Since when is any public company cheaper than a private version of the same company ? That contradicts economics, and you admit as much, several times. Not that you've ever let that stop you before. Please explain why economic theory is wrong here.
It is not so much that economic theory is wrong, but that your interpretation of either the facts of the situation or of economic theory is mistaken. There are two reasons that, contrary to your assumptions, a government-run plan could be cheaper:
1. The government plan might offer fewer services than private plans (possibly covering fewer sorts of treatments, providing less choice of doctor, etc.). 2. The government needn't spend money on medical underwriting research, marketing, executive salaries, etc.
You can see that this is possible by looking to two places:
1. A Rand Corp. report showing that private insurance plans spend 30% of the money they receive in premiums on administrative overhead. Medicare, meanwhile, spends 3%.
2. The US Postal System. While not exactly a model for government run corporations, it it is still cheaper to mail a letter via the USPS than by FedEx. Now, it might be slower, but it certainly is cheaper and cost is what you were asking about.
If you think I "DEMAND" a public option, you obviously did not carefully read this sentence, which I have now written to you three times:
Since, in many markets, there is only one health insurance provider, we need to do something to break up the monopolies and bring competition back to the market to keep prices down. (though I might be open to other ways of breaking up the monopolies as well)
The remainder of your argument hinges on the fact that two so-called lefties - I assume you mean Hitler and Stalin - have gone on to do evil things, therefore any liberal might go on to do similar evil things. This is a very poor argument. In fact, it is really no argument at all. Tell me if you can spot the flaw here:
Some A's are B's pdabbadabba is an A Therefore pdabbadabba is a B
This is the logical form of your argument.
This is not to mention that it requires a VERY revisionist reading of history to claim that either of these men were liberals. I believe that "fascist" is the more orthodox term.
Dare I ask what "the mighty atheismo" is supposed to mean?
I detect only one real question in here, and I think it is this: if I advocate a plan that is premium-funded, and uses tax payer money only to subsidize the cost of insuring the poor, then why make the plan public. A private plan can do this perfectly well. And this is a reasonable question. But it is one I have already discussed, so I will quote from a previous post:
But I think [a health care reform package] would be better with a public option to help keep costs down for members of private plans. Since, in many markets, there is only one health insurance provider, we need to do something to break up the monopolies and bring competition back to the market to keep prices down. (though I might be open to other ways of breaking up the monopolies as well)
I don't believe you ever responded to this suggestion, so I'll give you the opportunity to do so now.
Can you now please write a response comprising 4 paragraphs, each one responding to a single question. Please start each paragraph with the option you choose, and feel free to commit any number of further sentences to the reasons why.
Sure. That is almost exactly what I did last time, but I'll do it again.
1) is the coverage 0$ or will the poor be denied (for some level of poor). Also, note that if the price is different from that EXACT PRICE (0$) illegal aliens will not be covered, for obvious reasons (obviously they don't want to enter into a contract with the government they're trying to avoid, that's a few dozen million people not covered at all right there) (there is no third option)
Reread what I said. I will repeat it for a third time: I said that the plan will not be free. There will be a premium. BUT, the government will provide subsidies to people who can't afford the premium using taxpayer dollars. So, it would be free for some people, not free for others. It is true that illegal aliens will not be covered (though not quite for reasons you state). That is a shame, but we do the best we can.
2) do you deny people for not paying enough OR are you creating a new group of government dependants that you agree will grow until all money is consumed. (there is no third option)
I asked you before to tell me why you think this group of "govermnent dependents" will grow until all the money was consumed, but you have not. So I'm afraid I do not see why I have to chose from the options you give me.
3) does your "nice" plan intend to have massive cost overruns (= "public" plan) OR is it a private plan (there is no third option)
This is another false choice. It will be a public plan, without massive cost overruns. You have done nothing to show that this is impossible.
4) WHO EXACTLY decides what is covered, and what recourse do I have if I don't agree ? (and any public plan is paid by taxes, obviously, so that means you cannot leave it, by definition, since it is NOT possible to NOT pay to a public company, by definition)
This is an interesting question. But here are two answers to it that I've already given. Presumably, a panel of doctors will decide what KINDS of treatments are covered. I see no way of getting around this, and it is the same thing a private insurance company does. If you don't like it, you can buy a private plan instead. And, no, you would not be paying for your plan with tax money, you would pay a separate premium (I have said this at least four times now). The only part of this that you would pay for with tax money (if you're rich) would be the premium subsidies for the poor.
Please, also not a few reasonable cases that you will deny treatment... say a baby born with leukemia, will you cover her ? Note that without treatment she dies in 2 months (tops). With treatment, she dies in 5 years, and this costs several million dollars. Where do you draw the line and based on what principles ?
Well, I'm not a doctor so I'm not sure I can give you realistic examples. But I'll try to answer the spirit of your question. Any type of medical treatment that has been shown to be effective in treating a disease, will be covered for the treatment of that condition. Things that might not be covered (though, again, I'm not a doctor so these are rough approximations) would be: antibiotics to treat the flu (because antibiotics aren't effective against the flu and over-prescription of antibiotics leads to the increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens). Faith healing and homeopathy would probably also not be covered.:)
I'm pretty sure it is you who haven't answered any of my questions...but I'll play along.
You ask who will decide what is paid for. The answer is, of course, the people who administer the public plan. Just like a private insurance plan or Medicare, the public plan will decide what treatments are covered under that plan. The mistake that people make is in thinking that there will be a panel that decides who can get what treatment. This is not how the plan will work. In fact, this isn't how it works under extremely centralized, single payer systems like the British model. Rather, I imagine we will have some entity that figures out what sorts of treatment are worth covering and what aren't. This is exactly what every private insurance company does today. Want to go to buddhist spiritual healer to cure your Crone's disease? More power to you, but I guarantee your private insurance won't cover it. The public plan, just like private insurers, will have to limit themselves to covering treatments that are known to be effective.
And remember also that nobody will be forced to use this plan. So it's not as though treatments denied under the public plan will just be impossible to receive. If you're not happy with the treatments covered by the public plan, you're free to go with a private one.
What guarantee do you have that you won't have to pay for this with your taxes? None! As I said before, the plan will be paid for entirely by premiums, but the government will subsidize the premiums for the poor, and will need to use your tax money to do it. (Though, if a poor person wants to go with a private plan, they will be subsidized in the same way. You have already said you're OK with this, although you seemed to want to set it up as direct federal donations to private insurers. But it amounts to the same thing.)
at price = $0, the demand will be infinite...
Price will not be $0! You will have to pay premiums to buy into the public plan, just like any other plan.
Evolution dictates that this group will grow until the government cannot pay for it anymore.
It does no such thing. I have asked to repeatedly to explain why you think this is so, but without any success. My invitation to you to explain yourself is still open, however.
you FIGHT the suggestion of limiting the maximum cost of the plan...
I don't quite understand what you mean by this.
you're answer is "not CHORE"... great answer man. Great answer. If I ask you who designed the next Toyota model, is your answer "not Tom Cruise" ? Real informative.
You didn't ask me who will chose what is covered. You just made inaccurate claims about CHORE and I corrected them. Hopefully I have done more to answer your real question in this post.
I am not categorically opposed to a system like what you describe. (i.e., where we only have private insurance companies, but the government helps the poor buy into those private plans.) This sounds to me like the dutch model. But I think the plan would be better with a public option to help keep costs down for members of private plans. Since, in many markets, there is only one health insurance provider, we need to do something to break up the monopolies and bring the competition back to the market to keep prices down. (though I might be open to other ways of breaking up the monopolies as well)
It is not true that the center that the health bill would set up would be for the purpose of chosing who gets what care. In fact, the bill says explicitly that this body will not have the power to decide what is covered. See here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/211981
It is also simply not true that the HR bill outlaws private plans. See, for example, here: http://soundpolitics.com/archives/013108.html. In fact, a great deal of the bill is designed to regulate private plans.
These are both widely propagated, but thoroughly debunked myths.
By the way, I certainly don't expect you to buy into most of that Krugman article. I only sent it your way because he talks some about the Swiss system.
I don't know whether the government plan will deny care or not. That is because, as it stands, there is no plan under consideration. And, to be clear, I'm not at all sure I am going to be totally satisfied with whatever Obama and congress come up with. That's politics unfortunately. So don't mistake me for saying the ObamaCare will solve all of our health care problems.
Now, my ideal system would be for the government to offer a public option that is basically funded by premiums paid by those it covers. To ensure coverage of the poor, the fees would be assessed on a sliding scale. Tax money would be used to subsidize the payments of those who can't afford the full price. People would also have the option to buy into private plans as they do now (though a new system of regulations would prevent them from engaging in health-based underwriting, etc.).
So, you are probably right that not everyone will be covered. But it will cover many people who can't get coverage now. So, am I happy that it probably won't be able to cover everyone? Of course not. But I think it is far better than doing nothing at all.
But you can see that this government-run plan would hardly have to cover an "unlimited" number of people. Many will be happier with private coverage (because it will probably be better) so we don't have to worry about them. And many of the people on the public plan will be paying their own way in premiums. So we don't have to pay for them with government money either. The government (or, rather, we the people) will only foot the bill to cover the poor.
You say that the elderly will not be covered by this (or Obama's) plan. To this I reply: of course. They will be covered by Medicare as they have been for quite some time. I'm not quite sure what to say about infants. under the plan I would like, they would of course be covered. And the only actual bill we have to look at so far, HR 3500 has no language to this effect. So, Ezekiel Emanuel can say whatever he wants, but his views, in the broader scheme of things, mean nothing to me.
You say that this will require a "suspension of economics" and "that we are not "slaves" to human evolution". I have no idea why you think that the plan I've outlined will require either of these things. Could you please explain in detail what you mean?
Now, as for what happens if the system collapses. Of course, I think the system probably would not collapse - your claims aside, I see no reason why that would happen. but, I'll go along with you and assume, for the sake of argument, that it will. What do we do? Well, I think you've left out the most obvious option: raise premiums on the public plan, raise taxes if its feasible, cut less essential programs if there are any, or, yes, shut down the public health care option. Remember, that a whole private insurance market will exist alongside the public option so its not as though there will be no way for people to get health care. Of course, this would be bad, but it would not be nation-ending and, (bonus!) it would not require us to invade Pakistan. Though I'm not at all sure how this would help.:)
Now, about the Netherlands and Switzerland. I assume you mean that the Netherlands has no public health insurance program. That is true. but what they do have is a heavily heavily regulated private insurance market, with taxes being used to help the poor pay for coverage. Switzerland, it turns out, has a plan very similar to what Obama is proposing (And, as far as I can tell, similar to the plan I outlined above). (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html). As for Sweden, they're still running budget surpluses as of July of this year (the latest numbers I can find in 30 seconds of Googling). So I'm not quite sure where the crisis is...
I have given you a fine argument as to why the free market is not, in fact, the best mechanism for distributing health care. It is because markets work by pricing some people out of them.
But I have heard nothing back from you other than "it's impossible!," "you're denying reality." But I have in fact showed you why an effective system of national health care is not only possible, but essential. You have tacitly agreed yourself that government provides public water service to just about everyone. (Though you say it is to "enable markets") So why is it not possible for the government to provide health care for everyone?
As for your historical argument, as far as I can see, it goes like this: Two political movements in the course of history have been started by people claiming to be serving the public welfare, but wound up being brutal tyrants. Therefore social welfare programs lead inexorably to brutal tyranny. Of course nowhere in your argument do you attempt to come to grips with the fact that, of all the major industrialized nations in the world, we are the only ones without these programs. Where, then, is the violent tyranny in France? Sweden? Japan? Switzerland? Canada? Or do you say it is only a matter of time? If so, I'll be sure to keep an eye on the news. I'm sure The Netherlands will be blowing up any day now.
Nonsense, nonsense, and more nonsense. Let me go through your post bit by bit:
Obviously deception is the only answer you have on a valid economical point - that if there truly was a better way to do health care, there would be no way to beat a company that brings that idea to market, except perhaps imitation.
There is also the simple point that whatever the free market cannot improve, the government sure as hell cannot improve. If such a better way for healthcare were tried - and failed due to losses, that there would be no way for the government to intervene, except in the extreme short term.
So let's see the "liberal" answer...
I see a claim that I am deceiving you, but no explanation as to how I am incorrect. Your problem is that when you say "better" or "more efficient" you have not thought carefully enough about what that means. These concepts, to the free market, mean greater efficiency in making profit. That's all. It does not necessarily mean providing greater access to the services. Since we cannot accept inadequate access to services in the case of health care , the government must intervene (just as is has for decades in the cases of food, water, and housing).
So, I have no doubt that the free market is the best way to ensure that health care is provisioned efficiently. The problem is that efficiency is not all we're concerned with in theâ
The problem is that if there is no efficient way to provide health care, that simply means there is NO way to provide health care for everybody (talk about a truism).
Far from being a truism, this is obviously false, because to provide a service efficiently (in free market terms, i.e. maximizing profit) has nothing at all to do with how many people have access to the service.
So what do "liberals" do ? Well you know how "liberal" they are : they'll just force people, through force, to provide that impossibility.
They will simply vote reality out.
So let's put this simple : you vote for halving gravity, so as to make transport that much cheaper. And if it actually happens, then I'll support your health care. If you prove first, of course, that you do indeed have the ability to change reality, to change the laws of nature, simply by legislating it.
See above. Reality is not the way you believe it to be.
Needless to say, those people being forced will fail to do so. So what then ? Well the nazi and communist answer was to shoot at them. At us.
Reckless nonsense. Are you seriously suggesting that I and my liberal friends intend to lead some sort of pogrom to kill off health care reform opponents? If so, you really ought to have your head examined.
You have to stop acting morally superior, because it's a truly irritating and obvious lie. Forcing people to do the impossible, through taxation and the direct force of arms to do the impossible does not only not work, it is also extremely cruel and selfish.
All I've said is that there is something, call it X, that I think we have a moral duty to do. You disagree. If that amounts to my acting morally superior, then so be it. (Though I don't see how any debate at all would be possible without running afoul of your little rule) But I think most would just call this "an honest disagreement."
Tax spending on the military is necessary due to the absolute physical impossibility to let a market do it (and the US tries to let markets do large parts of it anyway, with great success). There is only a single state to defend, and no way to let the effects of external attacks only affect those who don't pay. There no way, for example, to have 5 9/11 building attacks with only anti-Iraq war "bush did it" "liberal" idiots inside those buildings.
Agreed, oddly enough, but I'm not sure I see your point. (Except,
I'm replying to what you say about the free market separately, because I think it a worthy point, but one quite separate from everything else we're discussing.
The market system favors companies that maximize profit. To maximize their profit, companies look at the characteristics of the market to determine what services to provide, and at what price to provide them. In the actual insurance marketplace as it exists today, companies are maximizing their profit by providing a certain level of service (sometimes good, sometimes bad) at a price not everyone can afford. This is the sort of outcome that the free market encourages and, for commodities (iPods, air travel, furniture, etc.) this is great because, as I'm sure you understand, it tends to get goods and services to a large number of people while encouraging innovation. I like it.
The problem is that some goods and services aren't commodities, they're necessities and we, as a society (though hardly without dissent, I'm sure), have decided that we need to ensure that nobody gets priced out of these markets. This is why, often, government intervenes to ensure that everyone has access to necessities like water (by municipal control of infrastructure), food (food stamps), shelter (public housing), etc.
So, I have no doubt that the free market is the best way to ensure that health care is provisioned efficiently. The problem is that efficiency is not all we're concerned with in the case of health care. We should be equally concerned with access, and there is no guarantee at all that the free market will maximize access. In fact, we know from our experience today in America, that the market leaves an unacceptably large number of people without access to health care.
I haved asked a simple question of you several times now and you have not answered it. But I think we can't get anywhere in this discussion until we've addressed it. So I'll try again:
You accept that taxes to support the military can be justified. Therefore, you accept that advocating that taxes be levied to pay for a government program is sometimes justified. So, therefore, you have to give an argument to explain why levying taxes to pay for health care is not justified. What is it?
If you will, at long last, answer this question, I will be happy to discuss the rest of your claims in turn.
Apparently you read very poorly. I did not say that altruism is impossible, I assumed it in a foolish attempt to agree with your ravings. In fact, I DO think it is possible. There is, however, and old and lively debate on the possibility of altruism that I thought you were referring to. I suppose that I should not be surprised that, instead, you are wholly ignorant of it. I can tell you that I (and liberals I know) want to see health care reform because it will help people. End of story. To say that we are motivated, not by altruism, but by the potential at feeling satisfied when these programs pass, is to badly pervert the normal meaning of the word "motivation." But this is really beside the point.
Perhaps we need to regroup, since I seem to be on the verge of losing you entirely down the rabbit hole of right-wing arrogance and paranoia: Nations exist to provide for the collective welfare, pure and simple. Now, I take it that you think this should be limited to something like providing for a national defense and enforcement of basic laws, because you also object to the government's taking of private property through taxes. I think this is a reasonable position. Let me know if you don't agree with this much.
My position is exactly like yours except that I think welfare programs like health care reform, social security, etc. are also collective causes worthy of levying taxes. I'm not a huge fan of taxes, but I'm willing to pay them if it means our nation can be, in my view, a bit more just.
I'm sure you would feel the same way if we had a pathetic military and the Canadians were constantly coming down and capturing our coal mines and corn fields - you would want to fix it, raising taxes if necessary. Am I wrong?
So, you see, you and I have the same attitudes about taxation. We both believe that they are sometimes justified when they are necessary to pay for what we feel are essential programs.
So why can't we talk about our real differences - regarding whether health care reform is a worthy policy - and stop all this foolishness about my being a thief because I want to pay for government programs with tax money?
Or, if you'd rather, could you explain to me why I am a thief for wanting to pay for health care reforb, but you are not for supporting the levyin of taxes to fund whatever programs that you think are important (like national defense, road building, etc.).
And, yes, I volunteer quite a bit of my time. Thanks for asking.
Yes I do agree that I derive benefit from having a national defense. But, no, I maintain that I do not benefit from a nationalized health care system (with the caveats you point out. Seebelow.). It seems we agree that I am not a thief because I advocate the levying of taxes to provide for the national defense. Meanwhile I also insist that I am not a thief for advocating taxes to pay for national health care reform because, among other reasons, I neither receive the money nor gain any benefit from it. No contradiction.
I'm not sure I agree that there are more gun nuts than democrats among teenage volunteers (it probably depends on where you live, don't you think?). But maybe we can agree that neither political affiliation has a monopoly on altruism and good intentions. On both sides of the isle, some of us act for the right reasons, some of us for the wrong reasons.
As for whether liberals gain from health care reform, I'm not sure. Now we seem to be faced with the classic problem of the possibility of altruism. While I'm not sure I have the fortitude (or space!) to take that up here properly, I can say definitively that I and every liberal I know (no need to speak in the third person about "bleeding hearts"; I am one of them) genuinely want health care reform because we think it is the right (morally) policy to have. Those of us who are well off are happy to pay the cost, and we think that well off conservatives have a moral obligation to do likewise. Perhaps, if altruism is impossible, deep in our psyches we do advocate what we advocate because we want to feel the satisfaction of living in a more just nation, but it seems to me that our conscious reasons are the ones that matter. After all, if altruism is impossible, how can we do any better?
Well, my inclination is to say that your assertions are insane. But I think that will go without saying to most readers. (Though I don't deny that the democratic party might stand to reap some political benefits from the effects you mention. Implementing a policy that most Americans think is a good idea is generally a good way to do that.)
Now, being as charitable as possible, perhaps what you mean is that some high level democratic party strategists are pulling the strings ONLY for the reasons you give. I don't think that's true either. But it's not relevant to the present discussion because I wasn't talking about high level democratic strategists, I was talking about the rank and file liberals you encounter in places like/..
Your definition of "thief" is lacking. A thief is someone who steals. To steal is to wrongfully take from someone something that they rightfully own. You have demonstrated that I want to take your money against your will. Fair enough. But you still have to show that it is wrongful, and that it was rightfully yours to start with.
For example, do you approve of taxation to provide for a minimal national defense? If so, then you don't believe that all taxation is stealing.
(Also, your car buying example is ridiculously off point. In your example, you get the money, and then spend it to benefit yourself. In my example, I never see the money or its benefits because I am neither poor nor the government.)
Show me where I say the poor are not taxed. All I said was that I support the taxation of the rich to fund welfare programs for the poor. (Note that I don't really mean rich and poor literally, I really only mean the well off v. the less well off). If you really aren't well off (making, say, less that $200,000/yr) then I'm sorry that you're paying more than half of your income in taxes (though I don't see how it's possible).I would be all for finding a way of reducing your taxes. But the realities of your particular financial situation have nothing to do with my broader point.
You seem to be misreading me intentionally. By "our" I obviously didn't mean "liberals'," I meant "the rich's," another group to which I happen to belong (relatively speaking, of course). I grant that what I wrote was ambiguous, but only one possible interpretation made any sense. It is hardly to your credit that you chose to take up the other.
And how could I possibly be a thief if I'm not getting any of your money? And how could I possibly be a lyer when that isn't even a word? (Sorry...can't help myself. )
And there we are again with these loaded words like "thief." Obviously, I don't think there is anything wrong with taxes for welfare programs, and thus do not believe that they amount to stealing. If you want to use words like this in a serious debate, you have to back them up with an argument. Otherwise you're just making noises to me.
Almost. We liberals typically ask that the government take (I'm not buying your morally loaded, question-begging word "steal") OUR money (since most liberals any/.er will ever speak to are well off) to subsidize OTHERS' pension and health care. I'm pretty sure that does not fall under the normal definition of "selfish".
Ha. But seriously, I doubt if even a sign that said "warning, danger of death if you touch my doorbell" would really protect you, since your intent was obviously malicious, and it was easy to forsee that someone wouldn't take the sign seriously.
That's only a half truth; you logic is only sound if you assume that a government program has all the same expenses to pay as a corresponding private company. In many cases, this isn't the case as the government entity often doesn't need to market, pay competitive C-level salaries, etc. So, yes, for some definitions of "efficient" you are correct, but not on the definition that matters most in actual policy making.
Case in point: private insurance companies pay out 70% of the premiums you pay for actual healthcare. The rest goes to marketing, etc. By comparison, 96% of the money going into Medicare goes into actual healthcare costs. (This, according to Rand Corp.)
I'd mod you up if I could. For a nation so supposedly plagues by lawsuits, people are surprisingly afraid to pursue claims like this. It really is very easy and, as the parent says, doesn't require a lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when is any public company cheaper than a private version of the same company ? That contradicts economics, and you admit as much, several times. Not that you've ever let that stop you before. Please explain why economic theory is wrong here.
It is not so much that economic theory is wrong, but that your interpretation of either the facts of the situation or of economic theory is mistaken. There are two reasons that, contrary to your assumptions, a government-run plan could be cheaper:
1. The government plan might offer fewer services than private plans (possibly covering fewer sorts of treatments, providing less choice of doctor, etc.).
2. The government needn't spend money on medical underwriting research, marketing, executive salaries, etc.
You can see that this is possible by looking to two places:
1. A Rand Corp. report showing that private insurance plans spend 30% of the money they receive in premiums on administrative overhead. Medicare, meanwhile, spends 3%.
2. The US Postal System. While not exactly a model for government run corporations, it it is still cheaper to mail a letter via the USPS than by FedEx. Now, it might be slower, but it certainly is cheaper and cost is what you were asking about.
If you think I "DEMAND" a public option, you obviously did not carefully read this sentence, which I have now written to you three times:
Since, in many markets, there is only one health insurance provider, we need to do something to break up the monopolies and bring competition back to the market to keep prices down. (though I might be open to other ways of breaking up the monopolies as well)
The remainder of your argument hinges on the fact that two so-called lefties - I assume you mean Hitler and Stalin - have gone on to do evil things, therefore any liberal might go on to do similar evil things. This is a very poor argument. In fact, it is really no argument at all. Tell me if you can spot the flaw here:
Some A's are B's
pdabbadabba is an A
Therefore pdabbadabba is a B
This is the logical form of your argument.
This is not to mention that it requires a VERY revisionist reading of history to claim that either of these men were liberals. I believe that "fascist" is the more orthodox term.
Dare I ask what "the mighty atheismo" is supposed to mean?
I detect only one real question in here, and I think it is this: if I advocate a plan that is premium-funded, and uses tax payer money only to subsidize the cost of insuring the poor, then why make the plan public. A private plan can do this perfectly well. And this is a reasonable question. But it is one I have already discussed, so I will quote from a previous post:
But I think [a health care reform package] would be better with a public option to help keep costs down for members of private plans. Since, in many markets, there is only one health insurance provider, we need to do something to break up the monopolies and bring competition back to the market to keep prices down. (though I might be open to other ways of breaking up the monopolies as well)
I don't believe you ever responded to this suggestion, so I'll give you the opportunity to do so now.
Can you now please write a response comprising 4 paragraphs, each one responding to a single question. Please start each paragraph with the option you choose, and feel free to commit any number of further sentences to the reasons why.
Sure. That is almost exactly what I did last time, but I'll do it again.
1) is the coverage 0$ or will the poor be denied (for some level of poor). Also, note that if the price is different from that EXACT PRICE (0$) illegal aliens will not be covered, for obvious reasons (obviously they don't want to enter into a contract with the government they're trying to avoid, that's a few dozen million people not covered at all right there) (there is no third option)
Reread what I said. I will repeat it for a third time: I said that the plan will not be free. There will be a premium. BUT, the government will provide subsidies to people who can't afford the premium using taxpayer dollars. So, it would be free for some people, not free for others. It is true that illegal aliens will not be covered (though not quite for reasons you state). That is a shame, but we do the best we can.
2) do you deny people for not paying enough OR are you creating a new group of government dependants that you agree will grow until all money is consumed. (there is no third option)
I asked you before to tell me why you think this group of "govermnent dependents" will grow until all the money was consumed, but you have not. So I'm afraid I do not see why I have to chose from the options you give me.
3) does your "nice" plan intend to have massive cost overruns (= "public" plan) OR is it a private plan (there is no third option)
This is another false choice. It will be a public plan, without massive cost overruns. You have done nothing to show that this is impossible.
4) WHO EXACTLY decides what is covered, and what recourse do I have if I don't agree ? (and any public plan is paid by taxes, obviously, so that means you cannot leave it, by definition, since it is NOT possible to NOT pay to a public company, by definition)
This is an interesting question. But here are two answers to it that I've already given. Presumably, a panel of doctors will decide what KINDS of treatments are covered. I see no way of getting around this, and it is the same thing a private insurance company does. If you don't like it, you can buy a private plan instead. And, no, you would not be paying for your plan with tax money, you would pay a separate premium (I have said this at least four times now). The only part of this that you would pay for with tax money (if you're rich) would be the premium subsidies for the poor.
Please, also not a few reasonable cases that you will deny treatment ... say a baby born with leukemia, will you cover her ? Note that without treatment she dies in 2 months (tops). With treatment, she dies in 5 years, and this costs several million dollars. Where do you draw the line and based on what principles ?
Well, I'm not a doctor so I'm not sure I can give you realistic examples. But I'll try to answer the spirit of your question. Any type of medical treatment that has been shown to be effective in treating a disease, will be covered for the treatment of that condition. Things that might not be covered (though, again, I'm not a doctor so these are rough approximations) would be: antibiotics to treat the flu (because antibiotics aren't effective against the flu and over-prescription of antibiotics leads to the increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens). Faith healing and homeopathy would probably also not be covered. :)
I'm pretty sure it is you who haven't answered any of my questions...but I'll play along.
You ask who will decide what is paid for. The answer is, of course, the people who administer the public plan. Just like a private insurance plan or Medicare, the public plan will decide what treatments are covered under that plan. The mistake that people make is in thinking that there will be a panel that decides who can get what treatment. This is not how the plan will work. In fact, this isn't how it works under extremely centralized, single payer systems like the British model. Rather, I imagine we will have some entity that figures out what sorts of treatment are worth covering and what aren't. This is exactly what every private insurance company does today. Want to go to buddhist spiritual healer to cure your Crone's disease? More power to you, but I guarantee your private insurance won't cover it. The public plan, just like private insurers, will have to limit themselves to covering treatments that are known to be effective.
And remember also that nobody will be forced to use this plan. So it's not as though treatments denied under the public plan will just be impossible to receive. If you're not happy with the treatments covered by the public plan, you're free to go with a private one.
What guarantee do you have that you won't have to pay for this with your taxes? None! As I said before, the plan will be paid for entirely by premiums, but the government will subsidize the premiums for the poor, and will need to use your tax money to do it. (Though, if a poor person wants to go with a private plan, they will be subsidized in the same way. You have already said you're OK with this, although you seemed to want to set it up as direct federal donations to private insurers. But it amounts to the same thing.)
at price = $0, the demand will be infinite...
Price will not be $0! You will have to pay premiums to buy into the public plan, just like any other plan.
Evolution dictates that this group will grow until the government cannot pay for it anymore.
It does no such thing. I have asked to repeatedly to explain why you think this is so, but without any success. My invitation to you to explain yourself is still open, however.
you FIGHT the suggestion of limiting the maximum cost of the plan...
I don't quite understand what you mean by this.
you're answer is "not CHORE" ... great answer man. Great answer. If I ask you who designed the next Toyota model, is your answer "not Tom Cruise" ? Real informative.
You didn't ask me who will chose what is covered. You just made inaccurate claims about CHORE and I corrected them. Hopefully I have done more to answer your real question in this post.
Have I missed anything?
I am not categorically opposed to a system like what you describe. (i.e., where we only have private insurance companies, but the government helps the poor buy into those private plans.) This sounds to me like the dutch model. But I think the plan would be better with a public option to help keep costs down for members of private plans. Since, in many markets, there is only one health insurance provider, we need to do something to break up the monopolies and bring the competition back to the market to keep prices down. (though I might be open to other ways of breaking up the monopolies as well)
It is not true that the center that the health bill would set up would be for the purpose of chosing who gets what care. In fact, the bill says explicitly that this body will not have the power to decide what is covered. See here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/211981
It is also simply not true that the HR bill outlaws private plans. See, for example, here: http://soundpolitics.com/archives/013108.html. In fact, a great deal of the bill is designed to regulate private plans.
These are both widely propagated, but thoroughly debunked myths.
By the way, I certainly don't expect you to buy into most of that Krugman article. I only sent it your way because he talks some about the Swiss system.
OK. Now I think we're getting somewhere.
I don't know whether the government plan will deny care or not. That is because, as it stands, there is no plan under consideration. And, to be clear, I'm not at all sure I am going to be totally satisfied with whatever Obama and congress come up with. That's politics unfortunately. So don't mistake me for saying the ObamaCare will solve all of our health care problems.
Now, my ideal system would be for the government to offer a public option that is basically funded by premiums paid by those it covers. To ensure coverage of the poor, the fees would be assessed on a sliding scale. Tax money would be used to subsidize the payments of those who can't afford the full price. People would also have the option to buy into private plans as they do now (though a new system of regulations would prevent them from engaging in health-based underwriting, etc.).
So, you are probably right that not everyone will be covered. But it will cover many people who can't get coverage now. So, am I happy that it probably won't be able to cover everyone? Of course not. But I think it is far better than doing nothing at all.
But you can see that this government-run plan would hardly have to cover an "unlimited" number of people. Many will be happier with private coverage (because it will probably be better) so we don't have to worry about them. And many of the people on the public plan will be paying their own way in premiums. So we don't have to pay for them with government money either. The government (or, rather, we the people) will only foot the bill to cover the poor.
You say that the elderly will not be covered by this (or Obama's) plan. To this I reply: of course. They will be covered by Medicare as they have been for quite some time. I'm not quite sure what to say about infants. under the plan I would like, they would of course be covered. And the only actual bill we have to look at so far, HR 3500 has no language to this effect. So, Ezekiel Emanuel can say whatever he wants, but his views, in the broader scheme of things, mean nothing to me.
You say that this will require a "suspension of economics" and "that we are not "slaves" to human evolution". I have no idea why you think that the plan I've outlined will require either of these things. Could you please explain in detail what you mean?
Now, as for what happens if the system collapses. Of course, I think the system probably would not collapse - your claims aside, I see no reason why that would happen. but, I'll go along with you and assume, for the sake of argument, that it will. What do we do? Well, I think you've left out the most obvious option: raise premiums on the public plan, raise taxes if its feasible, cut less essential programs if there are any, or, yes, shut down the public health care option. Remember, that a whole private insurance market will exist alongside the public option so its not as though there will be no way for people to get health care. Of course, this would be bad, but it would not be nation-ending and, (bonus!) it would not require us to invade Pakistan. Though I'm not at all sure how this would help. :)
Now, about the Netherlands and Switzerland. I assume you mean that the Netherlands has no public health insurance program. That is true. but what they do have is a heavily heavily regulated private insurance market, with taxes being used to help the poor pay for coverage. Switzerland, it turns out, has a plan very similar to what Obama is proposing (And, as far as I can tell, similar to the plan I outlined above). (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html). As for Sweden, they're still running budget surpluses as of July of this year (the latest numbers I can find in 30 seconds of Googling). So I'm not quite sure where the crisis is...
I have given you a fine argument as to why the free market is not, in fact, the best mechanism for distributing health care. It is because markets work by pricing some people out of them.
But I have heard nothing back from you other than "it's impossible!," "you're denying reality." But I have in fact showed you why an effective system of national health care is not only possible, but essential. You have tacitly agreed yourself that government provides public water service to just about everyone. (Though you say it is to "enable markets") So why is it not possible for the government to provide health care for everyone?
As for your historical argument, as far as I can see, it goes like this: Two political movements in the course of history have been started by people claiming to be serving the public welfare, but wound up being brutal tyrants. Therefore social welfare programs lead inexorably to brutal tyranny. Of course nowhere in your argument do you attempt to come to grips with the fact that, of all the major industrialized nations in the world, we are the only ones without these programs. Where, then, is the violent tyranny in France? Sweden? Japan? Switzerland? Canada? Or do you say it is only a matter of time? If so, I'll be sure to keep an eye on the news. I'm sure The Netherlands will be blowing up any day now.
I'm still waiting, by the way, for a response to my question.
Nonsense, nonsense, and more nonsense. Let me go through your post bit by bit:
I see a claim that I am deceiving you, but no explanation as to how I am incorrect. Your problem is that when you say "better" or "more efficient" you have not thought carefully enough about what that means. These concepts, to the free market, mean greater efficiency in making profit. That's all. It does not necessarily mean providing greater access to the services. Since we cannot accept inadequate access to services in the case of health care , the government must intervene (just as is has for decades in the cases of food, water, and housing).
Far from being a truism, this is obviously false, because to provide a service efficiently (in free market terms, i.e. maximizing profit) has nothing at all to do with how many people have access to the service.
See above. Reality is not the way you believe it to be.
Reckless nonsense. Are you seriously suggesting that I and my liberal friends intend to lead some sort of pogrom to kill off health care reform opponents? If so, you really ought to have your head examined.
All I've said is that there is something, call it X, that I think we have a moral duty to do. You disagree. If that amounts to my acting morally superior, then so be it. (Though I don't see how any debate at all would be possible without running afoul of your little rule) But I think most would just call this "an honest disagreement."
Agreed, oddly enough, but I'm not sure I see your point. (Except,
I'm replying to what you say about the free market separately, because I think it a worthy point, but one quite separate from everything else we're discussing.
The market system favors companies that maximize profit. To maximize their profit, companies look at the characteristics of the market to determine what services to provide, and at what price to provide them. In the actual insurance marketplace as it exists today, companies are maximizing their profit by providing a certain level of service (sometimes good, sometimes bad) at a price not everyone can afford. This is the sort of outcome that the free market encourages and, for commodities (iPods, air travel, furniture, etc.) this is great because, as I'm sure you understand, it tends to get goods and services to a large number of people while encouraging innovation. I like it.
The problem is that some goods and services aren't commodities, they're necessities and we, as a society (though hardly without dissent, I'm sure), have decided that we need to ensure that nobody gets priced out of these markets. This is why, often, government intervenes to ensure that everyone has access to necessities like water (by municipal control of infrastructure), food (food stamps), shelter (public housing), etc.
So, I have no doubt that the free market is the best way to ensure that health care is provisioned efficiently. The problem is that efficiency is not all we're concerned with in the case of health care. We should be equally concerned with access, and there is no guarantee at all that the free market will maximize access. In fact, we know from our experience today in America, that the market leaves an unacceptably large number of people without access to health care.
Actually, to be fair, this question is not simple at all. Nonetheless, I would like to see your reply. :)
I haved asked a simple question of you several times now and you have not answered it. But I think we can't get anywhere in this discussion until we've addressed it. So I'll try again:
You accept that taxes to support the military can be justified. Therefore, you accept that advocating that taxes be levied to pay for a government program is sometimes justified. So, therefore, you have to give an argument to explain why levying taxes to pay for health care is not justified. What is it?
If you will, at long last, answer this question, I will be happy to discuss the rest of your claims in turn.
Apparently you read very poorly. I did not say that altruism is impossible, I assumed it in a foolish attempt to agree with your ravings. In fact, I DO think it is possible. There is, however, and old and lively debate on the possibility of altruism that I thought you were referring to. I suppose that I should not be surprised that, instead, you are wholly ignorant of it. I can tell you that I (and liberals I know) want to see health care reform because it will help people. End of story. To say that we are motivated, not by altruism, but by the potential at feeling satisfied when these programs pass, is to badly pervert the normal meaning of the word "motivation." But this is really beside the point.
Perhaps we need to regroup, since I seem to be on the verge of losing you entirely down the rabbit hole of right-wing arrogance and paranoia: Nations exist to provide for the collective welfare, pure and simple. Now, I take it that you think this should be limited to something like providing for a national defense and enforcement of basic laws, because you also object to the government's taking of private property through taxes. I think this is a reasonable position. Let me know if you don't agree with this much.
My position is exactly like yours except that I think welfare programs like health care reform, social security, etc. are also collective causes worthy of levying taxes. I'm not a huge fan of taxes, but I'm willing to pay them if it means our nation can be, in my view, a bit more just.
I'm sure you would feel the same way if we had a pathetic military and the Canadians were constantly coming down and capturing our coal mines and corn fields - you would want to fix it, raising taxes if necessary. Am I wrong?
So, you see, you and I have the same attitudes about taxation. We both believe that they are sometimes justified when they are necessary to pay for what we feel are essential programs.
So why can't we talk about our real differences - regarding whether health care reform is a worthy policy - and stop all this foolishness about my being a thief because I want to pay for government programs with tax money?
Or, if you'd rather, could you explain to me why I am a thief for wanting to pay for health care reforb, but you are not for supporting the levyin of taxes to fund whatever programs that you think are important (like national defense, road building, etc.).
And, yes, I volunteer quite a bit of my time. Thanks for asking.
Yes I do agree that I derive benefit from having a national defense. But, no, I maintain that I do not benefit from a nationalized health care system (with the caveats you point out. Seebelow.). It seems we agree that I am not a thief because I advocate the levying of taxes to provide for the national defense. Meanwhile I also insist that I am not a thief for advocating taxes to pay for national health care reform because, among other reasons, I neither receive the money nor gain any benefit from it. No contradiction.
I'm not sure I agree that there are more gun nuts than democrats among teenage volunteers (it probably depends on where you live, don't you think?). But maybe we can agree that neither political affiliation has a monopoly on altruism and good intentions. On both sides of the isle, some of us act for the right reasons, some of us for the wrong reasons.
As for whether liberals gain from health care reform, I'm not sure. Now we seem to be faced with the classic problem of the possibility of altruism. While I'm not sure I have the fortitude (or space!) to take that up here properly, I can say definitively that I and every liberal I know (no need to speak in the third person about "bleeding hearts"; I am one of them) genuinely want health care reform because we think it is the right (morally) policy to have. Those of us who are well off are happy to pay the cost, and we think that well off conservatives have a moral obligation to do likewise. Perhaps, if altruism is impossible, deep in our psyches we do advocate what we advocate because we want to feel the satisfaction of living in a more just nation, but it seems to me that our conscious reasons are the ones that matter. After all, if altruism is impossible, how can we do any better?
Well, my inclination is to say that your assertions are insane. But I think that will go without saying to most readers. (Though I don't deny that the democratic party might stand to reap some political benefits from the effects you mention. Implementing a policy that most Americans think is a good idea is generally a good way to do that.)
Now, being as charitable as possible, perhaps what you mean is that some high level democratic party strategists are pulling the strings ONLY for the reasons you give. I don't think that's true either. But it's not relevant to the present discussion because I wasn't talking about high level democratic strategists, I was talking about the rank and file liberals you encounter in places like /..
Your definition of "thief" is lacking. A thief is someone who steals. To steal is to wrongfully take from someone something that they rightfully own. You have demonstrated that I want to take your money against your will. Fair enough. But you still have to show that it is wrongful, and that it was rightfully yours to start with.
For example, do you approve of taxation to provide for a minimal national defense? If so, then you don't believe that all taxation is stealing.
(Also, your car buying example is ridiculously off point. In your example, you get the money, and then spend it to benefit yourself. In my example, I never see the money or its benefits because I am neither poor nor the government.)
Show me where I say the poor are not taxed. All I said was that I support the taxation of the rich to fund welfare programs for the poor. (Note that I don't really mean rich and poor literally, I really only mean the well off v. the less well off). If you really aren't well off (making, say, less that $200,000/yr) then I'm sorry that you're paying more than half of your income in taxes (though I don't see how it's possible).I would be all for finding a way of reducing your taxes. But the realities of your particular financial situation have nothing to do with my broader point.
No, I do in fact think the government needs more of my money...provided it sets up the programs that I think that we need.
Are you trying to make a point here?
You seem to be misreading me intentionally. By "our" I obviously didn't mean "liberals'," I meant "the rich's," another group to which I happen to belong (relatively speaking, of course). I grant that what I wrote was ambiguous, but only one possible interpretation made any sense. It is hardly to your credit that you chose to take up the other.
And how could I possibly be a thief if I'm not getting any of your money? And how could I possibly be a lyer when that isn't even a word? (Sorry...can't help myself. )
And there we are again with these loaded words like "thief." Obviously, I don't think there is anything wrong with taxes for welfare programs, and thus do not believe that they amount to stealing. If you want to use words like this in a serious debate, you have to back them up with an argument. Otherwise you're just making noises to me.
Almost. We liberals typically ask that the government take (I'm not buying your morally loaded, question-begging word "steal") OUR money (since most liberals any /.er will ever speak to are well off) to subsidize OTHERS' pension and health care. I'm pretty sure that does not fall under the normal definition of "selfish".
So, business as usual then?
Ha. But seriously, I doubt if even a sign that said "warning, danger of death if you touch my doorbell" would really protect you, since your intent was obviously malicious, and it was easy to forsee that someone wouldn't take the sign seriously.
Have fun in jail!
That's only a half truth; you logic is only sound if you assume that a government program has all the same expenses to pay as a corresponding private company. In many cases, this isn't the case as the government entity often doesn't need to market, pay competitive C-level salaries, etc. So, yes, for some definitions of "efficient" you are correct, but not on the definition that matters most in actual policy making.
Case in point: private insurance companies pay out 70% of the premiums you pay for actual healthcare. The rest goes to marketing, etc. By comparison, 96% of the money going into Medicare goes into actual healthcare costs. (This, according to Rand Corp.)
I'd mod you up if I could. For a nation so supposedly plagues by lawsuits, people are surprisingly afraid to pursue claims like this. It really is very easy and, as the parent says, doesn't require a lawyer.
Better hope nobody ever tries it; you will be guilty of at least manslaughter, "no soliciting" sign or not.