• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Disaster of Government-Run Businesses, Part 1

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,596
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If Obama really wanted to see how nationalizing health care was likely to turn out, all he had to do was look across the Canadian border. Canadian governments gained control of the health-care business so they could give voters subsidized health-care benefits, but that led everybody to want more, which bid up health-care prices, which then led officials to try to control soaring health-care prices with health-care rationing and below-market compensation for doctors.
This is the grim fate we will all share if the cluster**** "health care" law isnt repealed.

The Disaster of Government-Run Businesses, Part 1
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
More scare nonsense. :roll:
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh, an unsubstantiated reference to Canada's defunct health care that has no basis in reality. Like I haven't seen one of those before.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oh, an unsubstantiated reference to Canada's defunct health care that has no basis in reality. Like I haven't seen one of those before.
Yep. Not to mention it is nothing like what we're doing and trying to do here.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yep. Not to mention it is nothing like what we're doing and trying to do here.
Yeah, what you have happening now is worse than it was before the health bill.
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Healthcare reform is properly understood as the most important social justice legislation in over forty years. Repeal is not an option.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Healthcare reform is properly understood as the most important social justice legislation in over forty years. Repeal is not an option.
Maybe if the current "healthcare reform" weren't a blatant handout to the parasitical health insurance industry, I'd agree with you.
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I wasn't around during the healthcare debate or was busy. What exactly in the reform is to the advantage to the industry and how is it a handout to them? Just wanna know. :)
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I wasn't around during the healthcare debate or was busy. What exactly in the reform is to the advantage to the industry and how is it a handout to them? Just wanna know. :)
It compels business owners to provide insurance plans for their employees and compels the employees to accept them, regardless of the cost. And since the "reform" also requires the insurance companies to insure a number of high-risk clients, those costs are going to increase.

Basically, instead of dismantling the health insurance industry-- which is an essential component to any meaningful healthcare reform-- they're forcing people to give it more money.
 
Last edited:

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yeah, what you have happening now is worse than it was before the health bill.
I doubt that, but I know enough about life that sometimes you have to step backwards to go forward. The fact is the present system was failing, and we had to begin to change. So, while I do not find the present bill remotely perfect, I do see it as a beginging, a needed begining.

However that is another discussion. This thread is about drawing false conclusions about a system we are not even running or proposing to run. That makes it nonsense and yet another effort to scare with misinformation.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It compels business owners to provide insurance plans for their employees and compels the employees to accept them, regardless of the cost. And since the "reform" also requires the insurance companies to insure a number of high-risk clients, those costs are going to increase.

Basically, instead of dismantling the health insurance industry-- which is an essential component to any meaningful healthcare reform-- they're forcing people to give it more money.
Actually, by requiring everyone be insured, this makes a price increase less needed. The well people help pay for the ill people. This is how insurance works.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Actually, by requiring everyone be insured, this makes a price increase less needed. The well people help pay for the ill people. This is how insurance works.
Not true if you're under 40, they have to pay a lot more for the something they most won't need.
Not really fair when you find out that the economic situation isn't financially friendly to young people these days.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Not true if you're under 40, they have to pay a lot more for the something they most won't need.
Not really fair when you find out that the economic situation isn't financially friendly to young people these days.
False. First, you never know what you will need (another tenent of insurance), and second, if you live long enough, you will need it. But the point is, the money to pay for the ill always has to come from those not ill. Once you have more ill than not ill, your insurance goes away.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
False. First, you never know what you will need (another tenent of insurance), and second, if you live long enough, you will need it. But the point is, the money to pay for the ill always has to come from those not ill. Once you have more ill than not ill, your insurance goes away.
Statistically it isn't false, most young people don't need comprehensive insurance.
It serves no purpose, except for catastrophic coverage.

I didn't say you'll never need it, I said they don't need it as it is.
They don't, on top of that they will be paying more when they have less money, compared to older people, who have had years of economic prosperity and the opportunity to build wealth for their years waning health.

It's another form of backwards generational wealth transfer.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Statistically it isn't false, most young people don't need comprehensive insurance.
It serves no purpose, except for catastrophic coverage.

I didn't say you'll never need it, I said they don't need it as it is.
They don't, on top of that they will be paying more when they have less money, compared to older people, who have had years of economic prosperity and the opportunity to build wealth for their years waning health.

It's another form of backwards generational wealth transfer.
And those who do end up needing it, if they don't have it, become a burden. You miss the point completely. And this si one reason the public option or something like it would have been a better option. But the fact is, if you are going to do away with pre-existing conditions, and we should, then everyone has to be insured, without any public option or like program. The well have to help pay for the ill. That is how insurance works.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
And those who do end up needing it, if they don't have it, become a burden. You miss the point completely. And this si one reason the public option or something like it would have been a better option. But the fact is, if you are going to do away with pre-existing conditions, and we should, then everyone has to be insured, without any public option or like program. The well have to help pay for the ill. That is how insurance works.
No we should charge more for people who use it more.

Basically you're supporting a type of regressive taxation, which funnily enough you probably normally oppose, except when it suits your political agenda.

Public option is just the same as this, we all pay for people who don't want to pay for themselves.
You kind of thinking encourages mass consumption and negative savings rates because you're always willing to bail out individuals for ****ty choices.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No we should charge more for people who use it more.

Basically you're supporting a type of regressive taxation, which funnily enough you probably normally oppose, except when it suits your political agenda.

Public option is just the same as this, we all pay for people who don't want to pay for themselves.
You kind of thinking encourages mass consumption and negative savings rates because you're always willing to bail out individuals for ****ty choices.
Not how insurance is suppose to work. Nor would it be practical. Sooner than later, those using it would be priced out, as they have bene in the past. And what would really help, which you would oppose, are guidelines about what will be paid for and what wouldn't. Believe it or not, doctors do have a good idea about what is needed and what isn't. And insurance companies have been making such decisions for a long time now. But real need requires more than just letting the ill pay for it. A valid insurance system does need to be in play.
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Let people actually see and be responsible for the cost of their care more easily, and costs will decrease. All the mandate will do is encourage more people to use the system more when they don't need to. They're already paying for it. Why not milk the system.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not how insurance is suppose to work. Nor would it be practical. Sooner than later, those using it would be priced out, as they have bene in the past. And what would really help, which you would oppose, are guidelines about what will be paid for and what wouldn't. Believe it or not, doctors do have a good idea about what is needed and what isn't. And insurance companies have been making such decisions for a long time now. But real need requires more than just letting the ill pay for it. A valid insurance system does need to be in play.
Insurance works by classifying people based on usage and probability of injury.
It is broken down by age, gender and ailment, as well as other criteria.

Now, we can't price based on gender, age based pricing is now further limited and lastly we are seeing ailment based pricing be put to the screws.
I know how insurance works and what you're advocating for is putting all the costs on to young people, particularly young males.

It's not right, it's discriminatory in all the wrong ways.

Your nationalization programs will not solve the problems within the medical industry.
It just limits the options that people have, because you're not addressing the one singular problem.
Personal choices are the direct drivers of health related problems.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Insurance works by classifying people based on usage and probability of injury.
It is broken down by age, gender and ailment, as well as other criteria.

Now, we can't price based on gender, age based pricing is now further limited and lastly we are seeing ailment based pricing be put to the screws.
I know how insurance works and what you're advocating for is putting all the costs on to young people, particularly young males.

It's not right, it's discriminatory in all the wrong ways.

Your nationalization programs will not solve the problems within the medical industry.
It just limits the options that people have, because you're not addressing the one singular problem.
Personal choices are the direct drivers of health related problems.
I'm not sure if you do or don't know, but the fact is insurance works by spreading the paying. It needs well people to pay of ill people. Without this, as I said, people when they need insurance most will be push off the insurance.

And I won't say personal choice doesn't play a role, but the more serious choices people do no matter what we do with insurance. They choose to smoke, eat poorly, not exercise regularly, talk on cell phones while driving, speed, and play with tools and weapons they are not proficient at. Doing so pus them in situations where they need care, and too many find they are not adequately insured to cover it. We don't turn them away, so someone else has to pick up the bill in an unorganized and ineffective manner.

Again, a universal insurer, payor would be best, but absent that, we really have little other choice.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Let people actually see and be responsible for the cost of their care more easily, and costs will decrease. All the mandate will do is encourage more people to use the system more when they don't need to. They're already paying for it. Why not milk the system.
Do you suspect they will stop drinking and doing drugs? Eat better? Drive safer? Not be stupid?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm not sure if you do or don't know, but the fact is insurance works by spreading the paying. It needs well people to pay of ill people. Without this, as I said, people when they need insurance most will be push off the insurance.
I'm quite aware of how insurance works.
It prices based on risk models for various groups of people.

For instance, a young male driver will pay a higher premium than a young female driver because it has been shown that young males take more risks with their vehicles.
It works the exact same with medical insurance with older people being the higher risk.

Of course, you just supported a bill that further drives the specific risk pools in the ground in favor of a regressive insurance scheme.

And I won't say personal choice doesn't play a role, but the more serious choices people do no matter what we do with insurance. They choose to smoke, eat poorly, not exercise regularly, talk on cell phones while driving, speed, and play with tools and weapons they are not proficient at. Doing so pus them in situations where they need care, and too many find they are not adequately insured to cover it. We don't turn them away, so someone else has to pick up the bill in an unorganized and ineffective manner.
There are many options, like exempting medical bills from bankruptcy.
We do it with student loans, medical bills are a higher priority.

It's not improbable to use this same standard.

Again, a universal insurer, payor would be best, but absent that, we really have little other choice.
You're just limiting choices and by force no less.
There are many choices that are behavior changers, you and others don't have the stomach to go through with it though.

Nationalizing medical treatment is a wealth transfer scheme, young to old, good behavior to bad behavior.
It's incredibly unfair to those who do take care of themselves and generous to those that don't.
It doesn't change behavior towards positive lifestyles.

Private profit, public loss is what your advocating.
 
Top Bottom