The health care industry is bound to collapse soon, experts say

[ploidy]

Thats fine to say as an impossible ideal, but does not help. Kids "should" not get murdered either, but it happens. Life is not fair.

Logistically, the only way to offer a limited resource equally is to have an authoritarian government who decides which services will be affordable to provide to everyone, and those that have money who illicitly seek additional better care are shot on sight.

Even most European socialist-leaning countries have a private sector where you can pay to get better/ faster care, although they try to hide this.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Deciding a wealthy person gets an organ opposed to lower-middle class person isn't about government budgeting.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GravelRider]

No, they are paid with the liberty they took from you.

Which basic right would you like to lose in order in oder to pay healthcare workers?

I say the right to vote.

Maybe the right the bear arms. Uh-oh, here comes the anger...

I honestly don't follow your line of thinking here. Public defenders are paid with the liberty they took from you?

We have an entire justice system ensuring that your rights are maintained. They are not working for free. I have not said that healthcare is a basic human right. However, I don't understand the line of thinking that healthcare costs money and therefore it is not a right...or doctors are not slaves so healthcare is not a right. This just seems like faulty logic to me. You know what else costs money? The justice system, which upholds those rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution.

To me there is a difference between a basic human right and the rights granted by a democratic society like the United States. If you look at the Constitution there is language in there granting "Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Now healthcare is not a basic human right in the sense that I can't force a health care worker to care for me without any sort of payment. However, I think there is an argument that it is the right of a citizen of a democratic nation, such as the United States.

 

[urge]

We have an entire justice system ensuring that your rights are maintained.

Except for putting you in jail before a trial just based on an accusation which might be unfounded.

Sounds like they are doing a great job.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Deciding a wealthy person gets an organ opposed to lower-middle class person isn't about government budgeting.

That's not how transplants work, like at all

 

[urge]

I honestly don't follow your line of thinking here. Public defenders are paid with the liberty they took from you?

They take a right from you (liberty), and they give you a right (counsel). What's so hard to follow?

Thus, they give you a right (healthcare), and they take a right from you.

It's logical.

 

[ploidy]

That's not how transplants work, like at all

Lol see I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and prolly should stay on the pre-md/do section.

I was under the impression (don't know why), hospitals choose to give organs/non-immediate life saving treatment to wealthy people rather than poor if there are limited resources.

 

[GravelRider]

They take a right from you (liberty), and they give you a right (counsel). What's so hard to follow?

Thus, they give you a right (healthcare), and they take a right from you.

It's logical.

Technically they aren't taking a right from you until you are found guilty after a fair trial. You are innocent until proven guilty. It's not as simple as they take a right from you and give you one in return. I can also have a public defender appointed if I commit a misdemeanor where my liberty is not at risk.

 

[urge]

Technically they aren't taking a right from you until you are found guilty after a fair trial.

Jail time during trial is a vacation they give you?

 

[urge]

I can also have a public defender appointed if I commit a misdemeanor where my liberty is not at risk.

Criteria for a Court-Appointed Attorney

The justices in Gideon unanimously held that "in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him." However, the Court later clarified this ruling, making it apply to cases where the defendant is charged with either a felony or a misdemeanor which could result in imprisonment from a conviction.

Are You Entitled to a Court-Appointed Attorney? - FindLaw

Your liberty is very much at risk for them to appoint you free counsel.

 

[GravelRider]

Jail time during trial is a vacation they give you?

So do I deserve counsel the night before my 24 hour in-house call? It certainly feels like jail. I'm about to lose my liberty...at least for 24 hours.

So the basic human rights are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We've touched on liberty. How about life or the pursuit of happiness? Healthcare as a right doesn't fit in there at all? I don't know the answer, but my gut tells me that a wealthy, democratic nation should be able to provide some basic form of healthcare for its citizens.

 

[doctalaughs]

don't know the answer, but my gut tells me that a wealthy, democratic nation should be able to provide some basic form of healthcare for its citizens.

Yes we should and could but the keyword in there is BASIC.

Americans don't want basic healthcare. They want "the most advanced," "what that rich guy can afford," "CT scan for any mild belly ache," "replace my knee now while I gain my 500th pound eating doritos" type healthcare.

We could easily provide vaccines, basic meds and appropriate basic cost-effective medicine if Americans would just stop demanding "what the Jonses have" and "equal for all."


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Ignatius J]

The secret to their better outcomes is that they focus on prevention and education, while we focus on treating the results of the lack of prevention and education.

The article above shows that Americans outside of trauma have a higher life expectancy than any other country. So you have a false premise.

Another reality is that even with higher comorbidity rates than other Western countries that the USA still outperforms these countries in life expectancy and care.

Yes, our healthcare delivery system is pretty damn good until you bring costs into it.

 

[Planktonmd]

The article above shows that Americans outside of trauma have a higher life expectancy than any other country. So you have a false premise.

Another reality is that even with higher comorbidity rates than other Western countries that the USA still outperforms these countries in life expectancy and care.

Yes, our healthcare delivery system is pretty damn good until you bring costs into it.

I am not sure of the value of slightly higher life expectancy if the last few months of the life of the average American are spent in hospitals and intensive care units getting expensive futile procedures.
Are those few extra months worth the enormous cost and the suffering inflicted on the elderly in their final days?
Those final days are very lucrative for the corporations and CEOs but I am not sure they are good for patients or the economy.

 

[facted]

I am not sure of the value of slightly higher life expectancy if the last few months of the life of the average American are spent in hospitals and intensive care units getting expensive futile procedures.
Are those few extra months worth the enormous cost and the suffering inflicted on the elderly in their final days?
Those final days are very lucrative for the corporations and CEOs but I am not sure they are good for patients or the economy.

And this is it. This doesn't happen anywhere near as often everywhere else. People in other countries sometimes die without an operation and an ICU stay.

 

[dhb]

And this is it. This doesn't happen anywhere near as often everywhere else. People in other countries sometimes die without an operation and an ICU stay.

Also not true.
The misconceptions from each side of the Atlantic are quite amusing:
In Europe people think Americans don't have a wide acces to healthcare and only the wealthy get adecuate care.
In the US you guys think we do a lot of preventive medicine, don't do total joonts for BMIs over 35 and that our average ICU admition age is not over 75y/o.
It's crapy medicine all around.

 

[GravelRider]

Also not true.
The misconceptions from each side of the Atlantic are quite amusing:
In Europe people think Americans don't have a wide acces to healthcare and only the wealthy get adecuate care.
In the US you guys think we do a lot of preventive medicine, don't do total joonts for BMIs over 35 and that our average ICU admition age is not over 75y/o.
It's crapy medicine all around.

It's widely known that the best medical care occurs in Cuba.

 

[pgg]

It's widely known that the best medical care occurs in Cuba.

That's why their infant mortality rate is the best on earth. I heard it on TV.

 

[deleted126335]

It's widely known that the best medical care occurs in Cuba.

Their increased life expectancy is due to non voluntary caloric restriction.

 

[Ignatius J]

I am not sure of the value of slightly higher life expectancy if the last few months of the life of the average American are spent in hospitals and intensive care units getting expensive futile procedures.
Are those few extra months worth the enormous cost and the suffering inflicted on the elderly in their final days?
Those final days are very lucrative for the corporations and CEOs but I am not sure they are good for patients or the economy.

Take that up with the WHO who heavily weights the life expectancy statistic.

It is not difficult to understand that the American system offers the most diverse, advanced, quick, and flexible array of treatment options for sick patients. This is where you want to be sick. Who pays for it another discussion. I'm looking at you, Kimmel.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

If people would just go beyond the Fox news interpretation of a single payer system they might see that the rest of the world is really not as horrible as they were made to believe.
Every advanced country other than the US has a single payer system where people are entitled to health care the way they entitled to air, water, and dignity.
Most of those countries have much better outcomes than us at a fraction of the price.

Yeah and they benefit off of our innovation because we give it to them for nothing. They would not have half the technology they have without us giving it to them. That is a myth that they have better outcomes, in fact, it has been proven that it is inferior to the care received in the U.S. Those countries have massive debt due to their health care system because there is no accountability of cost. Naturally the costs are higher than what is paid into it... who knew? Those countries ration care as their only way to even romotely address the exorbant costs and only give what is determined by a bereaucrat. You have this misconception of what a socialized single payer system is in the U.S. because all of the castostrophic comsequences of it are offset by the private healthcare system we have that allows for innovation and a high quality of care and although the debt of Medicare/Medicaid is exploding it doesn't mean anything to you personally yet. Have you ever been to any VA? If so, then just imagine that as the only form of health care in the U.S. if it became government run.

 

[Planktonmd]

Those countries have massive debt due to their health care system because there is no accountability of cost.

I am glad that we have "accountability of cost" and no "massive debt"!

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[FollowTheMoney]

I think this applies specifically to this forum of physicians and this is just my opinion.

There are 2 types of intelligent people:

1. Those who are intelligent and because they are intelligent they do not like other people telling them what to do or how to live. It is because they don't like anyone telling them what to do or how to live, they feel the same basic courtesy should be given to everyone else as well. Generally, these people believe that the rest of society, even if they are not as successful or intelligent, should be able to have the freedom to decide how to live their lives and to determine what is best for themselves. This is the fundamental do no harm and have limited government interference in our lives with the basic expectation that everyone should have a baseline level of personal responsibility for themselves. They have accepted that not everyone is equal, but equal opportunity is readily available based on talent and effort.

2. These people are the ones who are intelligent and believe they are superior to everyone else and therefore believe in central planning and deciding what's best for everyone else. These are the people who believe in big government to do everything and are always looking to make collectivist executive decisions that they think are best for everyone regardless if it negatively impacts others or certain groups of individuals. Generally these people are more egotistical and big on credentials (Ivy league, etc). They are always looking to help a "victim" because they see them as inferior to themselves while not realizing the fundamental collectivist decision they made creates new actual victims and injustice in the process.

I think generally most people fall into those two categories and it's just a matter of figuring out which one you are in.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

I am glad that we have "accountability of cost" and no "massive debt"!

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

The reason we don't have that is because of Medicare and Medicaid and the we'll take anyone anytime as many times as you want in any given ER and give you everything you could ever possibly need even if you paid nothing into the system.

 

[F1rstGen]

I think this applies specifically to this forum of physicians and this is just my opinion.

There are 2 types of intelligent people:

1. Those who are intelligent and because they are intelligent they do not like other people telling them what to do or how to live. It is because they don't like anyone telling them what to do or how to live, they feel the same basic courtesy should be given to everyone else as well. Generally, these people believe that the rest of society, even if they are not as successful or intelligent, should be able to have the freedom to decide how to live their lives and to determine what is best for themselves. This is the fundamental do no harm and have limited government interference in our lives with the basic expectation that everyone should have a baseline level of personal responsibility for themselves. They have accepted that not everyone is equal, but equal opportunity is readily available based on talent and effort.

2. These people are the ones who are intelligent and believe they are superior to everyone else and therefore believe in central planning and deciding what's best for everyone else. These are the people who believe in big government to do everything and are always looking to make collectivist executive decisions that they think are best for everyone regardless if it negatively impacts others or certain groups of individuals. Generally these people are more egotistical and big on credentials (Ivy league, etc). They are always looking to help a "victim" because they see them as inferior to themselves while not realizing the fundamental collectivist decision they made creates new actual victims and injustice in the process.

I think generally most people fall into those two categories and it's just a matter of figuring out which one you are in.

Seems like a completely unbiased assessment....

Do you think that there is ever a situation where group two are correct and that allowing for "free will" will be both damaging to the individual and the society as a whole?

I think an example of this might be with our smoking taxation increases. You can argue people should have the right to smoke, but removing this choice (via taxing the hell out of cigs) has done more to decrease lung cancer and smoking related deaths than anything else thats been suggested. By extension, this has saved taxpayers significant money (data shows that medicaid recipients have much higher smoking rates). So in this case, I would say that "big government" knew what was better for people than the individual.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Seems like a completely unbiased assessment....

Do you think that there is ever a situation where group two are correct and that allowing for "free will" will be both damaging to the individual and the society as a whole?

I think an example of this might be with our smoking taxation increases. You can argue people should have the right to smoke, but removing this choice (via taxing the hell out of cigs) has done more to decrease lung cancer and smoking related deaths than anything else thats been suggested. By extension, this has saved taxpayers significant money (data shows that medicaid recipients have much higher smoking rates). So in this case, I would say that "big government" knew what was better for people than the individual.

That falls under the do no harm, so if an individual or company is harming another individual or company, the court system is responsible for upholding the rights of the affected party. National defense and a judicial system are the bare essentials of a limited government so it does not necessarily fall under big government. People should have the freedom to smoke cigarettes and kill themselves if they want to as long as it's not in the presence of another individual because of the harm you are inflicting onto another.

 

[deleted126335]

I think this applies specifically to this forum of physicians and this is just my opinion.

There are 2 types of intelligent people:

1. Those who are intelligent and because they are intelligent they do not like other people telling them what to do or how to live. It is because they don't like anyone telling them what to do or how to live, they feel the same basic courtesy should be given to everyone else as well. Generally, these people believe that the rest of society, even if they are not as successful or intelligent, should be able to have the freedom to decide how to live their lives and to determine what is best for themselves. This is the fundamental do no harm and have limited government interference in our lives with the basic expectation that everyone should have a baseline level of personal responsibility for themselves. They have accepted that not everyone is equal, but equal opportunity is readily available based on talent and effort.

2. These people are the ones who are intelligent and believe they are superior to everyone else and therefore believe in central planning and deciding what's best for everyone else. These are the people who believe in big government to do everything and are always looking to make collectivist executive decisions that they think are best for everyone regardless if it negatively impacts others or certain groups of individuals. Generally these people are more egotistical and big on credentials (Ivy league, etc). They are always looking to help a "victim" because they see them as inferior to themselves while not realizing the fundamental collectivist decision they made creates new actual victims and injustice in the process.

I think generally most people fall into those two categories and it's just a matter of figuring out which one you are in.

How about a third type? Nobody knows nothing. Nothing is certain. Those who are confident are idiots. I know that nobody knows nuthin and therefore regard myself as less of an idiot than most because they don't know that nobody knows nuthin.

 

[psychbender]

I think an example of this might be with our smoking taxation increases. You can argue people should have the right to smoke, but removing this choice (via taxing the hell out of cigs) has done more to decrease lung cancer and smoking related deaths than anything else thats been suggested. By extension, this has saved taxpayers significant money (data shows that medicaid recipients have much higher smoking rates). So in this case, I would say that "big government" knew what was better for people than the individual.

Interestingly enough, I think there was a study discussed in this forum several years ago that showed that heavy smokers actually cost the health system less over their lifetime, as they tended to die younger. So, if big government cared more about the bottom line, maybe they should stat handing out cigarettes again.

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

 

[F1rstGen]

That falls under the do no harm, so if an individual or company is harming another individual or company, the court system is responsible for upholding the rights of the affected party. National defense and a judicial system are the bare essentials of a limited government so it does not necessarily fall under big government. People should have the freedom to smoke cigarettes and kill themselves if they want to as long as it's not in the presence of another individual because of the harm you are inflicting onto another.

As long as we have a healthcare systems that won't refuse treatment, or if the given smoker is on medicaid, do you think their decision may ultimately cost taxpayers?

My point is that while some instances may be more extreme than others, as long as we all inhabit the same globe (or plane if you're a flat earther) we are connected and everything you do has an impact on everyone else. But we're derailing this thread with a topic that can get very complicated.....

Interestingly enough, I think there was a study discussed in this forum several years ago that showed that heavy smokers actually cost the health system less over their lifetime, as they tended to die younger. So, if big government cared more about the bottom line, maybe they should stat handing out cigarettes again.

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

I was waiting for someone to point this out. I've heard this argument before and it does have some merit. I guess a better example might be obesity. Hard to argue that doesn't significantly increase an individual's healthcare utilization.

How about a third type? Nobody knows nothing. Nothing is certain. Those who are confident are idiots. I know that nobody knows nuthin and therefore regard myself as less of an idiot than most because they don't know that nobody knows nuthin.

There's a good quote about this topic out there somewhere. Something about idiocy being confident while intellect is dubious.

 

[GravelRider]

There's a good quote about this topic out there somewhere. Something about idiocy being confident while intellect is dubious.

Isn't this the Dunning-Kruger effect? We are seeing this big league now in our society. Expertise no longer has value because everyone can be an "expert" with the powerful computers we carry in our pocket. This has contributed to the devaluing of our own profession. The poster @FollowTheMoney above even refers to experts as being "egotistical and big on credentials." These experts are now called "elites" by politicians feeding off that very mindset.

The Death Of Expertise

 

[BLADEMDA]

Okay. I've enjoyed the philosophical posts so far. But, let's get back to reality in the USA.

Here are the facts:

1. Obamacare or Obamacare light is here to stay. It's hard to remove benefits from those receiving them. The politicians won't do it.

2. Costs keep going up every year for health insurance by a significant margin above inflation. At some point the middle class American will revolt against private pay insurance.

3. Govt healthcare already exceeds 50 percent of the total market. Medicare and Medicaid keep consuming a larger portion of the budget.

GOP solution- stay the course. Tweak Obamacare. Remove the ACA tax.

Democrats- fix Obamacare. Raise taxes. Add the public option.

Now, I vote GOP and prefer free market healthcare. But, the reality is the horse has left the barn and we will eventually get a Democrat controlled govt which will socialize healthcare by adding the public option. just as Obamacare forced through the ACA in 4-8 years another liberal will shove through the public option

OBAMA knew the ACA would lead to a single payer system over the course of two decades. He was correct and the ACA will be tweaked over time to pay for more healthcare not less

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

What is the Difference Between a Public option and Single Payer?
Single payer describes a single public fund that covers everyone, public option describes a public fund that competes with the private insurance companies.

Single payer doesn’t have to mean that private insurance is eliminated, but typically it implies that the basic health plan offered to individuals and families is public (and supplemental private coverage may or not be sold on-top of this). So original Medicare and Medicaid are very close to single payer systems, for their demographic at least.

A public option has its pros and cons, and so does single payer, but one benefit of the public option is that it is ACA compatible. This is to say, we can build on ObamaCare via a public option without “rocking the boat” too much. We can try letting the public market compete with the private market before a full switch to single payer.

In the background states can utilize sec. 1332 waiversto “pilot” types of single payer and public option programs.

Public option is a broad term, so the specific way the agency operated would be up for debate.

TIP: See our page where we discuss single payer in great detail.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[pgg]

Do you think that there is ever a situation where group two are correct and that allowing for "free will" will be both damaging to the individual and the society as a whole?

Well, that's the dirty little secret of freedom - you're responsible for yourself and ultimately you're on your own, up to the point you seek help and charity.

If you're not free to engage in risky behavior that may result in harm to yourself, you're not really free.

I think an example of this might be with our smoking taxation increases. You can argue people should have the right to smoke, but removing this choice (via taxing the hell out of cigs) has done more to decrease lung cancer and smoking related deaths than anything else thats been suggested. By extension, this has saved taxpayers significant money (data shows that medicaid recipients have much higher smoking rates). So in this case, I would say that "big government" knew what was better for people than the individual.

You'd be wrong; smokers don't cost the system more than non-smokers. Common misconception. On the whole, the heavy smokers tend to die too young to cost as much as the non-smokers who live longer.

In any case, sin taxes are ultimately harmful to freedom. By supporting any sin tax, you are declaring that there's some arbitrary line where acts of self-harm deserve government intervention. Yesterday it was alcohol prohibition, today it's the drug war and sin taxes on smoking and alcohol, tomorrow it'll be high fructose corn syrup, the day after that it'll be something else.

One of the core tenets of libertarians (reasonable libertarians, not the childish anarchists who never grew up) is that government shouldn't be engaged in social engineering by offering monetary reward or punishment for "desirable" or "undesirable" individual behavior ... whether smoking, alcohol consumption, marriage (tax benefits), reproduction (child tax credit), home ownership (mortgage interest tax deduction), etc.

Moreover, sin taxes are inherently repressive, affecting the poor more than the wealthy. You would think that those on the Democrat / more liberal side of the aisle would have something to say about that, but they just can't get past their nanny state, paternalistic, "soft racism of low expectations", and earnest well-meaning need to protect the unwashed masses from themselves.

 

[GravelRider]

Well, that's the dirty little secret of freedom - you're responsible for yourself and ultimately you're on your own, up to the point you seek help and charity.

If you're not free to engage in risky behavior that may result in harm to yourself, you're not really free.



You'd be wrong; smokers don't cost the system more than non-smokers. Common misconception. On the whole, the heavy smokers tend to die too young to cost as much as the non-smokers who live longer.

In any case, sin taxes are ultimately harmful to freedom. By supporting any sin tax, you are declaring that there's some arbitrary line where acts of self-harm deserve government intervention. Yesterday it was alcohol prohibition, today it's the drug war and sin taxes on smoking and alcohol, tomorrow it'll be high fructose corn syrup, the day after that it'll be something else.

One of the core tenets of libertarians (reasonable libertarians, not the childish anarchists who never grew up) is that government shouldn't be engaged in social engineering by offering monetary reward or punishment for "desirable" or "undesirable" individual behavior ... whether smoking, alcohol consumption, marriage (tax benefits), reproduction (child tax credit), home ownership (mortgage interest tax deduction), etc.

Moreover, sin taxes are inherently repressive, affecting the poor more than the wealthy. You would think that those on the Democrat / more liberal side of the aisle would have something to say about that, but they just can't get past their nanny state, paternalistic, "soft racism of low expectations", and earnest well-meaning need to protect the unwashed masses from themselves.

If only it were that clear cut. So the tobacco industry should be free to make billions off a product that makes people sick while withholding information to that effect? We have seen the same thing with the sugar industry. These corporations have profited immensely off of the obesity and diabetes epidemic in our society. These products have been marketed with misinformation about diet guidelines for decades. This macho libertarianism only works when all parties involved have access to all information and you can truly make a free and informed decision about things. Unfortunately, our economy relies heavily on marketing and purposely giving disinformation to the public. Can you really be free if you have the wrong information about your decision?

The government has needed to step in and act like a referee because there is a human tendency for the wealthiest to take advantage of the least wealthy.

 

[DrCommonSense]

Careful what you wish for.

I don't know exactly how you envision this "collapse" will take place, but if the system really fails and becomes untenable, you know what the solution will be: government will take over, administration will get even bigger, and the resulting single payer reimbursement scheme will be Medicare (or worse) rates for everything.

So true.

MBA administration is the future!

 

[pgg]

If only it were that clear cut. So the tobacco industry should be free to make billions off a product that makes people sick while withholding information to that effect?

You've got quite the tendency to add things to another person's argument so you can tear down strawmen. It's disingenuous and makes for pointless discussion.

I didn't write, nor did I ever even imply, that lying to people was OK, or that it was acceptable in any way to deliberately misrepresent the purpose or effect of a product you're selling. What the tobacco industry did was criminal, and eventually they settled in court for $billions. That has exactly dick to do with sin taxes to discourage smoking.

Enforcement of truth in advertising laws and regulation of the food and drug industries to protect citizens from dishonest corporations / other citizens is a completely legitimate and necessary function of government. Taxing individuals to discourage behavior that's not in their best interest is an entirely different issue.

 

[InfinitiPSI]

The more I read, the more it seems that both GOP and democratic views are flawed.

GOP wants less taxes, less government, private insurance. Rich keep more of their money. Less is offered to the masses (such as healthcare). With less regulation, prices soar above inflation, due to corporate greed, and supply/demand economics (people who can pay, are willing to pay anything to save their or their loved ones life).

Democrats want more of a single payer type system, so that 'maximizing profit motive' is not a part of healthcare. However, just like with government backed tuition, and proposed free college for all, the 'blank check' mentality rears its ugly head, and again prices soar, because they know the people paying, will pay regardless.

So is there not a third option that can actually control costs, reduce how much of a profit motive there is, and still provide quality care? It doesn't appear so.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The more I read, the more it seems that both GOP and democratic views are flawed.

GOP wants less taxes, less government, private insurance. Rich keep more of their money. Less is offered to the masses (such as healthcare). With less regulation, prices soar above inflation, due to corporate greed, and supply/demand economics (people who can pay, are willing to pay anything to save their or their loved ones life).

Democrats want more of a single payer type system, so that 'maximizing profit motive' is not a part of healthcare. However, just like with government backed tuition, and proposed free college for all, the 'blank check' mentality rears its ugly head, and again prices soar, because they know the people paying, will pay regardless.

So is there not a third option that can actually control costs, reduce how much of a profit motive there is, and still provide quality care? It doesn't appear so.

Yes, you summed it up nicely. The third option is called "free market capitalism" which works well in other sectors because the govt. is NOT involved in the process. But, since 60% of all healthcare (and that % keeps going up) is govt. funded/sponsored healthcare the free market system isn't at play; costs keep rising because the govt. just absorbs the tab and passes it on to taxpayers (or issues more debt to China).

 

[GravelRider]

You've got quite the tendency to add things to another person's argument so you can tear down strawmen. It's disingenuous and makes for pointless discussion.

I didn't write, nor did I ever even imply, that lying to people was OK, or that it was acceptable in any way to deliberately misrepresent the purpose or effect of a product you're selling. What the tobacco industry did was criminal, and eventually they settled in court for $billions. That has exactly dick to do with sin taxes to discourage smoking.

Enforcement of truth in advertising laws and regulation of the food and drug industries to protect citizens from dishonest corporations / other citizens is a completely legitimate and necessary function of government. Taxing individuals to discourage behavior that's not in their best interest is an entirely different issue.

But there is quite the tendency on here to promote libertarianism as the answer to all of our problems. Somehow if we were to just follow the principles of libertarianism, we would all be happy and free. The biggest problem with libertarianism is that in order for it to work then everyone has to follow the so-called "non-aggression" principle. The corporations of the world have shown time and time again that they are not willing to do that. There is too much temptation to take advantage of the illusion of freedom.

 

[Planktonmd]

But there is quite the tendency on here to promote libertarianism as the answer to all of our problems. Somehow if we were to just follow the principles of libertarianism, we would all be happy and free. The biggest problem with libertarianism is that in order for it to work then everyone has to follow the so-called "non-aggression" principle. The corporations of the world have shown time and time again that they are not willing to do that. There is too much temptation to take advantage of the illusion of freedom.

It's tempting to self declare libertarian since it allows one to feel less obligation or guilt toward the less fortunate members of society. It's being selfish in the name of being pro liberty.

 

[pgg]

You guys seem to be confused and think that all libertarians are the same, or that most want some kind of Somalia-esque anarchy free for all.

Not every republican is Crazy Ben Carson and not every Democrat is Crazy Elizabeth Warren. Most of them are reasonable people.

It's tempting to self declare libertarian since it allows one to feel less obligation or guilt toward the less fortunate members of society. It's being selfish in the name of being pro liberty.

Are you suggesting I'm selfish, unwilling to make personal sacrifices in the name of the public good, and/or anti-government? You know who's paid my salary for the last 20 years, right? (Technically, you have. )

Or is this one of those disingenuous "present company excluded" kind of condescending insults of libertarians?

 

[urge]

If people would just go beyond the Fox news interpretation of a single payer system they might see that the rest of the world is really not as horrible as they were made to believe.
Every advanced country other than the US has a single payer system where people are entitled to health care the way they entitled to air, water, and dignity.
Most of those countries have much better outcomes than us at a fraction of the price.

CNN must be mocking you.


How U.S. health care stacks up against global systems

 

[Planktonmd]

You guys seem to be confused and think that all libertarians are the same, or that most want some kind of Somalia-esque anarchy free for all.

Not every republican is Crazy Ben Carson and not every Democrat is Crazy Elizabeth Warren. Most of them are reasonable people.




Are you suggesting I'm selfish, unwilling to make personal sacrifices in the name of the public good, and/or anti-government? You know who's paid my salary for the last 20 years, right? (Technically, you have. )

Or is this one of those disingenuous "present company excluded" kind of condescending insults of libertarians?

It should not be an insult. Isn't being poor one's choice or decision, and as a result an expression of one's liberty? And isn't being libertarian a good way to not feel responsible for other people's decisions and choices?

 

[Planktonmd]

CNN must be mocking you.


How U.S. health care stacks up against global systems

This is what matters:

 

[pgg]

Isn't being poor one's choice or decision, and as a result an expression of one's liberty?

Usually not.

And isn't being libertarian a good way to not feel responsible for other people's decisions and choices?

Now it appears you're just being pointlessly sarcastic in your strawman construction. To what purpose, I don't know.


But it's most interesting that you've twisted around my opposition to sin taxes, which disproportionately manipulate the behavior of the poor and very regressively tax the poor, into some kind of screed in which I don't care about the poor at all.

You're really getting doubleplus good at this.

 

[GravelRider]

You guys seem to be confused and think that all libertarians are the same, or that most want some kind of Somalia-esque anarchy free for all.

Not every republican is Crazy Ben Carson and not every Democrat is Crazy Elizabeth Warren. Most of them are reasonable people.




Are you suggesting I'm selfish, unwilling to make personal sacrifices in the name of the public good, and/or anti-government? You know who's paid my salary for the last 20 years, right? (Technically, you have. )

Or is this one of those disingenuous "present company excluded" kind of condescending insults of libertarians?

No one is insulting libertarians. It's a fine philosophy and it has its merits. However, it is impractical based on some very basic ideas about human nature. Libertarianism is not far from other Utopia-type visions of society. It would be great if everyone could act on their own free will so long as we don't infringe upon the free will of others. Unfortunately, that is not ever going to happen. The temptation to exploit for personal gain is too high.

 

[Planktonmd]

Usually not.



Now it appears you're just being pointlessly sarcastic in your strawman construction. To what purpose, I don't know.


But it's most interesting that you've twisted around my opposition to sin taxes, which disproportionately manipulate the behavior of the poor and very regressively tax the poor, into some kind of screed in which I don't care about the poor at all.

You're really getting doubleplus good at this.

I think you are taking this too personally. Maybe I misunderstand libertarianism and you are welcome to correct me.

 

[GravelRider]

Usually not.



Now it appears you're just being pointlessly sarcastic in your strawman construction. To what purpose, I don't know.


But it's most interesting that you've twisted around my opposition to sin taxes, which disproportionately manipulate the behavior of the poor and very regressively tax the poor, into some kind of screed in which I don't care about the poor at all.

You're really getting doubleplus good at this.

We can't tax income, we can't tax estates, and now we can't tax unnecessary products like cigarettes and soda. What the heck can we tax?

For the record, I do agree that "sin" taxes do disproportionately affect the poor. However, what does that say about our society and our economy?

 

[pgg]

No one is insulting libertarians. It's a fine philosophy and it has its merits. However, it is impractical based on some very basic ideas about human nature. Libertarianism is not far from other Utopia-type visions of society. It would be great if everyone could act on their own free will so long as we don't infringe upon the free will of others. Unfortunately, that is not ever going to happen. The temptation to exploit for personal gain is too high.

Fair enough - call it an ideal to strive for, and a position to start from, with the understanding that eventually there will be compromise with the people with the R and D bumper stickers.