenses per annum, and then my insurer is on the hook for the next 7 million.

That refers to actual insurance. What most are discussing here is a "health care plan" Kind of like the difference between a warranty on a car and a maintenance plan.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Maybe the government could focus on its real job, which is regulation? They could, for instance, stipulate A, B and C, which should at least push the private companies to respond, right?"

It is by government regulation that the pseudo-monopolies have been created. By creating artificial barriers to entry they make the market non-competitive.

Quite an assertion there.

I'd *love* to see the evidence that describes the "non-competitiveness" of a market in relation to the "artificial barriers to entry" ... but that'd be a distraction from the thread, so .... another time, perhaps.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Maybe the government could focus on its real job, which is regulation? They could, for instance, stipulate A, B and C, which should at least push the private companies to respond, right?"

It is by government regulation that the pseudo-monopolies have been created. By creating artificial barriers to entry they make the market non-competitive.

Quite an assertion there.

I'd *love* to see the evidence that describes the "non-competitiveness" of a market in relation to the "artificial barriers to entry" ... but that'd be a distraction from the thread, so .... another time, perhaps.

It's rather simple really. If the government required a million dollar bond to be on hand prior to opening a lemonade stand there would be less competition among lemonade stands.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
It's rather simple really. If the government required a million dollar bond to be on hand prior to opening a lemonade stand there would be less competition among lemonade stands.

You originally used the term "non-competitive" ... but here you've merely stated there'd be "less competition."


Also, there's little in your simple example that describes how the required bond necessarily creates any sort of lemonade monopoly/oligopoly.