"California OneCare"

[agaglio]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB0Vn_BppwM[/YOUTUBE]

Surely this is the answer to all of our problems!

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U&eurl=[/YOUTUBE]

Guess not... This is why government health care will never work.

One of the comments under the first video:

Health Care for all is a RIGHT, not a commodity for profit, that can be denied or rationed. All Americans should watch this video, and Californians need be heard over the special interests supporting the current system and demand that Gov Schwarzenegger and other officeholders support Kuehl's bill next time it's introduced. It's time we join the civilized world and support our own people, instead of corporate interests.

What an ignoramus. Shrug off corporate interests and watch what happens.

 

[rathi]

Guess not... This is why government health care will never work.

Government health is one of the few things that has really worked well under government control. I'm no fan of government controlled business, but clearly our system is not working. We proportionally spend 50% more money than France does on healthcare for far less coverage. If corporate interests cannot run this efficiently, than the government should take over. There is no reason to choose government vs corporate for all issues. Many many markets are best run by corporate interests. However, some markets, such as healthcare, do not seem well suited. Healthcare is too vital for consumers to be able to reward the competitive company. You can't refuse treatment because you think the cost it too high.

 

[agaglio]

Healthcare is too vital for consumers to be able to reward the competitive company.

The competitive company will be the one with the best health care possible for the lowest price. You don't want to reward that? It's simple economics.

 

[rathi]

The competitive company will be the one with the best health care possible for the lowest price. You don't want to reward that? It's simple economics.

No, I want to make sure that people get the best healthcare possible for the least amount of money. It is pretty obvious the market is not a good way to provide healthcare. The american system spends more than a ******* socialist one for less healthcare.

 

[agaglio]

It is pretty obvious the market is not a good way to provide healthcare. The american system spends more than a ******* socialist one for less healthcare.

Is it obvious? Did you watch the first video?

 

[rathi]

Is it obvious? Did you watch the first video?

The first video was some government marketing Bullcrap and the second was a partisan youtube pundit. Single stories are emotional and mean nothing. I could care less about broken leg women or brain tumor dude. The overall measured amount of coverage vs the cost is the primary consideration. Overall, American healthcare spends too much money for too little benefit.

 

[agaglio]

I could care less about broken leg women or brain tumor dude. The overall measured amount of coverage vs the cost is the primary consideration. Overall, American healthcare spends too much money for too little benefit.

So you don't actually care that people get the health care they need? So according to your statement, if Americans got very little to no health care coverage, but paid no money for it, you would be happy because the coverage to cost ratio is to your liking. If the government would leave the health care system alone, it would flourish (like any industry in a free market economy). Instead, the government gets involved, putting caps on drug costs, causing little incentive for creation or research into new medicines.

You have absolutely no evidence that the government can run industries better than a free market. Show me a communist country, and ill show you a tragedy.

 

[rathi]

So you don't actually care that people get the health care they need? So according to your statement, if Americans got very little to no health care coverage, but paid no money for it, you would be happy because the coverage to cost ratio is to your liking.

No, I would determine what the minimum amount of coverage required is, and then use that boundary when adjusting the price vs amount of coverage.

f the government would leave the health care system alone, it would flourish (like any industry in a free market economy). Instead, the government gets involved, putting caps on drug costs, causing little incentive for creation or research into new medicines.

Right, because any market automatically flourishes if you deregulate it?:roll:
Not to mention that your argument shows no knowledge in the drug industry or free markets in general. Heres a basic fact: the drug industry relies on government given monopolies for all their products. It can't possibly be a "free market." Fact number 2: the drug industry has obscene profits right now because drug prices are not controlled. In addition, our Healthcare system is being shot to hell precisely because of the insane cost of drugs. Insurance providers can't handle having to pay 5x the cost of drugs and are forced to cut coverage and drastically raise their prices.

You have absolutely no evidence that the government can run industries better than a free market.

Governmental control of industries is rarely the most efficient way of running said. However, in certain circumstances, when the market itself cannot be free, the government can do a better job. As far as evidence goes, look the proportional cost of healthcare in france or sweden compared to ours. Then look at the coverage we each get.

I don't promote governmental control of anything unless is absolutely necessary. However, It looks like we may have reached the point at which it becomes necessary.

 

[agaglio]

Right, because any market automatically flourishes if you deregulate it?:roll:

Do you have the slightest understanding of basic economics? To argue your point is to say that a free market would not be more successful than a government controlled economy. It has been proven time and time again that you're wrong.

Not to mention that your argument shows no knowledge in the drug industry or free markets in general. Heres a basic fact: the drug industry relies on government given monopolies for all their products. It can't possibly be a "free market."

There is not a damn thing helpful about a monopoly. If the government stopped granting monopolies through legislation, it would open up the drug market to competition, which is the entire reason prices are driven down. Use some basic logic.

Fact number 2: the drug industry has obscene profits right now because drug prices are not controlled. In addition, our Healthcare system is being shot to hell precisely because of the insane cost of drugs. Insurance providers can't handle having to pay 5x the cost of drugs and are forced to cut coverage and drastically raise their prices.

Your reply is half right. The drug industry does not have obscene profits right now. A company must spend millions of dollars to attempt to gamble on an attempt to create a new drug.
Basic fact: the costs to a drug company are massive. If it doesn't get it's money back, why be in business? On top of this, the government's intervention into the free market led to monopolies, allowing a price increase, causing problems with insurance providers.
To deny that the health care system would not be better off without monopolies is to deny that competition decreases prices.

Governmental control of industries is rarely the most efficient way of running said. However, in certain circumstances, when the market itself cannot be free, the government can do a better job. As far as evidence goes, look the proportional cost of healthcare in france or sweden compared to ours. Then look at the coverage we each get.

Why can't the market be free? If the Government did not meddle in the market, our health care would have surpassed theirs years ago.

 

[rathi]

Do you have the slightest understanding of basic economics? To argue your point is to say that a free market would not be more successful than a government controlled economy. It has been proven time and time again that you're wrong.

No it hasn't. The failure of the Washington Consensus showed this. Some markets are better off corporate some are better of government controlled. It all depends on the circumstances.

There is not a damn thing helpful about a monopoly. If the government stopped granting monopolies through legislation, it would open up the drug market to competition, which is the entire reason prices are driven down. Use some basic logic.

Are you suggesting that we revoke the patents of all the drug companies?

Your reply is half right. The drug industry does not have obscene profits right now.

Blatantly false. The drug companies have consistently maintained obscene profits even as the economy went down.
www.citizen.org/documents/Pharma_Report.pdf

On top of this, the government's intervention into the free market led to monopolies, allowing a price increase, causing problems with insurance providers.

THERE IS NO FREE MARKET IN THE DRUG INDUSTRY! All drugs made are patented, giving the company an exclusive monopoly.

To deny that the health care system would not be better off without monopolies is to deny that competition decreases prices.

You think that drug companies will even bother developing drugs if they can't patent them?

Why can't the market be free? If the Government did not meddle in the market, our health care would have surpassed theirs years ago.

Drugs are all patented, giving the company exclusive production and distribution rights. Furthermore, the product has value that is not elastic. You can't choose not to take a lifesaving drug. The drug market is probably the least free market it existence. You have no choice when choosing which company to buy from, and you die if you don't buy their product. They are basically involved in racketeering.

 

[agaglio]

No it hasn't. The failure of the Washington Consensus showed this. Some markets are better off corporate some are better of government controlled. It all depends on the circumstances.

I'm not familiar with the Washington Consensus. Please elaborate how it proves socialism is better than a free market.

Are you suggesting that we revoke the patents of all the drug companies?

No.

Blatantly false. The drug companies have consistently maintained obscene profits even as the economy went down.
www.citizen.org/documents/Pharma_Report.pdf

We must have different definitions of "obscene" because that is not obscene. Making profit you deserve is not obscene.

THERE IS NO FREE MARKET IN THE DRUG INDUSTRY! All drugs made are patented, giving the company an exclusive monopoly.

Drugs are all patented, giving the company exclusive production and distribution rights. Furthermore, the product has value that is not elastic. You can't choose not to take a lifesaving drug. The drug market is probably the least free market it existence. You have no choice when choosing which company to buy from, and you die if you don't buy their product. They are basically involved in racketeering.

A free market is entirely possible. I'm aware of how a patent works. It is a very rare circumstance when there is only one type of medicine available for an ailment. There are also other ways to cure something (surgery, etc.) that the medicine has to compete with. When a drug company invents a new drug, they must find a price that will make them the most money-a balance between what people will pay and how many will buy it. Drug companies can't charge too much or people won't be able to pay it. They must make the price reasonable or they won't make any money. The situation you're describing would only occur if a company created a pill that cured all cancers and people had to take it, of course there would still be chemotherapy to compete with.

 

[rathi]

I'm not familiar with the Washington Consensus. Please elaborate how it proves socialism is better than a free market.

You think that something as complex as economics can be put under "socialism" or free market? The Washington Consensus was an economic policy of deregulation that the U.S. promoted during the 90's. End result, a lot of people got screwed over. Of course, the primary failure with the deregulation had do with type of economies in which the policy was implemented. The differences between a industrialized and non-industrialized killed the plan.

We must have different definitions of "obscene" because that is not obscene. Making profit you deserve is not obscene.

Pharmaceutical profits are significantly higher than almost any industry. In addition, they remain high in times of economic hardship. This is because of the vital nature of their products.

A free market is entirely possible. I'm aware of how a patent works. It is a very rare circumstance when there is only one type of medicine available for an ailment. There are also other ways to cure something (surgery, etc.) that the medicine has to compete with.

Not true at all. Many ailments have only one type of treatment that has been patented.

When a drug company invents a new drug, they must find a price that will make them the most money-a balance between what people will pay and how many will buy it. Drug companies can't charge too much or people won't be able to pay it. They must make the price reasonable or they won't make any money

Health is not a luxury item. You can decide not to buy a TV if it costs too much. You will pay whatever it costs to keep yourself alive. You can't decide not to take a lifesaving drug just because it costs too much.

The situation you're describing would only occur if a company created a pill that cured all cancers and people had to take it, of course there would still be chemotherapy to compete with.

You lack knowledge about the medical industry as well of the state of many health problems. While competition does exist for certain health issues, their are many many many conditions that can only be treated using a specific patented drug.

 

[agaglio]

You think that something as complex as economics can be put under "socialism" or free market?

They are both economic systems. Of course economics can be "put under" socialism or free market. :roll:

The Washington Consensus was an economic policy of deregulation that the U.S. promoted during the 90's. End result, a lot of people got screwed over. Of course, the primary failure with the deregulation had do with type of economies in which the policy was implemented. The differences between a industrialized and non-industrialized killed the plan.

So how did this prove some areas of the economy are better off regulated?

Not true at all. Many ailments have only one type of treatment that has been patented.

Really, why don't you name some.

Health is not a luxury item. You can decide not to buy a TV if it costs too much. You will pay whatever it costs to keep yourself alive. You can't decide not to take a lifesaving drug just because it costs too much.

You base your entire argument on the principle that most drugs created are lifesaving drugs that have no competition. This is obviously a false assumption. It is a very rare instance when a drug is not competing with other options.

You lack knowledge about the medical industry as well of the state of many health problems. While competition does exist for certain health issues, their are many many many conditions that can only be treated using a specific patented drug.

Name them.