Health Care [Merged] · General Discussion Forum

inimalist Junior Member

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
It was a nice attempt. I do agree with you, but I believe that price can go down with a withdrawal of government involvement in all facets.

my point is that the price of health care is likely unrelated to who runs it.

If Americans live an unhealthy, sedentary lifestyle, which, compared to the rest of the developed world, they do, they will pay more for care.

Too many people gloss over this fact. People on the public health side think the government will make everyone healthy, which it wont, or that access will increase preventative care, which it really doesn't, whereas people on the market side are so ideologically committed to the idea that government is wrong that they sort of ignore anything that isn't, well, "The government is wrong".

Seriously, I want to move this debate forward. Everyone knows the arguments from both ideological positions, now lets look at the facts on the ground and figure out pragmatic ways to deal with it.

And besides, cost isn't why a social safety net is installed.

(actually, in theory, me and you probably agree. The problem is, anti-government stances are really more of an "end game" position. Given that there is no alternative to government, at this point, that can provide what is necessary in a health system, pragmatics would necessitate some form of state system. Certainly we don't want to end it there, and making a system where people have more openness to market based health that doesn't reduce accessibility to those who are not financially well off is the ideal, but that isn't point B. That may be point G or H, but there is no quick way to get from where America is now to an ideal market based system. Government, unfortunately, is the only body powerful enough to disassemble the monopolies it has given to the insurance companies. I've sort of become disenfranchised with market anarchy for this reason. It is an amazing theory, and I'd still personally identify as an anarchist, but pragmatically, it offers no real solutions to modern problems. Government has made itself too invasive to just "evaporate", and a stance that ideologically refuses to accept any position that involves the state, is nothing more than rhetoric).

RocasAtoll Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Taxes and wages (meaning both the amount of money and the purchasing power of that money) in a market economy are directly related. Meaning that as taxes go up, wages go up, as taxes go down, wages go down.

Which isn't a good thing.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
In a society with low taxes, inflation is driven by market prices whereas in a society with high taxes, inflation is driven by wages and prices can never keep up.

Inflation is driven by the overprinting of money in high tax societies since the increases in taxes and minimum wage laws causes inflation to correct itself and get back to the original value of the dollar, meaning every time wages go up inflation adjusts and no change is made. We see that over and over again with increases in minimum wage here.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
How this works in practice: Basically, in a democratic society with a market economy, the only people hurt by taxes in the long run are the mega rich.

Not really because of the amount of tax loopholes that the mega rich can exploit with their ability to hire many tax professionals. Warren Buffet did this and only had to pay 17% while his secretary had to give 35%

Originally posted by Darth Jello
[B]As taxes increase, the government is better able to fund and provide services which are considered natural monopolies and therefore should not be privatized such as national parks, roads, power, water/sewage, health care

Healthcare is not a natural monopoly, and all of these things can be funded with low taxes with a growing economy, as we can see with places that have placed flat taxes in their countries.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
[B]and in most western societies, things like employee benefits, unemployment insurance, and kurzarbeit (the german system which bails out companies and prevents layoffs based on market forces rather than arbitrary financial loans or gifts).

All of which are not necessary government functions.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
[B]This creates higher taxes which by the laws of the labor market forces employers to pay higher wages.

Which are adjusted by inflation to not matter in the end.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
According to the Indian School of Economics (which thus far, has been most accurate in terms of economic predictors in the 20th century),

Next to Austrian and Chicago school economic theorists which predicted the market failure well before anyone else.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Income inequality is the number one cause of economic instability and collapse.

No it's not. Artificial markets created by government intervention failing causes economic instability.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Another factor is the so called "free market". A laissez faire free market economy is worse than communism in the speed and way in which these systems destroy economies and countries.

Yes, because the middle class was created in a socialist state, right?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
They encourage the buildup of monopolies and plutocratic families which collude with governments-themselves becoming kleptocratic, which leads to anarchic failed states or to crises which lead to the democratic election or uprisings leading to fascism.

This is complete bullshit and misunderstanding of what a free market. What you're describing is not a free market but a government intervention into the market to help big business like most countries started doing during the turn of the century. Monopolies cannot exist without government help to keep them alive.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The convergence of these two factors have been observed in many countries throughout history. One need only observe the factors leading up to the first great depression and the current troubles for an American example.

Of which both were government involvement created a larger problem then needed.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
[B]More extreme cases include Chile, Argentina, and many members of the Commonwealth of Independent States and Soviet Sattelites during the 1990's. Russia, Ukraine, and Lithuania being prime examples.

Chile failed, and came back and is now the strongest economy in South America. Argentina did not have a free market, they had a corporate favoritism model like fascism.

Russia, Ukraine, and Lithuania never fully privatized, and when they did, first dibs were given to the rich and regulations were passed that kept it in their power. Do you know the strongest economy among former Soviet Republics is? It's Estonia, which espoused a flat tax and it is currently at I think 18% and their economy is still the fastest growing.

Darth Jello Cheese Spelunker

So your argument is that the intervention of government by not intervening is what causes all the social problems you described? Your also stating that economic factors and not quality of life and economic equality should be the standards by which a country is judged. Your casting banana republics in a favorable light. Also keep in mind that countries with flat taxes still typically pay comparatively high taxes anyway and that free markets are about as sustainable as universal freedom with no laws. Please put down the Ayn Rand book and the Ronald Reagan anti-medicare record, they were both wrinkly dumb bitches and their both dead now.

Oh, and if i could add a joke in bad taste:

What would Ronald Reagan say if he were alive today?

"HELP!!! GET ME OUT OF THIS COFFIN NANCY!!!"

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Here's a hint: I'm not talking about large companies. They're the problem since they are given control of the market by the overregulation which kills small competition.

Large companies exist the most whenever there is lack of regulation against them. There can be no competition when businesses team up, they can simply buy out smaller competitors, and this is why a free market economy cannot succeed. Look at the biggest monopolies in history, Standard Oil, US Steel, Bell System, these monopolies all last indefinitely under the free market, all three were broken up only when the feds took action against them.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I'll admit I don't have much information on the NHS, and have only heard from others about problems.

That's why I don't buy smears on health care unless you can find actual statistics. You have been deceived by private insurance apologists.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Newsflash- I never wrote I liked the Canadian system. I brought it up as an example of a system that is privatizing since fully run government healthcare wasn't working.

And yet, that fails to prove anything since all they are doing is moving to a system used in 99% of socialist countries anyway.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
A lot of the expenditure on our part is waste from overtesting and the like. They don't have that problem since the amount spent is limited.

If things are more complicated, you are trying to perpetuate falsehoods by saying things like "france is good because it just throws money all over the place". I still feel one of the biggest, most underrepresented causes in our nation's healthcare is how overpriced the best med schools are, and student loans.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I believe the French system is good at the expense of a stupidly high tax burden which pushes companies away.

You think that's a "stupidly high tax burden"? They are like 40% at most. In Scandinavia which is consistently getting among the highest ratings in everything from health care to HDI, in those countries they are taxing anywhere from 50-80%.

RocasAtoll Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Jello
So your argument is that the intervention of government by not intervening is what causes all the social problems you described? Your also stating that economic factors and not quality of life and economic equality should be the standards by which a country is judged. Your casting banana republics in a favorable light. Also keep in mind that countries with flat taxes still typically pay comparatively high taxes anyway and that free markets are about as sustainable as universal freedom with no laws. Please put down the Ayn Rand book and the Ronald Reagan anti-medicare record, they were both wrinkly dumb bitches and their both dead now.
Oh, and if i could add a joke in bad taste:
What would Ronald Reagan say if he were alive today?
"HELP!!! GET ME OUT OF THIS COFFIN NANCY!!!"

So basically, "I've hit the end of my understanding of economics and can only now make unrelated comparisons".

Government intervention to help only causes harm to an economy, and by extension, hurts people as a whole.
They pay higher taxes, but not in terms of rates. A 50% rate hurts income for a government anyway, and a flat tax raises income from taxes. I support a flat tax since it can be lowered without a shock to the system.
Free markets are very sustainable without intervention. They allow companies to die and new companies to take their place instead of propping failing companies that practice bad business.
Banana Republics are bad since they had government intervention propping them up and protecting business interests. They weren't a free market.

And I hate Reagan anyway. He spoke small but his actions were big.

Darth Jello Cheese Spelunker

I do agree with the large company thing, if Obama could wield the Sherman anti-trust act like Teddy Roosevelt and hammer the living crap out of big business, it would solve a lot of problems

RocasAtoll Senior Member

Originally posted by King Kandy
Large companies exist the most whenever there is lack of regulation against them. There can be no competition when businesses team up, they can simply buy out smaller competitors, and this is why a free market economy cannot succeed. Look at the biggest monopolies in history, Standard Oil, US Steel, Bell System, these monopolies all last indefinitely under the free market, all three were broken up only when the feds took action against them.

No. They exist the most when government sides with them, like all your examples. They were subsidized and given concessions, which hurt competition.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And yet, that fails to prove anything since all they are doing is moving to a system used in 99% of socialist countries anyway.

It's proof a more Scandinavian Model cannot be expected to automatically work.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If things are more complicated, you are trying to perpetuate falsehoods by saying things like "france is good because it just throws money all over the place". I still feel one of the biggest, most underrepresented causes in our nation's healthcare is how overpriced the best med schools are, and student loans.

I admit I was wrong on France, and I agree with you that med school is overpriced.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You think that's a "stupidly high tax burden"? They are like 40% at most. In Scandinavia which is consistently getting among the highest ratings in everything from health care to HDI, in those countries they are taxing anywhere from 50-80%.

That's just Income. I'm also talking about the VAT and their stupid corporate tax, which Scandinavian countries actually have a smaller one than us and much smaller than France.

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No. They exist the most when government sides with them, like all your examples. They were subsidized and given concessions, which hurt competition.

Prove standard oil was government subsidized. I bet you can't.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
It's proof a more Scandinavian Model cannot be expected to automatically work.

That would be true, if not for the fact that the Scandinavian Model has private insurance as well... So no actually it's not proof at all.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
That's just Income. I'm also talking about the VAT and their stupid corporate tax, which Scandinavian countries actually have a smaller one than us and much smaller than France.

The VAT is actually less than most of Scandinavia, and the French Corporate tax is no greater than the US itself.

RocasAtoll Senior Member

Originally posted by King Kandy
Prove standard oil was government subsidized. I bet you can't.

It was given land by the US government through eminent domain in Ohio. And to paint Standard Oil as bad, isn't exactly right considering it never hurt the consumer. Prices kept going down when Standard Oil was in charge, and at their peak in 1899 with 90% of the market, they started losing to the competition systematically when other companies rivaled their efficiency.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That would be true, if not for the fact that the Scandinavian Model has private insurance as well... So no actually it's not proof at all.

That I didn't know honestly.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The VAT is actually less than most of Scandinavia, and the French Corporate tax is no greater than the US itself.

The VAT is about equivalent since it applies consistently except on food while Denmark has a mess of a VAT tax, Finland has rates changing between industries, and so do Norway and Sweden.

Ya, never said it was smaller than the US.

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
It was given land by the US government through eminent domain in Ohio. And to paint Standard Oil as bad, isn't exactly right considering it never hurt the consumer. Prices kept going down when Standard Oil was in charge, and at their peak in 1899 with 90% of the market, they started losing to the competition systematically when other companies rivaled their efficiency.

I can't find any source saying that the government gave it land in Ohio. Can you find one for me? And I never said it was bad, just that it was a monopoly that did better w/o government intervention.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
The VAT is about equivalent since it applies consistently except on food while Denmark has a mess of a VAT tax, Finland has rates changing between industries, and so do Norway and Sweden.
Ya, never said it was smaller than the US.

You said that it's taxes were ridiculous compared to most countries, and I can't find anything indicating this at all. If it is on level with the US, then it's taxes are obviously not the sole factor in driving away businesses.

RocasAtoll Senior Member

Originally posted by King Kandy
I can't find any source saying that the government gave it land in Ohio. Can you find one for me? And I never said it was bad, just that it was a monopoly that did better w/o government intervention.

I have a book, not a link online. It was in Reassessing the Presidency.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You said that it's taxes were ridiculous compared to most countries, and I can't find anything indicating this at all. If it is on level with the US, then it's taxes are obviously not the sole factor in driving away businesses.

It's income tax, high support of labor unions, corporate tax, and many extra regulations do not help companies.

The US still can be competitive because of it's large market and location as a leading financial market.

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I have a book, not a link online. It was in Reassessing the Presidency.

I'm sorry but that is not going to fly as a source for me. That book was written with the specific perspective of pro-free market, anti-government. It was put out by a libertarian organization dedicated entirely to promoting the Austrian school of economics. The fact that I can't find a single google result saying that the Ohio land was government-given, however sketchy, really, really makes me skeptical of this one.

In addition, it just really makes no sense, Standard Oil spent it's whole existence battling anti-monopoly laws, it was not a friend of the government's at all. It invented the trust system purely to avoid government intervention.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
It's income tax, high support of labor unions, corporate tax, and many extra regulations do not help companies.
The US still can be competitive because of it's large market and location as a leading financial market.

But I fail to see how France is above any other socialized country, or how these laws are responsible for them having the best system in the world. Surely a lack of business economy should produce a bad healthcare system, under your idea.

RocasAtoll Senior Member

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm sorry but that is not going to fly as a source for me. That book was written with the specific perspective of pro-free market, anti-government. It was put out by a libertarian organization dedicated entirely to promoting the Austrian school of economics. The fact that I can't find a single google result saying that the Ohio land was government-given, however sketchy, really, really makes me skeptical of this one.
In addition, it just really makes no sense, Standard Oil spent it's whole existence battling anti-monopoly laws, it was not a friend of the government's at all. It invented the trust system purely to avoid government intervention.

That's perfectly acceptable to me, I didn't expect you to.

And many railroads did the same thing even though they were given millions of acres by the government.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But I fail to see how France is above any other socialized country, or how these laws are responsible for them having the best system in the world. Surely a lack of business economy should produce a bad healthcare system, under your idea.

I can't tell you. Maybe it's their doctors, maybe it's their schools, maybe it's their willingness to use new techniques.

No. You can have a good healthcare system if the government gets involved in everything, including education. There's also the point inimalist brought up that culture has much to do with how healthy a people are. What I want is a free market system because I believe it will give the same effect as a good government system, but more efficiently and without the adding of a coercive method to pay for it.

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I can't tell you. Maybe it's their doctors, maybe it's their schools, maybe it's their willingness to use new techniques.

That didn't stop you from claiming it was that they threw money around senselessly.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
What I want is a free market system because I believe it will give the same effect as a good government system, but more efficiently and without the adding of a coercive method to pay for it.

I know you think that, but do you have any actual evidence/data to prove it?

RocasAtoll Senior Member

Originally posted by King Kandy
That didn't stop you from claiming it was that they threw money around senselessly.

Yup. That was a baseless assumption. I was proven wrong.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I know you think that, but do you have any actual evidence/data to prove it?

When healthcare was cheapest and most widely available in the US was when it was least regulated. This was at the turn of the century with lodge care growing, with it taking a 1/4th of the healthcare market. It was completely aimed at working class people, and only cost them a week's wage. It wasn't until the AMA stepped in, complaining about healthcare prices being too low, that this system stopped growing and was eventually done away with by the AMA to protect other doctors and to keep healthcare high priced to help doctor's income.

Chopsum Restricted

Health care for profit bad.

Idiot consumers that cause a significant rise in cost bad.

Fact is consumers have overgrown their waist lines, they make insurance pools more expensive now lets spread taco bell and bk love.

Bardock42 Junior Member

What is France's supposedly superior Health Care based on?

And what do those stats someone quoted earlier use as basis for the order of countries?

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by Bardock42
What is France's supposedly superior Health Care based on?
And what do those stats someone quoted earlier use as basis for the order of countries?

As far as I can tell, they used something along these lines to produce it (unsure on how exactly it worked):

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent

Bardock42 Junior Member

Originally posted by King Kandy
As far as I can tell, they used something along these lines to produce it (unsure on how exactly it worked):
1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent

Those are just words though. How did they define that and where did they get their numbers and how did they evaluate them?

Financial fairness in particular seems like a point that, depending on definition, will severely favour universial health care. You know what I mean?

inimalist Junior Member

Originally posted by Bardock42
What is France's supposedly superior Health Care based on?
And what do those stats someone quoted earlier use as basis for the order of countries?

Americans get sick more. Why? Some argue that rather than an effective healthcare system, the United States has a "disease care" system, whereby far too many people are sedentary and eat poorly, leading to obesity and other health issues (obesity, in turn, raises the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and other diseases). Add smoking into the mix — the elimination of it would cause U.S. life expectancy to rise significantly.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would agree. The agency says these bad and avoidable habits are the underlying cause of half of the country's deaths.
The key data to support this: While the U.S. life expectancy is 78, it is 80 in the UK, 81 in Canada, and 83 in Japan, according to the World Health Organization. We're even behind Cuba. Preston says this longevity gap, as it's known, is due mostly to higher rates of heart disease and cancer among middle-age Americans.

http://www.livescience.com/health/090922-healthcare-costs.html

not that it proves Kandy's point, given the article associates this longevity gap with poor lifestyle and not inaccessibly health care, but the American system, culture included, is lagging