1 Trillion Dollars

[crb]

Divided by 300 million = $3,333.

Divided by 47 million (the "uninsured") = $21,276.59

Divided by 33 million, the uninsured minus illegal immigrants = $30,303.03

Divided by 16 million, the total number of people the non-partisan Congresssional Budget Office estimates will gain coverage under the house plan = $62,500

Has there ever, in the history of the world, been something where the government was able to get work done cheaper and more efficiently with higher quality than private sector free market innovation? I can only half think of one thing. The USPS, cheaper and sometimes better than UPS, sometimes, not usually, but they've gotten better, but cheaper for sure. Of course, the USPS charges for services.

Since when does changing who pays for something make it cheaper and limit yearly cost increases? Oh... it is because the government is paying for it now that it won't increase in size or cost or go over budget. I see. Good thing the government is so very good at avoiding such things. Can you imagine if a government project ever went over budget ran out of money? Can you imagine? They might have to pay people with IOUs (if the printing press breaks, otherwise, yay inflation tax!). Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

The best way to improve the cost, quality, and accessibility of healthcare is not to have the government dole it out. It is to empower the people to control more of their healthcare choices, then unleash doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies to compete for patients (ie, business).

Gosh, look at the computer industry. Remember how expensive the Internet used to be? Cell phones? Computers? I remember paying $40 per megabyte for a ram upgrade, not even gigabyte, megabyte. $160 for a 4mb ram chip. How did things get cheaper and not more expensive? Could it have been competition for consumer dollars. Xbox comes out, Playstation drops in price, voila. Price competition, drive for innovation to produce a marketshare grabbing product. Instead of a few stuffy bureaucrats thinking of ways to save money while enjoying their 6 figure appointment jobs, EVERYONE works on it.

A trillion dollars? Who needs it.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/film_images/Austin_Powers_Mike_Myers_as_Dr_Evil.jpg

[ClydeR]

Has there ever, in the history of the world, been something where the government was able to get work done cheaper and more efficiently with higher quality than private sector free market innovation?

That's exactly right. With the exception you mentioned of the Post Office, there's nothing the government can do cheaper than the private sector, except also the military and Medicare, but definitely not the VA. And definitely not roads either. We need more private toll roads and fewer government subsidized roads. And definitely not prisons either.

[crb]

That's exactly right. With the exception you mentioned of the Post Office, there's nothing the government can do cheaper than the private sector, except also the military and Medicare, but definitely not the VA. And definitely not roads either. We need more private toll roads and fewer government subsidized roads. And definitely not prisons either.

You fail, you don't think I anticipated those weak points?

Who builds our tanks, planes, jets? Private contractors (they're called defense contractors, you may have heard of them). We even have private military contractors that do many things for us including rebuilding and some security and logistrics. And we're using them more all the time.

Who builds our roads? Private contractors who bid on the jobs.

The VA is good? This is the place that just cut off a guy's leg, VA hospitals are the only true government only hospitals in the country and they have a reputation for horrible care.

Prisons? Do you know just how much in prisons is outsourced? How that trend is growing, how many states are looking to hire private companies to handle prisons and how fast incarceration costs have been growing? (hint, they mirror healthcare).

And Medicare? The 50 trillion unfunded liability?

Actually you know the USPS even farms out some stuff to Fedex & DHL.

[Latrinsorm]

Has there ever, in the history of the world, been something where the government was able to get work done cheaper and more efficiently with higher quality than private sector free market innovation?The pyramids, the interstate highway system, nuclear power, the rehabilitation of war-torn Europe, the modernization of Japan. Probably also everything the Romans did, and the Islamic Empire, and every other government/society in the history of the world that got along just fine without private sectors or free markets.

[crb]

Aliens (and slaves), private contractors, private licensed utilities, private contractors, robots, and slaves.

So, should we have an emperor and enslave our neighbors and bring them back to our lands to be slaves for us and build roads? Can I apply for the job of emperor then?

Or are we going to be the slaves? Its rare to have a liberal actually come out and admit they want the populace to be enslaved, but hey, refreshing.

[Latrinsorm]

If your answer to "every other government in the history of the world" is really "slaves", I wonder if there's a point.

The Islamic Empire did not have an emperor, and did not enslave the conquered. They managed to peacefully govern the conquered with much more success and much less bloody repression than did, say, the Soviets, or the Franks, or the Romans, or the Americans.

Nuclear power has its origins in the Manhattan Project, which was in no way "privately licensed". The Marshall Plan was implemented and run by the Economic Cooperation Administration, which was a government entity. Etc., etc.

[Bhuryn]

Has there ever, in the history of the world, been something where the government was able to get work done cheaper and more efficiently with higher quality than private sector free market innovation?

Austrian Economists/Von Mises have been trying to point this out for like a hundred years.

[ClydeR]

You fail, you don't think I anticipated those weak points?

I'm pretty sure you didn't.


Who builds our tanks, planes, jets? Private contractors (they're called defense contractors, you may have heard of them). We even have private military contractors that do many things for us including rebuilding and some security and logistrics. And we're using them more all the time.

How is that different from the planned healthcare system? Let me answer my own question before you, having anticipated it, answer it for me. It's not different from the planned healthcare system.

Doctors will not be employees of the government under the planned healthcare system, nor will they be contractors for the government. Instead, they will be partners in private physician groups, employees of public or private hospitals, employees of private labs, etc., just as they are now. And doctors will continue to be paid by insurance, either privately owned insurance companies or a publicly operated insurance company, depending on which insurer the patient chooses. To the extent that a medical procedure is not covered by the insurance company, then the patient will be responsible for the uninsured amount, just as patients are today.

The main* problem with the planned healthcare system is, as you mentioned in your original post, that it will cost too much. The government will subsidize the insurance premiums of poor people. Poor people seem to be multiplying at an alarming rate. I'm all for charity toward respectful poor people, but I don't think we should bankrupt ourselves to provide healthcare to the least productive members of society, just because they happen to be sick.

*The other problems are that it will be too popular ever to repeal and will, apparently -- based on the conservative sources on which I rely -- be called Obamacare, forever associating the name of a Democrat president with a popular program. We should not let a Democrat get the credit for it.

[crb]

If your answer to "every other government in the history of the world" is really "slaves", I wonder if there's a point.

The Islamic Empire did not have an emperor, and did not enslave the conquered. They managed to peacefully govern the conquered with much more success and much less bloody repression than did, say, the Soviets, or the Franks, or the Romans, or the Americans.

Nuclear power has its origins in the Manhattan Project, which was in no way "privately licensed". The Marshall Plan was implemented and run by the Economic Cooperation Administration, which was a government entity. Etc., etc.

Every other government in the world isn't a claim I'd bother responding to. I was responding to your specific claim of roman roads and egyptian pyramids. Slave labor.

Nuclear reactions were discovered at the University of Chicago as I recall. The Manhattan Project was to weaponize it, and you said nuclear power, not nuclear weapons.

you seem to confuse someone paying for a project, and someone doing a project. The department of defense for instance doesn't run a factory building jets, they hire Lockheed or Boeing to do it.

And quite frankly, how about providing an example of our government spending efficiently, not the ancient egyptians. Try to be a little more relevant.

[Fallen]

Lol at ClydeR going after one of the most conservative people on the board. Says a bit about who MAs him.

[crb]

I'm pretty sure you didn't.



How is that different from the planned healthcare system? Let me answer my own question before you, having anticipated it, answer it for me. It's not different from the planned healthcare system.

Doctors will not be employees of the government under the planned healthcare system, nor will they be contractors for the government. Instead, they will be partners in private physician groups, employees of public or private hospitals, employees of private labs, etc., just as they are now. And doctors will continue to be paid by insurance, either privately owned insurance companies or a publicly operated insurance company, depending on which insurer the patient chooses. To the extent that a medical procedure is not covered by the insurance company, then the patient will be responsible for the uninsured amount, just as patients are today.

The main* problem with the planned healthcare system is, as you mentioned in your original post, that it will cost too much. The government will subsidize the insurance premiums of poor people. Poor people seem to be multiplying at an alarming rate. I'm all for charity toward respectful poor people, but I don't think we should bankrupt ourselves to provide healthcare to the least productive members of society, just because they happen to be sick.

*The other problems are that it will be too popular ever to repeal and will, apparently -- based on the conservative sources on which I rely -- be called Obamacare, forever associating the name of a Democrat president with a popular program. We should not let a Democrat get the credit for it.

You don't understand how healthcare works in this country.

Do you think when a Medicare patient goes to a doctor the doctor sends the bill to the government and the government pays it?

The government sends the bill to the doctor and says "this is what you get."

The point being, there is no price competition, which is exactly what you need to get price efficiencies.

If the government wanted to run an insurance program and say run a bidding process for say, mammograms, and in a region have all mammogram providers bid, and then have the lowest one win and have the government send all their people to this one winning mammogram provider. Then you'd have a direct analogy to the private contracting system found in other areas.

Of course we also don't get much price competition because we have a doctor shortage, and adding more people to insurance, while doing things like cutting medicare and medicaid payments, isn't going to help that. Hospitals have to take medicare and medicaid generally, and I'm sure any government plan, and so they will. Then they'll cut services, staff, or charge people with better insurance (or no insurance) more to make up for it. But because of our relative shortage, if someone in private practice can fill their practice with patients with good insurance, they'll not accept government insurance. Then the options for people with gov insurance becomes more and more limited, quality of care drops, and the only way to save it is either to force all doctors to accept it, or get everyone on your insurance so there is no private insurance. You could even do like Canada and (for a time) make it illegal to pay a doctor for care. It took a Canadian Supreme Court decision to reverse that. So you do these things, jamming millions of more people into the healthcare system, while at the same time reducing the reimbursements per person. You starve the industry of funding, quality of care for everyone then drops, access drops, wait times rise, grandma dies.

Far fetched? That is Canada, that is Britain.

[crb]

Lol at ClydeR going after one of the most conservative people on the board. Says a bit about who MAs him.

libertarian

[landy]

I find I agree with crb, exclusively due to the serious nature of Peter Griffin's pose in his avatar. If Peter tells me something dressed as a news anchor, I'm inclined to believe it.

[Deathravin]

Crb... are you really having a conversation with ClydeR? REALLY?

[Rocktar]

...they'll not accept government insurance.

Only one problem in this argument and I agree with the basis of the argument, but having seen this in action in America on the state level with the implementation of TennCare the Tennessee revamping of Medicare into more like an insurance company than typical Medicare, doctors tried this and it was outlawed. They wrote the law such that if you took insurance than you had to take TennCare patients. Doctors were getting killed with hordes of patients flooding their offices and demanding to be seen, when the doctor, who charged like $60 for an office visit had to accept the new patients and TennCare decided that they would only pay $7 or a visit. The other insurance companies looked over their bills with a fine tooth comb to prevent cost shifting (like they should) and the result was the doctors were getting screwed big time. Hell, it cost most doctors more than $7 to provide the space and the lights for the visit, much less anything else. So, in the end, it turns into a mess (big surprise) and basically a case of slavery (forcing doctors to work for nothing and a legal punishment if you don’t).

After some months of fighting and legal BS and so on, Doctors across the board simply declared “we are not taking any new patients at this time.” Alternately, they decided to change over to cash only, payment on receipt business. You wanted to get care, you paid up front and then you filed your claim with your insurance to get reimbursed. Problem solved and again the people with government care that had no financial stake in dealing with their care get tossed out. I am not sure how they resolved this mess as I haven’t kept up with it after I moved away and only just recently moved back into the region, but I do know, that is what happened and is a real life case of how the proposed system, will, not can, WILL fail.

<added>Oh, some news from jsut a few hours ago saying the same thing. http://www.wztv.com/newsroom/top_stories/wztv_vid_1009.shtml

[Deathravin]

Why don't you guys come up with a system that will work. That's a discussion I'd much rather read.

[Tsa`ah]

Has there ever, in the history of the world, been something where the government was able to get work done cheaper and more efficiently with higher quality than private sector free market innovation? I can only half think of one thing. The USPS, cheaper and sometimes better than UPS, sometimes, not usually, but they've gotten better, but cheaper for sure. Of course, the USPS charges for services.

If the USPS didn't charge directly for service, it would be up to the tax payers.

As it stands, you only pay for postal service when you use it ... it works just like the highway/interstate system.


The best way to improve the cost, quality, and accessibility of healthcare is not to have the government dole it out. It is to empower the people to control more of their healthcare choices, then unleash doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies to compete for patients (ie, business).

You, and others, keep spouting this sort of rhetoric ... yet fail to provide suggestions on how to do it.


Gosh, look at the computer industry. Remember how expensive the Internet used to be? Cell phones? Computers? I remember paying $40 per megabyte for a ram upgrade, not even gigabyte, megabyte. $160 for a 4mb ram chip. How did things get cheaper and not more expensive? Could it have been competition for consumer dollars. Xbox comes out, Playstation drops in price, voila. Price competition, drive for innovation to produce a marketshare grabbing product. Instead of a few stuffy bureaucrats thinking of ways to save money while enjoying their 6 figure appointment jobs, EVERYONE works on it.

Yet medicine and healthcare in general has done the complete opposite. At one time people could afford to pay for their medicine, doctor's visits, and hospital care. The government came along and let the "free market" dictate costs, care, and coverage ... and here we are.

Your examples don't seem to working out in your favor.


A trillion dollars? Who needs it.

A trillion dollars for what and over what span of time?

[Mabus]

Ordering a pizza in the future, according to the ACLU (swf file). (http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf)

[Latrinsorm]

Has there ever, in the history of the world, been something where the government was able to get work done cheaper and more efficiently with higher quality than private sector free market innovation?
And quite frankly, how about providing an example of our government spending efficiently, not the ancient egyptians. Try to be a little more relevant.Calling you out on your hyperbole is wholly relevant to this thread.
Nuclear reactions were discovered at the University of Chicago as I recall. The Manhattan Project was to weaponize it, and you said nuclear power, not nuclear weapons.Nuclear reactions were discovered in Germany. The Fermi Pile at Chicago couldn't power a lightbulb. It wasn't until the government started the Manhattan Project that large-scale nuclear reactors were created in America. The first large-scale nuclear reactor was in the USSR, of course, but I don't want to strain your rationalization machine further.

And for the record, I gave you three examples of American governmental projects from the past 50 years. That you erroneously claimed they were the fruit of private sector labors is no skin off my nose.

[Clove]

One word: NASA.

[Androidpk]

One word: NASA.

We have Nazi Germany to thank for NASA.

[crb]

You, and others, keep spouting this sort of rhetoric ... yet fail to provide suggestions on how to do it.


You enjoy being a douchebag don't you? There have been tons of ideas for free market reforms. Allowing insurance to be purchases across state lines, making it easier for individuals to buy so companies compete over them, usage of HSAs to make health care consumers be health care purchasers, thus encouraging them to shop around based on price. Etc.



Yet medicine and healthcare in general has done the complete opposite. At one time people could afford to pay for their medicine, doctor's visits, and hospital care. The government came along and let the "free market" dictate costs, care, and coverage ... and here we are.


You think that the medical industry is in the throes of free market capitalism now and has been for the last few decades?!?!?!?!

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/7/13/633515408813814239-epic-fail---trainwreck.jpg

What made you think that? The fact that the government is the largest single purchaser of healthcare in the country? Or the fact that the government froze wages which launched the creation of employer plans and then later treated said plans with tax favorability to make sure they stayed? Or perhaps all the numerous paper pushing regulations tossed on the healthcare system by the government? (HIPAA anyone?) Or the blocking of "loser pays" tort reforms which would put a damper on frivolous lawsuits that contribute to expensive defensive medicine?

Ya, shit, these free market ideals have really fucked us.

[crb]

Only one problem in this argument and I agree with the basis of the argument, but having seen this in action in America on the state level with the implementation of TennCare the Tennessee revamping of Medicare into more like an insurance company than typical Medicare, doctors tried this and it was outlawed. They wrote the law such that if you took insurance than you had to take TennCare patients. Doctors were getting killed with hordes of patients flooding their offices and demanding to be seen, when the doctor, who charged like $60 for an office visit had to accept the new patients and TennCare decided that they would only pay $7 or a visit. The other insurance companies looked over their bills with a fine tooth comb to prevent cost shifting (like they should) and the result was the doctors were getting screwed big time. Hell, it cost most doctors more than $7 to provide the space and the lights for the visit, much less anything else. So, in the end, it turns into a mess (big surprise) and basically a case of slavery (forcing doctors to work for nothing and a legal punishment if you don’t).

After some months of fighting and legal BS and so on, Doctors across the board simply declared “we are not taking any new patients at this time.” Alternately, they decided to change over to cash only, payment on receipt business. You wanted to get care, you paid up front and then you filed your claim with your insurance to get reimbursed. Problem solved and again the people with government care that had no financial stake in dealing with their care get tossed out. I am not sure how they resolved this mess as I haven’t kept up with it after I moved away and only just recently moved back into the region, but I do know, that is what happened and is a real life case of how the proposed system, will, not can, WILL fail.

<added>Oh, some news from jsut a few hours ago saying the same thing. http://www.wztv.com/newsroom/top_stories/wztv_vid_1009.shtml

No, that is exactly a point I make.

Here is the theoretical chain of events that'll screw us.

1. Government creates insurance.
2. Government can't afford to pay bills.
3. Government docks insurance reimbursements.
4. Doctors and hospitals say fuck you, we can't treat your patients at a loss, we'll not accept your insurance.
5. Government says, fuck you back, we'll pass a law, and if you don't accept our insurance, you're going to prison.
6. Doctors and hospitals say fuck this, and quit, close, limit services, move to another country or state, or find other ways to limit care. Or just cut quality of care all around.

This ALREADY HAPPENS in poor areas of the country where everyone is already on government insurance (medicaid or medicare). My home town, quite poor, has no obstetrics at the hospital anymore, they couldn't afford it with the reimbursements they get. Anyone there who has a baby has to drive 45 minutes.

Meanwhile, because of the shitty work atmosphere and paycuts. Less people want to become doctors, and many many less foreigners want to come to America to be a doctor. If you're a brown doctor with a funny name and accent why come to America where people will think you're a terrorist unless you get paid more? And if you don't get paid more, why not go back to your home country?

So we'll have less doctors, and more patients. Which means that quality of care for everyone goes down, not just those with government insurance. Access goes down, and you get the defacto rationing everyone worries about.

Can't happen? Has happened. That TN example, Canada, Britain, etc.

If the healthcare bill included a clause saying Congress can never pass a law forcing acceptance of any government plan, thus forcing the government to compete in the free market, I would be able to swallow it. But without such a clause the government force is inevitable, and that'll screw us all.

[Tsa`ah]

You enjoy being a douchebag don't you? There have been tons of ideas for free market reforms. Allowing insurance to be purchases across state lines, making it easier for individuals to buy so companies compete over them, usage of HSAs to make health care consumers be health care purchasers, thus encouraging them to shop around based on price. Etc.

Yet for all of the "free market" reforms, premiums have increased by 120% since 99.

You have yet to offer a solution, other than "free market" which has done nothing but increase healthcare costs, let alone a methodology to implement anything you believe will work.

Hell, you keep providing examples of what hasn't worked. We've been doing the same fucking thing since 1971. After 38 years of failure ... you want to keep doing the same thing.



You think that the medical industry is in the throes of free market capitalism now and has been for the last few decades?!?!?!?!

LOL .... wow, you're a fucking moron.


What made you think that? The fact that the government is the largest single purchaser of healthcare in the country? Or the fact that the government froze wages which launched the creation of employer plans and then later treated said plans with tax favorability to make sure they stayed? Or perhaps all the numerous paper pushing regulations tossed on the healthcare system by the government? (HIPAA anyone?) Or the blocking of "loser pays" tort reforms which would put a damper on frivolous lawsuits that contribute to expensive defensive medicine?

Ya, shit, these free market ideals have really fucked us.

48 million uninsured, between 2000 and 2007 that number increased by 8 million. By the time the 2009 census rolls in we're likely to see 50 million uninsured.

Working free market right?

You began this thread with, and then sidestepped my question about, 1 trillion dollars.

We spend almost as much on healthcare as we do in taxes. 2.2 trillion in 2007, 2.4 in 2008. This is annually ... not spread out over 3, 6, or 10 years as you're bitching about.

From 1970, where healthcare spending was less than 8% GDP, now it's over 16%. Roughly 327 billion in todays dollar with a population of about 100 million fewer.

80% of the uninsured come from working families. They make too much for public assistance, too little to afford coverage. 40% came from homes earning roughly the national median income.

The free market sure has worked for them.

2.4 trillion in healthcare spending in one year ... this is expected to eclipse 3 trillion around 2012. That's your free market system.

Let's put your 1 trillion over time next to actual spending over time. Let's assume healthcare spending will stagnate over the next four years.

2009-2012 = 9.6 trillion dollars ... assuming spending stagnates.
2009-2012 = 250 billion per year .... assuming one trillion is spread out over only four years.

Here's where you deficit spending argument loses wind. We spent about 10 trillion, by today's standard, to get out of the great depression. That's 10 trillion in deficit spending. That's 120% of GDP during that time frame spent in an effort to end the depression. We haven't even come close to that in six months. We certainly inherited about 80% deficit spending (that had nothing to do with exiting a recession, or at leave very little) in reference to GDP and have added to that specifically to get out of the recession.

You're under the impression that the free market will improve or solve the healthcare problem .... yet we have 39 years worth of examples of it not working.

Four yeas of a stagnant example should show you that. We're going to match in four years of spending what it took the US government to do in a little over 20.

And cheers ... you followed trolling 101, as written by PB, to a T.

[TheWitch]

The point as I interpreted it wasn't that the health care industry is a failing free market.

The point is, health care is not a free market in almost any respect at all, with an enormous amount of government meddling in efforts to try to "fix" things that have in many ways made matters worse not better, and can really be considered a typical wasteful, overly expensive government controlled market.

Some of you seem to think that rewarding the government for their failures in their endeavors in the health care industry thus far by giving them even more, and in some instances in this bill ALL control over the industry will make things better.

Many, many people do not agree and I am certainly among them. There are some things the government does well and are constitutionally the things they should do well: defense, NASA, etc. When I say "well" however, do not think I mean efficiently. But they do get that job done, and defense of this country means the entire country - which the Federal govt is and should be responsible for.

What works in one state and one segment of the population cannot be expected to and will not work for all states and all segments of the population. This bill seeks to make uniform things that are too personal to be uniform.

Not to mention the last ~400 or so pages of this bill. In typical liberal fashion, there are billions upon billions of spending initiatives hidden in this bill that have very little to do with health care and more to do with legislating social policy and lifestyle and rewarding campaign contributors. When (and if) I finish reading this thing, I'll post more specifics. The Senate website titles it thus:


H.R.3200
Title: To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.

The bold is mine, and I am weeding through this monster since Congress seems uniquely and frighteningly uninterested in doing so and the media seems equally uninterested in exposing some of the 300lb hogs included in it. Not that it will matter, I'm not that delusional, but at least I'll know what's being crammed down my throat by the liberals when the polls open in 2010.

Here's the link to the Senate bill, if you're interested:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

[Warriorbird]

You're forgetting all the unleveling that private industry gets in the healthcare industry completely. I'd expect that of Virilneus but not of you.

It is nowhere near a free market.

[Rocktar]

Yet for all of the "free market" reforms, premiums have increased by 120% since 99.

You have yet to offer a solution, other than "free market" which has done nothing but increase healthcare costs, let alone a methodology to implement anything you believe will work.

Just to reitterate:

Health care is NOT currently a FREE MARKET


Poor dodge there, gods, get better at ignoring the argument or dodging the subject or shut up already.

Goddamnit now I agreed with WB about something, this really could be the end of days.

[Bhuryn]

Yet for all of the "free market" reforms, premiums have increased by 120% since 99.

You have yet to offer a solution, other than "free market" which has done nothing but increase healthcare costs, let alone a methodology to implement anything you believe will work.


Can you point to a place where the free market failed healthcare? I can certainly point to plenty of places the government did.

Don't blame the market for the government's folly.

[Parkbandit]

And cheers ... you followed trolling 101, as written by PB, to a T.

If you define "trolling" as someone who believes you literally have shit for brains, then you would have to include a vast majority of this forum, pal.

[Rocktar]

If you define "trolling" as someone who believes you literally have shit for brains, then you would have to include a vast majority of this forum, pal.

~raises his hand~

[Parkbandit]

~raises his hand~

That really doesn't help...

[Tsa`ah]

The point is, health care is not a free market in almost any respect at all, with an enormous amount of government meddling in efforts to try to "fix" things that have in many ways made matters worse not better, and can really be considered a typical wasteful, overly expensive government controlled market.

Ok, then let's run with your "point". What federal regulations are driving up the cost of healthcare?


Some of you seem to think that rewarding the government for their failures in their endeavors in the health care industry thus far by giving them even more, and in some instances in this bill ALL control over the industry will make things better.

You see it as a failure of government, I see it a corporate failure. The government didn't force insurers into provider industry, the government didn't force insurers to absorb smaller insurers to the point of tempting anti-trust laws ... the government didn't force a great deal of things that the health insurance industry has created.

But of course, I'm interested in specifics here. What are these failing endeavors?


Many, many people do not agree and I am certainly among them. There are some things the government does well and are constitutionally the things they should do well: defense, NASA, etc. When I say "well" however, do not think I mean efficiently. But they do get that job done, and defense of this country means the entire country - which the Federal govt is and should be responsible for.

I can't find the constitutional provision that states the fed is responsible for shooting things into space, retrieving said things, and spending extended length of time observing space.

The constitution has provisions for the fed to maintain currency, mail, defense, and the protection of the rights of it's citizens.

You can't argue a responsibility that includes NASA but not healthcare. You're touching on the "providing for the well being" aspect, but trying to micro manage it. That door doesn't swing both ways.


What works in one state and one segment of the population cannot be expected to and will not work for all states and all segments of the population. This bill seeks to make uniform things that are too personal to be uniform.

States are by and large, responsible for their own health care regulations, unfortunately these regulations are widely variable from state to state. What I'm interested in reading is how does this legislation infringe upon State rights? What is too personal to be uniform?


Not to mention the last ~400 or so pages of this bill. In typical liberal fashion, there are billions upon billions of spending initiatives hidden in this bill that have very little to do with health care and more to do with legislating social policy and lifestyle and rewarding campaign contributors.

You're suggesting earmarks .... and suggesting the scary "socialism" ... and suggesting they're purely done by liberals.

Please do list them. This is nothing more than a standard slander tactic ... especially when you can target any spending and label it as pork if you don't agree with it.

The statement is funny and sad at the same time considering six of the top ten pork wranglers this year have been .... republicans.

[Clove]

...the fed to maintain currency, mail, defense, and the protection of the rights of it's citizens...Actually the Fed isn't responsible for any of those things.

Several state governments have placed mandatory coverage requirements on insurers... fucking the price. There are also regulations making mandatory fee equalization regardless of age and health, specifically in New York and possibly other states. If you think corporations are failing by absorbing smaller insurance companies, you clearly understand how insurance works about as well as you understand how the Fed works.

[Warriorbird]

...and there's always profit. For all the hate on government, people forget that companies are largely amoral entities.

There's many market segments that have been largely taken over by certain health associated entities... so competition doesn't actually exist.

The "free market" isn't free on multiple levels... but the modern Republican Party has ceased to fight trusts or monopolies in the slightest... y'know, the other aspect to the heroic shit that Teddy Roosevelt did.

[Clove]

Monopolies are not inherently bad in every scenario. Natural monopolies (such as public utilities) are generally able to offer services more efficiently than several firms in competition. Of course anti-competitive incentives still exist (such as rent-seeking) however, if properly regulated certain monopolies can be very beneficial to society. Imagine if you had several water and sewage providers, each duplicating infrastructure at essentially the same cost but fighting for a smaller share of consumers? Scenarios like that force prices up (assuming a constant margin) when compared to a single, public utility.

[Deathravin]

Police and Firefighters should turn into private, for profit companies.

[Bhuryn]

...and there's always profit. For all the hate on government, people forget that companies are largely amoral entities.

There's many market segments that have been largely taken over by certain health associated entities... so competition doesn't actually exist.

The "free market" isn't free on multiple levels... but the modern Republican Party has ceased to fight trusts or monopolies in the slightest...

There's no one that can say for certain if the free market controlled that healthcare system (instead of being manipulated by the government) that it wouldn't function like cellphones and computers or Ma Bell (even though the government furthered that problem).

I'll say this though:

The government has gotten more and more involved in healthcare over the years and you've seen a clear downturn in affordable healthcare options. You basically can't go to the doctor anymore without insurance and there's pretty much no such thing as a family doctor anymore. Good luck getting into the emergency room unless you're dieing -- if the hospital could even afford to keep it open. Now if only the common man could afford insurance...

I'm all for trying something different because the government is failing badly at it right now.



Monopolies are not inherently bad in every scenario. Natural monopolies (such as public utilities) are generally able to offer services more efficiently than several firms in competition.

That whole argument exists as a counter to the judicial inefficiency argument pro-regulation people use. It's, in fact, probably not valid to assume that just because one way is more efficient, that the market will do it that way. Look at cellphone towers. It would have been more efficient for Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, etc to build towers together but they didn't. That said, judicial inefficiency is probably the only valid argument they have and it's not to say that the local governments can't still be involved in zoning, and such, but when's the last time the government told AT&T what to sell a cellphone for?

[Bhuryn]

Police and Firefighters should turn into private, for profit companies.

I think they're generally considered local and federal responsibilies akin to the military =P.

Although, we did privatize part of the military in Iraq so who knows.

[Deathravin]

There's no one that can say for certain if the free market controlled that healthcare system (instead of being manipulated by the government) that it wouldn't function like cellphones and computers or Ma Bell (even though the government furthered that problem).

I'll say this though:

The government has gotten more and more involved in healthcare over the years and you've seen a clear downturn in affordable healthcare options. You basically can't go to the doctor anymore without insurance and there's pretty much no such thing as a family doctor anymore. Good luck getting into the emergency room unless you're dieing -- if the hospital could even afford to keep it open. Now if only the common man could afford insurance...

I'm all for trying something different because the government is failing badly at it right now.

You need to keep in mind that these increased prices have also come at a technological revolution which has garnered better (and vastly more expensive) testing by doctors. I keep hearing how healthcare was affordable when government was more out of it 30-40 years ago. But 30-40 years ago we didn't have CT, MRI, and the laundry list of other procedures and tests that we do now. Each one with a price tag on it.

[TheRunt]

The Islamic Empire did not have an emperor, and did not enslave the conquered. They managed to peacefully govern the conquered with much more success and much less bloody repression than did, say, the Soviets, or the Franks, or the Romans, or the Americans.
They didn't enslave the conquered? Perhaps not the entire population but they did take slaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/slavery/a/IslamRoleSlavery01.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm


Has there ever, in the history of the world, been something where the government was able to get work done cheaper and more efficiently with higher quality than private sector free market innovation? I can only half think of one thing. The USPS, cheaper and sometimes better than UPS, sometimes, not usually, but they've gotten better, but cheaper for sure. Of course, the USPS charges for services.

USPS isn't really a good example, its a borderline private company with gov oversight. And they have a gov mandated monopoly on letters, although there is a exception for emergency mail but private companies have to charge at least $3 or double the cost of first class whichever is more.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html



Several state governments have placed mandatory coverage requirements on insurers... fucking the price. There are also regulations making mandatory fee equalization regardless of age and health, specifically in New York and possibly other states.

You forgot fed regulations for minimum coverage for businesses that offer insurance to their employees.

[Bhuryn]

You need to keep in mind that these increased prices have also come at a technological revolution which has garnered better (and vastly more expensive) testing by doctors. I keep hearing how healthcare was affordable when government was more out of it 30-40 years ago. But 30-40 years ago we didn't have CT, MRI, and the laundry list of other procedures and tests that we do now. Each one with a price tag on it.

Well, no one's really done a conclusive study to show one way or the other. There are plenty of people that think the exact opposite though. Everything has a price tag.

Is it cheaper to run someone through a CT, find a brain tumor and remove it or is it cheaper to treat someone's potentially unknown symptoms for years without ever potentially finding the root of the issue? It's all about ROI.

[Deathravin]

Well, no one's really done a conclusive study to show one way or the other. There are plenty of people that think the exact opposite though. Everything has a price tag.

Is it cheaper to run someone through a CT, find a brain tumor and remove it or is it cheaper to treat someone's potentially unknown symptoms for years without ever potentially finding the root of the issue? It's all about ROI.

Ah, but for every person you're saying would have saved a bundle of money by finding a brain tumor and knowing exactly what/how/when etc, there are many more people run through the same CT machine "just in case" and find nothing.

[Stanley Burrell]

I am offering free gynecological exams to better the socialist agenda (call me.)

[Bhuryn]

Ah, but for every person you're saying would have saved a bundle of money by finding a brain tumor and knowing exactly what/how/when etc, there are many more people run through the same CT machine "just in case" and find nothing.

Well sure, but that alone doesn't mean anything if you could, for example, run a 1,000,000 people through a CT for the cost of treating one person for a lifetime of symptoms. I'm not saying your wrong, just that it's not really a strong argument without conclusive numbers.

[Latrinsorm]

They didn't enslave the conquered? Perhaps not the entire population but they did take slaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/slavery/a/IslamRoleSlavery01.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htmDid you read these links?

[TheRunt]

Did you read these links?

Yes I did

Slaves were obtained through conquest, tribute from vassal states (in the first such treaty, Nubia was required to provide hundreds of male and female slaves),


This has led to numerous "jihads" by Muslim states and tribes to attack other non-Muslim groups and obtain slaves.

[Tsa`ah]

Actually the Fed isn't responsible for any of those things.

Says who? You?

[Cephalopod]

Is it cheaper to run someone through a CT

If it will solve the health care crisis, I would be happy to run through CT over and over again.

[radamanthys]

Says who? You?

He confused the fed with the Fed. You were talking about the Federal Governenment, he thought you meant the Federal Reserve. Just a miscommunication, s'all.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes I did1. Direct quotes: "In total [Muhammad's] household and friends freed 39,237 slaves."
"Islam's reforms stipulating the conditions of enslavement seriously limited the supply of new slaves."
"According to Lewis, this reduction resulted in Arabs who wanted slaves having to look elsewhere to avoid the restrictions in the Qur'an, meaning an increase of importing of slaves from non-Muslim lands, primarily from Africa.", added emphasis mine.
2. "The majority of these slaves came from Europe and Africa -- there were always enterprising locals ready to kidnap or capture their fellow countrymen."
3. You're seriously citing a guy who goes by "Silas" and whose only credentials are a hotmail account?