Goodbye to US HealthCare?

[lurker]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

we may not have a free health care market, but we do have choices. I have a private plan I pay for. I am happy with it. Leave me the $#$#@ alone. Don't screw with it, don't make me participate in *your* plan.

This is all Road to Fascism stuff, accelerating at a faster rate. I hate it.

Have you ever lived abroad ? I spent 25 yrs living in Europe, and I can assure you that universal healthcare certainly does not make one feel like one is living under the impending threat of fascism. To say so is ridiculous.

US healthcare on the other hand most certainly is a "sword of Damocles" for many Americans, and especially if they are self insured and live in a state with medical underwriting. They are one serious illness from bankruptcy.

[MulaMan]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

Furthermore I still fail to see a cogent response as to why the US could not implement a system which is working in dozens of other nations.

It is because these people see anything Obama does as "socialist" and so must be wrong, even if it is a great improvement over the status quo.

They believe life is linear - left, center, right.

Obama left, me right, socialism left, capitalism right, right good, left bad.

Conclusion, any move to the left must be bad.

Unless of course it has to do with the military, military spending, centralization of military, socialist government that runs the military works just fine, socialist military health care, socialist military pensions, ...

The US military is a complete communist organization, centrally controlled and managed, it is even illegal within the military to talk out against 'the party elders' - and in return you get taken care of as one of the "party members" - LOL.

There is nothing more un-America then hearing military people talk against Obama as "socialist" - I challenge them to forego all the socialist government welfare hand-outs they will get for the rest of thier lives before talking about "capitalism".

Because you served for your country, you are allowed to receive socialist hand-outs but everyone else must be capitalist - LOL.

Same anti-American thing plays out in public employee unions.

[MulaMan]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

I would like to "opt out" of national defense.

I hate the fact the some government tells me what to do to keep my family "safe" and what is "national security" and what is not.

Many more Americans have been killed invading other countries for no reason after 911 then were killed in 911.

The American military does not make us 1 iota safer.

We now need to pay the health care and pensions for a huge military that was used to fight a 100% useless non-existant war.

Zero progress, still no Osama but we did get Sadam - arch enemy of Osama. Osama Bin Laden is laughing his ass off at retarded Americans.

I would like to fire the entire US military and CIA. Cut 50% of the spending and reallocate the other 50% to pay for education and health care for all - now that would be an AMERICAN IDEA.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

So when you get in a car accident, fall down a mountain, get hit by a bus, etc you carry your DNR in your wallet I hope:rolleyes:.

If say my net worth is X thousand dollars and someone administers 10X thousand dollars worth of medical service to my unconscious carcass without my consent or conscious awareness, then they took a bit of a gamble. I'll pay them what I can and what I deem reasonable if I live long enough to regain control of my finances.

But you are the rarest of cows one that actually pays for health services used as opposed to taking the subsidy or stiffing the Dr..

Yup .

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

I would like to "opt out" of national defense.

I hate the fact the some government tells me what to do to keep my family "safe" and what is "national security" and what is not.

Many more Americans have been killed invading other countries for no reason after 911 then were killed in 911.

The American military does not make us 1 iota safer.

We now need to pay the health care and pensions for a huge military that was used to fight a 100% useless non-existant war.

Zero progress, still no Osama but we did get Sadam - arch enemy of Osama. Osama Bin Laden is laughing his ass off at retarded Americans.

I would like to fire the entire US military and CIA. Cut 50% of the spending and reallocate the other 50% to pay for education and health care for all - now that would be an AMERICAN IDEA.

Careful. You'll start to sound like a Canadian.

Canadian flag.gif

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

I'm unsure what is unclear. The population of Florida is disproportionately represented by those who have never worked there but moved there to retire. ... A state based system wouldn't work for Florida; similarly state based systems don't allow portability.

Well, a state based system can work in Florida. It just won't be equitable with some other state that has more young people.

You are saying that the inequities are an unacceptable problem that must be fixed. I'm saying that the federal solution to this inequity is worse than the problem. I don't see anyway that either of us is likely to convince the other on this disagreement.

50 individual state health regimes - besides having the portability issue noted above as well as the potential demographic challenges - also disaggregate the bargaining power vs. pharmaceutical companies, for example. The lobbying resistance of any individual state is also lower than that of the federal government and also less visible.

Major corporations have more success, not less, lobbying large governments. Smaller more local governments are more likely (though not for certain) responsive to the local needs of their constituent residents. Larger more distant governments are more likely responsive to larger more powerful constituent interests such as large corporations.

My immediate paragraph above is quite opposite to your paragraph just above that. On this matter, I'm pretty sure you're wrong and I'm right, in the present circumstance. I find that the federal government (courts, legislature and administration) have been sufficiently co-opted by the corptocracy that the only way to improve things at present is to dismantle much of the federal intervention into our social, medical, welfare, housing and education activities.

It might be that in some other day and age, federal power could be used to bring under control corptocracy that has overgrown and is abusing state and local governments. But that only works until the corptocracy captures the federal government. When that happens, as now, federal power increases in the "name of" regulating and containing corptocracy power, but in actuality, any further increase in federal power acrues to the advantage of corptocracy power, regardless of the justifying rhetoric.

Secondly the likelihood of 50 states all passing health regimes is nil.

As above, we disagree on whether this is a problem deserving of a federal solution.

I don't see having a comprehensive health care provision system in the US as the lesser of two evils. I see one evil: the health care system in the US is not working now. A state based system doesn't break the multinational oligarchy any more than no national health care system; the way to break the oligarchy is to fight it - fighting it can be in any system.

The oligarchy now depends on and incorporates federal power. It has achieved substantial regulatory, judicial and legislative capture. Diminishing federal power harms the oligarchy.

I see this in a quite direct fashion in my life. The nutritional, medical and pharmaceutical remedies that I seek are more difficult to obtain, sometimes impossible to obtain, because of federal intervention. The Feds are an extension of the Big Ag, Drug and Med corptocracy working to impede my access to what I consider to be healthier alternatives. The Feds are now part of the problem, not part of the solution.

But fighting the oligarchy doesn't address the health care issue any more than Communism/Lenin fixed the Russian economy when it took out Kerensky. But the change in regime allowed a change in government behavior (for better or worse).

I don't want to change the flag or spokesman for the Feds. I want to undercut their power. Their power has become a force contrary to the interests of myself or other individuals.

As for 'pay as you go', I repeat again: having 'all you can eat' insurance is also part of the problem.

Insurance companies have extremely little incentive to encourage preventative practices. A government on the hook no matter what does.

Yup. It's worse than that. Insurance, pharmaceutical and medical have a strong incentive to foster, not inhibit, long term chronic illness.

Excuse me, but insurance companies are EXACTLY supposed to be long term savers. Otherwise life insurance is completely pointless. The fundamental principle of insurance is that you pay your actuarial share each year with the long term expectation that the insurance company will be around to pay when you make a claim.

I would put that differently. Insurance balances out expenses in the immediate. If 1000 of us have insurance for hurricanes, and 1 of us is wiped out by a hurricane this year, then the premiums that the other 999 of us paid that year help reimburse the expenses of the 1 who was wiped out.

Long term time dependencies are the nemesis of our economy and have to be kept on the simplest of terms, such as a conventional 30 year mortgage or a bank savings account or treasuries or bonds in order to avoid confusing the various risks and incentives involved leading to major economic crises.

To say that insurance companies cannot save long term means the fundamental principle is broken to begin with.

Insurance does not pay you from what you paid them in prior years. It pays you from what others paid that same year. Even the vaunted Social Security and Medicare systems work that way.

It seems that you feel opting out of the system will somehow break the oligarchy you speak of.

I don't expect to break the oligarchy. I hope to minimize its intrusion on my life, by restraining its further grab of federal power to further its goals. I consider --any-- major (1000 page plus) legislation that passes Congress to be on the whole a further advance of corptocracy power. At present the corptocracy has sufficiently captured Congress that there is no other possibility.

Broken systems change only when a force changes it; having a federal program with the right mandate could be that force.

The currently captured federal government does not, can not and will not have such a mandate.

Individuals choosing to die unnecessarily is not going to do it; the vast majority of the population is not going to make the same choice.

I am not choosing to die; I am choosing to live. Those who eat the food most people eat and who follow the long term care and chronic illness instructions of most medical professionals are submitting to an early death.

Furthermore I still fail to see a cogent response as to why the US could not implement a system which is working in dozens of other nations.

Because our US federal govenment is too well captured by large ag, drug and med corptocracy interests.

The money is there. The skill set is there. The need is there.

The money and skill are there to ensure other results.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

Well, a state based system can work in Florida. It just won't be equitable with some other state that has more young people.

There are slightly under 4.5M Floridians over the age of 55 vs. just over 6.5M Floridians between ages 25 to 54.

Oklahoma in contrast has a ratio of just 2 to 1 while California and Texas have a ratio almost 2.5 to 1.

So certainly you are correct in a general way. In a specific way, can Florida make its system work at under 1.5 to 1?

More importantly, you are rationalizing that a state system CAN work when there is clearly a cross state dynamic. You simply are motivated by your anti-federal bias to find any excuse to avoid a federal system.

Fair enough.

Major corporations have more success, not less, lobbying large governments. Smaller more local governments are more likely (though not for certain) responsive to the local needs of their constituent residents. Larger more distant governments are more likely responsive to larger more powerful constituent interests such as large corporations.

True in a general sense. But our present lack of leadership does not mean it will always be so. Also your assertion that a collection of smaller governments is harder to lobby actually reinforces the multinational grip: only the biggest companies could afford a 50 state campaign whereas even relatively small organizations can push the federal government on very directed issues.

Secondly your points still fail to address that local governments will not likely all join in to provide even a lip service health care program for their residents.

Certainly from your anti-federalist point of view, this is a feature.

From a health care safety net point of view this is a failure.

The oligarchy now depends on and incorporates federal power. It has achieved substantial regulatory, judicial and legislative capture. Diminishing federal power harms the oligarchy.

This may be true, but devolving this issue unto the 50 states is no more likely to help the problem.

Your pursuit of diminishing federal power vs. the objective of fixing the health care system are mutually incompatible in this case - even disregarding the fiscal issues almost every state is experiencing now.

You also fail to see the fundamental flaw in your argument: the oligarchy focuses on the federal government BECAUSE it is a threat. Only the federal government can fight the oligarchy should it choose to do so.

I would put that differently. Insurance balances out expenses in the immediate. If 1000 of us have insurance for hurricanes, and 1 of us is wiped out by a hurricane this year, then the premiums that the other 999 of us paid that year help reimburse the expenses of the 1 who was wiped out.

...

Insurance does not pay you from what you paid them in prior years. It pays you from what others paid that same year. Even the vaunted Social Security and Medicare systems work that way.

I'm sorry, but your understanding of insurance is quite simplistic and wrong. There aren't hurricanes every year. There aren't floods every year. There aren't even car accidents for each person every year. The way insurance works is that actuarial tables define the average risk OVER TIME with premiums paid yearly to build and maintain the float. If the payouts are less than as defined by actuarial figures, the insurance company is still required to maintain a specific pile of cash (the float) against the need as defined by law.

Berkshire Hathaway, for example, has years where it makes more money because its super-cat policies don't pay out. But the full premiums paid that year for the super-cat insurance is not equal to the insurance float Berkshire must maintain. The float is built over time from portions of premiums paid.

Just because the Social Security and Medicare programs are pay-as-you-go does not mean they are insurance. They are pyramid schemes.

I don't want to change the flag or spokesman for the Feds. I want to undercut their power. Their power has become a force contrary to the interests of myself or other individuals.

...

I don't expect to break the oligarchy. I hope to minimize its intrusion on my life, by restraining its further grab of federal power to further its goals. I consider --any-- major (1000 page plus) legislation that passes Congress to be on the whole a further advance of corptocracy power. At present the corptocracy has sufficiently captured Congress that there is no other possibility.

...

The currently captured federal government does not, can not and will not have such a mandate.

...

Because our US federal govenment is too well captured by large ag, drug and med corptocracy interests.

No disagreement there. But avoidance of the problem doesn't solve it - unless you're ready to leave the country as I am :rolleyes:

If you plan to continue living here, then fighting the problem is necessary.

In the meantime what you are really advocating is continuing the suffering of the US due to its health care problem as a means of driving more people against the federal government (and all establishment).

How very Mao-ist.

[grapejelly]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

fascism is really a form of socialism, and this is what the present situation is about. A giant increase in government grabbing power and control over a huge part of the economy.

There is no constitutional authority for this.

And it is wrong because it is coercive.

But that debate is long over for most folks. They are fine with the government controlling 45% of the US economy today and maybe 55% after this facsist health care law passes.

What is disappointing is that on a site like iTulip, people do not recognize the over arching superiority of liberty and freedom when it comes to things like the ability to choose your own health care.

This is why theory is important. If you understand the theory of a free market, you realize that there are two ways to achieve something: by contract, with two parties both better off after the bargain than before, or by political means, with one party coerced and compelled unwillingly.

More and more decisions are done by political means and we are all poorer because of it. What applies in the FIRE economy also applies in the health care realm. A few people who are politically on top get very rich and the rest of us sink deeper.

[Raz]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

fascism is really a form of socialism, and this is what the present situation is about. A giant increase in government grabbing power and control over a huge part of the economy.

There is no constitutional authority for this.

And it is wrong because it is coercive.

But that debate is long over for most folks. They are fine with the government controlling 45% of the US economy today and maybe 55% after this facsist health care law passes.

What is disappointing is that on a site like iTulip, people do not recognize the over arching superiority of liberty and freedom when it comes to things like the ability to choose your own health care.

This is why theory is important. If you understand the theory of a free market, you realize that there are two ways to achieve something: by contract, with two parties both better off after the bargain than before, or by political means, with one party coerced and compelled unwillingly.

More and more decisions are done by political means and we are all poorer because of it. What applies in the FIRE economy also applies in the health care realm. A few people who are politically on top get very rich and the rest of us sink deeper.

"Right on", brother.

(As a warning, grapejelly, if I can get my hands on a Stinger I intend to shoot down
that counterfeiting bastard who has taken over the controls of your helicopter!)

[jiimbergin]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

fascism is really a form of socialism, and this is what the present situation is about. A giant increase in government grabbing power and control over a huge part of the economy.

There is no constitutional authority for this.

And it is wrong because it is coercive.

But that debate is long over for most folks. They are fine with the government controlling 45% of the US economy today and maybe 55% after this facsist health care law passes.

What is disappointing is that on a site like iTulip, people do not recognize the over arching superiority of liberty and freedom when it comes to things like the ability to choose your own health care.

This is why theory is important. If you understand the theory of a free market, you realize that there are two ways to achieve something: by contract, with two parties both better off after the bargain than before, or by political means, with one party coerced and compelled unwillingly.

More and more decisions are done by political means and we are all poorer because of it. What applies in the FIRE economy also applies in the health care realm. A few people who are politically on top get very rich and the rest of us sink deeper.

exactly right, too bad more people don't understand this

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

fascism is really a form of socialism, and this is what the present situation is about. A giant increase in government grabbing power and control over a huge part of the economy.

There is no constitutional authority for this.

And it is wrong because it is coercive.

But that debate is long over for most folks. They are fine with the government controlling 45% of the US economy today and maybe 55% after this facsist health care law passes.

What is disappointing is that on a site like iTulip, people do not recognize the over arching superiority of liberty and freedom when it comes to things like the ability to choose your own health care.

This is why theory is important. If you understand the theory of a free market, you realize that there are two ways to achieve something: by contract, with two parties both better off after the bargain than before, or by political means, with one party coerced and compelled unwillingly.

More and more decisions are done by political means and we are all poorer because of it. What applies in the FIRE economy also applies in the health care realm. A few people who are politically on top get very rich and the rest of us sink deeper.

grapejelly, there is so much bull in your comment, it truly is incredible from any point of reality.

But then "north of nirvana," where you claim to be located offers a whole lot of clarification of "where you are coming from" in the derivation of your opinions.

Main Entry:nirvana
Pronunciation:nir-*v*-n*, (*)n*r-
Function:noun
Usageften capitalized
Etymology:Sanskrit nirv**a, literally, act of extinguishing, from nis- out + v*ti it blows — more at WIND
Date:1801
1 : the final beatitude that transcends suffering, karma, and samsara and is sought especially in Buddhism through the extinction of desire and individual consciousness
2 a : a place or state of oblivion to care, pain, or external reality; also : BLISS, HEAVEN b : a goal hoped for but apparently unattainable : DREAM
–nir£van£ic \-*v*-nik, -*va-\ adjective

Things designated as "north" generally when used not actually to describe geographical directions, imply "up" or "above;" things "south" as "down" or "below."

So I deduce your opinions are even more extreme than anything relating to reality, what you perceive or desire as best is unattainable or a dream, so in my opinion, most of us would be better off totally disregarding your unrealistic answers to the problems confronting the US.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

You simply are motivated by your anti-federal bias to find any excuse to avoid a federal system.

Yup .

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

What is disappointing is that on a site like iTulip, people do not recognize the over arching superiority of liberty and freedom when it comes to things like the ability to choose your own health care.

The over-arching superiority of liberty and freedom to choose your own health care so far has resulted in twice or more the annual cost per capita vs. anywhere in the world with poorer results.

The superiority has also resulted in 10% or more of the population uninsured.

The superiority of liberty and freedom also has enshrined a Medicare system in which costs are rising many multiple times the rate of revenue increases.

So, please enlighten me on the superiority. I am not seeing it.

[grapejelly]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

The over-arching superiority of liberty and freedom to choose your own health care so far has resulted in twice or more the annual cost per capita vs. anywhere in the world with poorer results.

The superiority has also resulted in 10% or more of the population uninsured.

The superiority of liberty and freedom also has enshrined a Medicare system in which costs are rising many multiple times the rate of revenue increases.

So, please enlighten me on the superiority. I am not seeing it.

you are not seeing that we have a 40% free market in health care already, and this is NOT a free market so how can you draw conclusions from it?

When I go to the doctor now, neither he nor I have an idea of how much the price will be.

If we deregulate it, we'll start seeing the benefits of a free market.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

The over-arching superiority of liberty and freedom to choose your own health care so far has resulted in twice or more the annual cost per capita vs. anywhere in the world with poorer results.

As grapejelly notes in his reply, we don't have a free health care system; we have a system controlled by an oligarchy of big ag, drug and medical firms, who have captured control of the universities (what they teach and what they research), schools (what they teach), foundations (what they fund), media, legislature, bureacracy and courts.