KillerMovies - Movies That Matter!

REGISTER HERE TO JOIN IN! - It's easy and it's free!
Home » Community » General Discussion Forum » Capitalism and health care

Capitalism and health care
Started by: cdtm

Forum Jump:
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (2): [1] 2 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread
cdtm
Senior Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location: United States

Capitalism and health care

Gouging during a disaster is a common criticism of anti-regulation attitudes. Water is in short supply, so you charge 2,000 dollars a bottle. I think that's something we can all agree is unethical.

But what about the person struck with terminal cancer. As much a disaster as a water shortage, yet they get bled for all their worth. Is this any more ethical then gouging the person dying of thirst after a storm? What's the difference?

The cancer victim isn't exactly in a position to haggle. Oh, sure, they can shop around before a disaster, but almost everybody gets bled out in the end... They're a business, and if you're a captive consumer with a limited budget and an insurance cap, that's not your problem, is it?

Isn't that the health care industry in a nutshell?


__________________

Old Post Aug 20th, 2018 06:09 PM
cdtm is currently offline Click here to Send cdtm a Private Message Find more posts by cdtm Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
SquallX
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: miami/fl.

I guess you can look at it from those views. I am not saying you are wrong, itís just one way to look at it.

I honestly wants for everyone to get help. But thatís only if we lived in a perfect world, and Mankind arenít ruled by greed. But at the same time, the world is a dog eat world dog, the fittest survives and the weak suffers.

Itís not just capitalism, itís just nature.

Old Post Aug 20th, 2018 07:07 PM
SquallX is currently offline Click here to Send SquallX a Private Message Find more posts by SquallX Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
quanchi112
Greatest Wizard

Gender: Male
Location: Wizarding World

Other countries prove health care is definitively sustainable. Greed dominates and those who donít see it are ignorant imo.


__________________

Old Post Aug 20th, 2018 07:26 PM
quanchi112 is currently offline Click here to Send quanchi112 a Private Message Find more posts by quanchi112 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
snowdragon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Somewhere in time

Re: Capitalism and health care

quote: (post)
Originally posted by cdtm
Isn't that the health care industry in a nutshell?


Is that your experience? That isn't mine. Now I will say I was a part of the insurance business for over 10 years, I don't like the model of making money while providing care.

Universal health care has its ups and downs, I think the USA could benefit from said system BUT don't think it is a system that will make everyone not sick and treat everyone the same, it doesn't.

Old Post Aug 20th, 2018 09:22 PM
snowdragon is currently offline Click here to Send snowdragon a Private Message Find more posts by snowdragon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Scribble
Bold As Boognish

Gender: Male
Location: Up On the Hill

The UK and Canadian models are definitely superior to the US one. I don't see why, as a developed people, we can't provide healthcare as a right whilst also having private healthcare for those who can or want to pay. Same as schooling, etc. It's just better for society overall, as far as I can tell.


__________________


I feel a little better

Old Post Aug 20th, 2018 09:29 PM
Scribble is currently offline Click here to Send Scribble a Private Message Find more posts by Scribble Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
snowdragon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Somewhere in time

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Scribble
The UK and Canadian models are definitely superior to the US one. I don't see why, as a developed people, we can't provide healthcare as a right whilst also having private healthcare for those who can or want to pay. Same as schooling, etc. It's just better for society overall, as far as I can tell.


The smarter part of the discussion isn't if we should do it , it's how we do it. That is something if done well and communicated clearly would be a huge win for the US. Unfortunately politics tends to cloud the issue and create sides where no one really wins.

Old Post Aug 20th, 2018 09:35 PM
snowdragon is currently offline Click here to Send snowdragon a Private Message Find more posts by snowdragon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Scribble
Bold As Boognish

Gender: Male
Location: Up On the Hill

quote: (post)
Originally posted by snowdragon
The smarter part of the discussion isn't if we should do it , it's how we do it. That is something if done well and communicated clearly would be a huge win for the US. Unfortunately politics tends to cloud the issue and create sides where no one really wins.
Oh for sure it'd be difficult, the current system is incredibly well-established by now in the US Ė but economically, it must be possible. I admit, I don't know a great deal about Obamacare, but it'd have to be implemented much better than that. It'd be interesting to see if someone like Bernie could implement something effective in the future.


Also, I just realised that my initial post makes me seem like I'm from the US (I'm actually from the UK), so sorry about that, bad wording on my part.


__________________


I feel a little better

Old Post Aug 20th, 2018 09:47 PM
Scribble is currently offline Click here to Send Scribble a Private Message Find more posts by Scribble Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
cdtm
Senior Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location: United States

According to someone who works in the drug industry, Obamacare wouldn't have done much for core problems like, say, a hospital overpaying for anti-venom by 3000%, then moving the zero over so a patient needs to mortgage their home to afford it. Meanwhile, you can buy the same stuff for 100 dollars in Mexico.


__________________

Old Post Aug 20th, 2018 09:55 PM
cdtm is currently offline Click here to Send cdtm a Private Message Find more posts by cdtm Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
snowdragon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Somewhere in time

quote: (post)
Originally posted by cdtm
According to someone who works in the drug industry, Obamacare wouldn't have done much for core problems like, say, a hospital overpaying for anti-venom by 3000%, then moving the zero over so a patient needs to mortgage their home to afford it. Meanwhile, you can buy the same stuff for 100 dollars in Mexico.


Thats because it didn't correct the issue of the contracts between insurance providers and the providers themselves.

It attempted to minimize the loss to the consumer but it didn't do a good job in dealing with the money itself.

Old Post Aug 20th, 2018 10:32 PM
snowdragon is currently offline Click here to Send snowdragon a Private Message Find more posts by snowdragon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
BackFire
Blood. It's nature's lube

Gender: Male
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Moderator

It's worth noting when discussing Obamacare that the original idea was to implement a public option into the system, thereby allowing basically anyone to buy into medicare if they so wished. They were, I believe, one vote short on this, so they had to scrap that part of it.


__________________

Old Post Aug 20th, 2018 10:56 PM
BackFire is currently offline Click here to Send BackFire a Private Message Find more posts by BackFire Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
samhain
The Demon Hunter

Gender: Male
Location: Malebolge

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Scribble
I don't see why, as a developed people, we can't provide healthcare as a right whilst also having private healthcare for those who can or want to pay.



I'm not sure that's the answer, if private healthcare were to be outlawed then it would improve universal healthcare IMO as rich or poor you'll be treated largely the same, The impetus would be on everyone to opt in to this as your money wont save you.


__________________
Then lets head down into that cellar and carve ourselves a witch


rolling on floor laughing smokin' messed

Old Post Aug 21st, 2018 09:05 AM
samhain is currently offline Click here to Send samhain a Private Message Find more posts by samhain Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Eternal Idol
Lono, "The Dog"

Gender: Male
Location: Colorado

quote: (post)
Originally posted by samhain
I'm not sure that's the answer, if private healthcare were to be outlawed then it would improve universal healthcare IMO as rich or poor you'll be treated largely the same, The impetus would be on everyone to opt in to this as your money wont save you.


I agree with this idea. Many people would call it un-American (a term I ****ing loathe, because it assumes the status quo is the best way), but most are getting milked by private insurance companies and would go bankrupt after severe medical problems, while the wealthy are largely unaffected by the costs. It's stupid not to support such a system, but [something-something freedom] and [something-something socialism], I guess.


__________________

Old Post Aug 21st, 2018 10:40 AM
Eternal Idol is currently offline Click here to Send Eternal Idol a Private Message Find more posts by Eternal Idol Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Scribble
Bold As Boognish

Gender: Male
Location: Up On the Hill

quote: (post)
Originally posted by samhain
I'm not sure that's the answer, if private healthcare were to be outlawed then it would improve universal healthcare IMO as rich or poor you'll be treated largely the same, The impetus would be on everyone to opt in to this as your money wont save you.
Whilst that could be true, I disagree as a baseline with limiting the market when it comes to healthcare; I think it'd actually stifle it and not allow it to develop as quickly as it could, technologically (among other things). Also, I doubt the current system could turn into your proposed system without decades of reformation first.


Whilst I draw the line at private police forces and prisons, having a private side to healthcare seems fair to me.


__________________


I feel a little better

Old Post Aug 21st, 2018 12:58 PM
Scribble is currently offline Click here to Send Scribble a Private Message Find more posts by Scribble Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I agree with this idea. Many people would call it un-American (a term I ****ing loathe, because it assumes the status quo is the best way), but most are getting milked by private insurance companies and would go bankrupt after severe medical problems, while the wealthy are largely unaffected by the costs.


Yeah, pretty sure we fought a bloody war against the British because the British were bleeding us of our money and not giving us much in return.

Seems American healthcare insurance companies are actually unamerican.


__________________

Old Post Aug 21st, 2018 05:46 PM
dadudemon is online now! Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
darthgoober
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Purgatory

quote: (post)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, pretty sure we fought a bloody war against the British because the British were bleeding us of our money and not giving us much in return.

Not really. I mean yeah the British did technically impose a lot of taxes on us, but they knew weren't exactly wealthy so the Tea Tax was the only one they insisted that we pay. And honestly... they deserved to milk quite a bit of money from us. The whole reason they started with the severe taxes is because America disobey British orders and attacked France which also forced the British to go to war with them. That's also why they started restricting our access to guns. When you get right down to it, our founding fathers were pretty much assholes...


__________________

Old Post Aug 21st, 2018 05:54 PM
darthgoober is currently offline Click here to Send darthgoober a Private Message Find more posts by darthgoober Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Rockydonovang
freedom fighter

Gender: Male
Location:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, pretty sure we fought a bloody war against the British because the British were bleeding us of our money and not giving us much in return.

Seems American healthcare insurance companies are actually unamerican.

No, not really. Brits lowered the taxes in response to colonist protest.

It's not that the taxes were too high, it's that we were taxed, without representation.

In summary, if you want to apply law to people, you need to give them a say in what the law is.

Old Post Aug 21st, 2018 05:56 PM
Rockydonovang is currently offline Click here to Send Rockydonovang a Private Message Find more posts by Rockydonovang Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
darthgoober
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Purgatory

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No, not really. Brits lowered the taxes in response to colonist protest.

It's not that the taxes were too high, it's that we were taxed, without representation.

In summary, if you want to apply law to people, you need to give them a say in what the law is.

From what I've heard, even the lack of representation wasn't totally Britain's fault. Ben Franklin was in communication with Britain and wasn't telling them about how pissed people were over here. He pretty much always acted like things were hunky dorey right up until the Boston Tea Party.

At least that's what I heard from a guy on Cracked.com. It's very possible that using pushing a skewed perspective of the whole thing.


__________________

Old Post Aug 21st, 2018 06:02 PM
darthgoober is currently offline Click here to Send darthgoober a Private Message Find more posts by darthgoober Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by darthgoober
Not really. I mean yeah the British did technically impose a lot of taxes on us, but they knew weren't exactly wealthy so the Tea Tax was the only one they insisted that we pay. And honestly... they deserved to milk quite a bit of money from us. The whole reason they started with the severe taxes is because America disobey British orders and attacked France which also forced the British to go to war with them. That's also why they started restricting our access to guns. When you get right down to it, our founding fathers were pretty much assholes...


No, the British were taxing the colonials and the colonials were not getting much in return, similar to how many view insurance:

https://www.hoover.org/research/col...ation-1607-1700


And the British thought that the Americans must pay for the 10,000 garrisoned troops that remained in the colonies after the French and Indian War:

quote:
It appeared to the British government that a few new taxes to pay for their garrison should be easily absorbed. Indeed, they had to be absorbed, because there simply didnít seem to be any other way of paying for the army. Few in Britain expected the colonists to have protection and not pay for it.


https://www.thoughtco.com/why-brita...lonists-1222028

Colonial taxes:
Taxes to pay for protection in case a situation comes up to where you need assistance.

American Health Insurance:
Insurance to pay for protection in case a situation comes up to where you need assistance.


And taxation without representation is what got the British into hot water. As I've posted about MANY times, the majority of Americans are not represented in the government.

Here it is again:
(please log in to view the image)



That's taxation and Health Insurance policy without representation.

Here's another fact for you: a majority of Americans now want universal healthcare:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...yer-health-care


As time goes on, this margin keeps growing.


__________________

Old Post Aug 21st, 2018 06:27 PM
dadudemon is online now! Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
darthgoober
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Purgatory

quote: (post)
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the British were taxing the colonials and the colonials were not getting much in return, similar to how many view insurance:

https://www.hoover.org/research/col...ation-1607-1700


And the British thought that the Americans must pay for the 10,000 garrisoned troops that remained in the colonies after the French and Indian War:

Of course didn't get much out of it. The taxes weren't levied as a cost for services that were currently being rendered, the taxes were restitution for pulling Britain into a costly war with France. They expected us to pay them back some of what they'd already spent, we'd already received the services we were paying for during the war. It's similar to the difference between mowing the lawn in order to get one's allowance and mowing the lawn to work off the cost of you breaking the TV.


__________________

Last edited by darthgoober on Aug 21st, 2018 at 06:45 PM

Old Post Aug 21st, 2018 06:42 PM
darthgoober is currently offline Click here to Send darthgoober a Private Message Find more posts by darthgoober Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
DarthSkywalker0
The Insane Jedi Master

Gender: Male
Location: United States

The US healthcare system is superior to any Single Payer system of comparable size.

Costs of Universal Healthcare:

Before diving into the costs of health care, we should at least establish a time horizon for the analysis. Most studies, including the one Sanders, cites on his website use a 10-year gap.

Analyses conducted on the costs of Bernie Sanders healthcare plan:

Friedman: 13.8 trillion(2017-2026)

Thorpe: 24.3 trillion(2017-2026)

Mercatus Center: 27.7 trillion(they refer to this as a conservative estimate, likely more)(2019-2028)

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: 31 trillion(2017-2026)

Urban Institute(best study): 32 trillion(2017-2026)

It is also worth noting that Sanders only cites Friedman's analysis on his website. Despite, most academics disapproving of it and the lack of peer review. Why is the Friedman report inaccurate?

1. Friedman assumes that that states will continue to pay for Medicare and CHIP after the elimination of those programs.
2. He severely exaggerates savings from Single Payer.
3. Inaccurately assesses additional associated with the removal of cost-sharing.
4. Provider savings are unrealistic.
More on this topic here: http://prospect.org/article/why-san...s-campaign-says

Due to these facts, we can dismiss Friedman's two-page invoice and focus on the other numbers cited. What is the cause of the discrepancy between Thorpe(off-hand analysis) and the Urban Institute(peer-reviewed published report)? Look at pg.11&12 of the Institute's study for more information: https://www.urban.org/research/publ...iew/full_report

For the reasons discussed there, I will rely on the Urban Institute as my primary source, when comparing costs. I also want to address one more detail, before continuing. Bernie Sanders' smug video. The Washington Post, of all people, fact-checked this claim. I will briefly report their findings. Sanders manipulates the principle of charity when thanking the Koch brothers. To quote the Post,

quote:
In doing his research, Blahous decided to follow the text of the Sanders plan and assume that providers ó doctors, hospitals, and the like ó would face an immediate cut of roughly 40 percent for the treatment of patients now covered by private insurance.


Blahous even notes this in the study, but Sanders ignores that fact. The post concludes,

quote:
The main point of his study is being ignored by Democrats ó that even by generously accepting Sandersís assumptions that he could squeeze providers so much, the plan would still raise government expenditures by $32.6 trillion. This is in line with a 2016 estimate by the left-leaning Urban Institute of an earlier version of the M4A plan ó that it would cause federal expenditures to increase by $32 trillion. (Without the provider cuts, Blahous estimated the additional federal budget cost at nearly $40 trillion over 10 years.)


So, in reality, the increase in national health expenditures is close to the one provided in the Urban Institute's study(6.6 trillion). The next two parts will be on healthcare quality and debunking bullshit.


__________________

"I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."

Old Post Aug 21st, 2018 07:36 PM
DarthSkywalker0 is currently offline Click here to Send DarthSkywalker0 a Private Message Find more posts by DarthSkywalker0 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
All times are UTC. The time now is 08:14 AM.
Pages (2): [1] 2 »   Last Thread   Next Thread

Home » Community » General Discussion Forum » Capitalism and health care

Email this Page
Subscribe to this Thread
   Post New Thread  Post A Reply

Forum Jump:
Search by user:
 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON

Text-only version
 

< - KillerMovies.com - Forum Archive - Forum Rules >


© Copyright 2000-2006, KillerMovies.com. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by: vBulletin, copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.