SiCKo by Micheal Moore

[Tale]

Why does taks hate freedom?

 

not taks

[taks]

i hope that's a joke... it is, right?

 

taks

[Tale]

It's not a joke. It's a subtle parody of US congolomoneofascidictatorialism.

 

I want you to think about that.

 

not taks

[Enoch]

The point being what we have now does not work. The capitalism model simply does not work.

again, this is NOT a capitalism model at work, not even close. health care, and the insurance industry, is probably the most heavily regulated in the US. consumers cannot even sue the very insurance companies representing them. your logic is baffling on this one... on one hand, you're faulting a system heavily corrupted by the government, and on the other, you're advocating more government interference. if the government got out of the way, standard capitalistic models of competition would take over and things would naturally improve - and the insurance companies, and health care systems, that weren't operating properly/efficiently would bankrupt themselves.

Except that the moral hazard inherent in insurance contracts is a widely-recognized failure of free markets. Price competition fails when the person making the purchasing decision is not the person who bears the immediate cost. The problems with the U.S. health care industry don't come entirely from government involvement.

 

 

Veterinary health is simpler because insurance is rare, so the people deciding to purchase treatment are the ones who bear the costs. This results in robust price competition. Also, societal values differ, in that if an animal needs a medical procedure that its owner cannot afford, we're generally OK with letting the animal die. The same is not true for humans.

[taks]

Except that the moral hazard inherent in insurance contracts is a widely-recognized failure of free markets. Price competition fails when the person making the purchasing decision is not the person who bears the immediate cost. The problems with the U.S. health care industry don't come entirely from government involvement.

sure, i agree it's not _entirely_ due to government involvement, but largely so.

 

the whole concept of insurance is a bit of a scam in the first place. you're betting on getting hurt or sick. years ago, people only got major medical for extreme occurrences. now everyone wants even their doctor's visits to be insured. somewhere along the line, the consumer needs to be bearing the cost directly (consumers actually do, but indirectly). ultimately, government regulations are the reason insurance companies (HMOs in particular) and the like exist in the first place.

 

taks

Edited June 28, 2007 by taks

[taks]

It's not a joke. It's a subtle parody of US congolomoneofascidictatorialism.

 

I want you to think about that.

 

not taks

i've said nothing contrary to freedom. in fact, my personal policies are all about freedom: live and let live (or die, such as it may be). requiring me to pay for your insurance (you simply as a rhetorical object of the statement) infringes upon my freedom.

 

taks

[taks]

i think the takeaway is that insurance is sort of the free-market version of socialism. i.e., you're spreading the cost of otherwise rare occurrences across a wide body of consumers, most of whom never (or rarely) need the services. my father over the last several years has burned way more than his "fair share" of what he paid into it, btw.

 

taks

[Tale]

It's not a joke. It's a subtle parody of US congolomoneofascidictatorialism.

 

I want you to think about that.

 

not taks

i've said nothing contrary to freedom. in fact, my personal policies are all about freedom: live and let live (or die, such as it may be). requiring me to pay for your insurance (you simply as a rhetorical object of the statement) infringes upon my freedom.

 

taks

A lot of people like to say that and it sounds good, it really does. But then when you think about it more, you realise that the government already gets enough money to do this already. The only reason it doesn't is because it wants to enact out the passive genocide disenfranchised and poor.

[Guard Dog]

Except that the moral hazard inherent in insurance contracts is a widely-recognized failure of free markets. Price competition fails when the person making the purchasing decision is not the person who bears the immediate cost. The problems with the U.S. health care industry don't come entirely from government involvement.

 

 

Veterinary health is simpler because insurance is rare, so the people deciding to purchase treatment are the ones who bear the costs. This results in robust price competition.

 

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Every one here agrees the problem is prohibitive costs. Get the government and the insurance companies out of the way and the market forces will bring the costs to heel. Once thats done, then we work on a way to ensure low income people can afford health care. I have a few ideas. Making ALL medical expenditures a tax deduction (as opposed to a percentage now). Tax exempt medical savings accounts. There are other ways to do it without directly involving the government.

 

 

Also societal values differ, in that if an animal needs a medical procedure that its owner cannot afford, we're generally OK with letting the animal die.

 

Speak for yourself there. If one of my dogs (i have 15) needs something, I will FIND a way to pay for it. I'll take them to the vet before i ever take myself to the doctor.

[Tale]

15?

 

How big is your estate?

 

edit: not taks

Edited June 28, 2007 by Tale

[Guard Dog]

15?

 

How big is your estate?

 

edit: not taks

 

Estate . actually it's 1.75 acres out in the last rual area in Palm Beach County.

[taks]

A lot of people like to say that and it sounds good, it really does. But then when you think about it more, you realise that the government already gets enough money to do this already. The only reason it doesn't is because it wants to enact out the passive genocide disenfranchised and poor.

money that's already been taken from me. it's not a matter if the government has enough money already, since it came from the people paying the most taxes in the first place (of which i am included). an no, btw, the US does not already have enough tax income to pay for everyone's health care. medicare/medicaid is already measured in the hundreds of $B, full health care for everyone would be measured in the $Ts.

 

taks

[taks]

Get the government and the insurance companies out of the way and the market forces will bring the costs to heel.

also my point. part of the problem with high costs, insurance issues with the free-market aside, is all the bureaucracy involved.

 

Making ALL medical expenditures a tax deduction (as opposed to a percentage now). Tax exempt medical savings accounts.

expenses have to be more than 7.5% of your gross income and only the expenses OVER that level count (uh, maybe net, either way, i can't get any deduction). it's a total joke that an employer can offer pre-tax coverage, and/or you can take out a medical expense plan, but you can't simply deduct the costs directly. if they dropped that ludicrous rule, there'd be less red-tape immediately, and no need for all the other bureaucracy that goes with it. sheesh. congress consists of a bunch of morons.

 

taks

[Pidesco]

The US have one of the highests GDPs per capita in the world. So how is it that Portugal(or insert country of choice) can afford Universal Health Care for it's population but while the US can't?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...PPP)_per_capita

Edited June 28, 2007 by Pidesco

[taks]

and exactly how high are the tax rates in portugal? and how small is portugal? the US would have to raise taxes to afford it. trying to compare tiny countries to the US isn't a very convincing way to argue such a point. plus, the costs don't scale exactly linearly, and the US is already shouldering the burden of new drug research (that's why the inhaler costs 5 cents in cuba, but $120 in the US).

 

taks

[taks]

this is almost humorous. some of you really think that the US could simply go to a state-sponsored health care system and it would not impact the rest of the world. state-sponsored systems force the drug companies (and others) to offer their goods and services at just enough to cover the manufacturing/overhead costs, plus a nominal profit, at the risk of violating patents. not so in the US. foreign countries could not otherwise afford the true cost of goods, so stating that "portugal can afford it" falls on its face.

 

taks

[Xard]

B-but they're taking your money away and limiting your freedom!

[theslug]

Well taks it may appear that you have won this round.

[taks]

hehe, arguing on the net is like running in the special olympics. even if you win... you're still tarded.

 

this is the only outlet i get to debate people that disagree with me. i live in a society surrounded by either military, or engineers working in some fashion for the military. you can only guess where the average views on such things lie. of course, i'm the only true atheist i know since this is also a fairly religious town.

 

taks

[Pidesco]

Don't economies of scale work in medicine? Also, isn't most of new drug research funded by private companies?

 

I'm betting that one of the main differences between Portugal and the US is the percentage of the GNP that's spent with the military. Proportionally, the US must spend a lot more of its tax income with the military.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

 

 

Edit: I left to start my dinner, an now it's too late.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Pidesco

[Tale]

A lot of people like to say that and it sounds good, it really does. But then when you think about it more, you realise that the government already gets enough money to do this already. The only reason it doesn't is because it wants to enact out the passive genocide disenfranchised and poor.

money that's already been taken from me. it's not a matter if the government has enough money already, since it came from the people paying the most taxes in the first place (of which i am included). an no, btw, the US does not already have enough tax income to pay for everyone's health care. medicare/medicaid is already measured in the hundreds of $B, full health care for everyone would be measured in the $Ts.

 

taks

The US government has far more money than it lets on. If they cut into their blag bag proft (drug traffiking) or started releasing some of the advanced technologies they gained from Roswell, it would be easy to make the difference between $B and $T.

[taks]

hehe, no, they don't. the US government income is documented all over the place, and the "hidden money" isn't nearly as much as people think. granted, there are a lot of superflous expenditures, but that's still immaterial to affordability.

 

taks

[Pidesco]

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/4/37504406.pdf

 

I thought this was interesting. Tax income only accounts for 25% of US's GDP.

[Guard Dog]

hehe, arguing on the net is like running in the special olympics. even if you win... you're still tarded.

 

this is the only outlet i get to debate people that disagree with me. i live in a society surrounded by either military, or engineers working in some fashion for the military. you can only guess where the average views on such things lie. of course, i'm the only true atheist i know since this is also a fairly religious town.

 

taks

You know Taks, you have a point here. I've never met an engineer who was a liberal. They are all somewhere between libertarian or conservative. I wonder why? (Thats liberal/conservative of the american definition to all you euro folks who are thinking wtf?)

 

Anyway, it took 8 pages but we won the point! Yea! *slaps hi-five to Taks*

Edited June 28, 2007 by Guard Dog

[taks]

Don't economies of scale work in medicine?

yeah, the the savings of the economies of scale are all going to the state-sponsored systems.

 

Also, isn't most of new drug research funded by private companies?

yes, and which country's populace do you think is paying the private companies to cover these costs? remember, $120 inhaler in the US, 5 cent inhaler (probably manufacturing cost minus gov't kick-in) in cuba.

 

to say that michael moore doesn't understand simple economic theory is a gross understatement. of course, he probably does, and probably doesn't care since his point wouldn't be very valid if he made note of that.

 

I'm betting that one of the main differences between Portugal and the US is the percentage of the GNP that's spent with the military. Proportionally, the US must spend a lot more of its tax income with the military.

the US spends 4.06% of its GDP on the military, portugal 2.3%. the US has a $1.7T health care industry, with only $2.4T in income. taxes would essentially have to double in order to make it work, and that doesn't count the extra layer(s) of bureaucracy for an already bloated system.

 

taks