We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Obamacare
Replies
-
I concur. Everybody (both sides) should read that. It's not simple, is it?
Great article - that's a keeperA very interesting take.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html
I'd like to read it, but my work computer cannot access anything that is a "blog"
Can anyone take pity on me and paste it into a PM for me? I'd be ever so grateful
Pretty pretty please?0 -
On the way LL
I got it guys0 -
Didn't see your Forbes link earlier - will check that out. And is it just me, or is your current system not market-based?
It is to some extent, except it is VERY hard to comparison shop.. There is virtually no way to know what something will cost until AFTER you have seen the doctor... with an exception of places like the CVS Minute Clinic and other various small limited clinics placed in pharmacies, where they post what each procedure and vaccination will cost online. So it's very hard to get the best rates for medications and services. But it is largely dictated by insurance companies.... many times an insurance company will tell a hospital or clinic to price things one price so they can "negotiate" to a "lower" price and make it look like the insurance companies are getting a good deal for their customers...
eta: an example would be just recently we were in between health insurance coverage because my husband was changing jobs... I have been trying to figure out the true "market" cost of my birth control for ages... especially after the whole birth control debate a few months ago... I know what I used to pay back in 2005 ($25 btw) and I know what I pay now with insurance ($82)... but I couldn't for the life of me find out what it would cost without insurance... until I actually paid for it without insurance ($102 if anyone was wondering....). Things like this isn't widely publicized... and I have to wonder if it were, then would health care become cheaper...
This has been an issue in the debate on health care for many years. We actually have a triangular system, which I think is the cause of many problems. The end consumers of health care (patient) do not directly pay for the healthcare, and those who pay for the health care (insurance companies) do not directly receive the care. The doctors are stuck in the middle--wanting to serve the direct customer (patient), but having to answer to the payer. So you do not have a direct "customer--service provider" relationship the way you do in another type of commercial transaction.
So that raises questions as to what kind of "market" forces can really be included effectively in the system. I keep seeing the term "market" thrown around as a solution, without any detailed explanation of what that means (except to trot out the old cliches of "tort reform" and "selling insurance across state lines").
And without trying to sound condescending, there is also some question about how capable the average person is in evaluating the quality of doctors and healthcare providers. Having spent most of the past 30 years working in healthcare-related businesses, I have my doubts about whether the average consumer can evaluate various healthcare choices the way they do buying a microwave. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am wary of using wal mart as the model for our healthcare system.
One could also argue that there ARE "market forces" at work now, and that it is those same capitalist principles that are causing the problems. When private insurance companies must first and foremost maximize profits, not only does that add a huge markup to the bill, it provides a built-in disincentive to skimp on coverage.
I guess, bottom line, the way I look at it, republicans have had plenty of time and opportunity to both address health care reform (2001-2007) and to provide input into the current ACA. They chose not to do so, and so, by both the principles of personal accountability and the free market, they are stuck with what they got.
Can't complain about the rules, when you refuse to play the game.
First off, the current ACA is largely based on the Republican model from the 90's I believe... that they couldn't get passed... and I would argue that capitalist principles AREN'T at work... corporatist principles are... We have little to no choice in who provides us coverage... right now the only choice that a person might have is whether or not they get coverage... and that's only for the people that have that choice in the first place, but there is virtually no choice on who will cover them or how... the insurance industry lobbied hard for ACA... so did the pharmacuetical industry... which is the biggest reason I am against this legislation.... and if it were a truly capitalist driven market, people would have more choices than they have... We have the States deciding what should be covered, instead of the insurance companies and the insured themselves... We have insurance companies deciding rates at which patients will be charged, both premium/deductible wise, as well as, out of pocket and/or as uninsured wise.0 -
I don't think that's the case. In reality, some people will always have better access to better care than others. What universal systems do is establish a baseline. They provide a minimum level of care that everyone is entitled to - and like any other large program there are problems and it's not perfect.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Also, the universal system is supposed to put life above anything else, everyone is suppossed to gave equal access to the best treatment regardless of income. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As always, those with more money can always buy better. It's not against the law to practice private medicine in countries with a Nat'l Health Service - and those who have the want/need/desier/$ can buy something better than the baseline. It is always thus.0 -
On the way LL
I got it guys
Thank you very much!!
Wow that is an excellent piece! I did not expect to agree so strongly with it. I figured it would be the type of journalism that fawns all over the president and offers nothing of substance. But this was well thought out.0 -
I would just like to step off the hill that I'm dying on to say... I really appreciate how this debate has been going on.... while we largely disagree, it is respectful... and I like that... I have debated this topic over the past years on many a forums and it reduced to personal attacks (I realize it's in the rules to not go there... but I'm talking even implicitively)... and I appreciate that.
*goes back to top of hill*0 -
This is why a Tylenol costs $63 at the hospital.
So...you have a bill that states you were charged $36 (or $63) for a Tylenol?If the culprits are greedy insurance companies, then what are the hospitals that charge $36 for a tylenol?0 -
Didn't see your Forbes link earlier - will check that out. And is it just me, or is your current system not market-based?
It is to some extent, except it is VERY hard to comparison shop.. There is virtually no way to know what something will cost until AFTER you have seen the doctor... with an exception of places like the CVS Minute Clinic and other various small limited clinics placed in pharmacies, where they post what each procedure and vaccination will cost online. So it's very hard to get the best rates for medications and services. But it is largely dictated by insurance companies.... many times an insurance company will tell a hospital or clinic to price things one price so they can "negotiate" to a "lower" price and make it look like the insurance companies are getting a good deal for their customers...
eta: an example would be just recently we were in between health insurance coverage because my husband was changing jobs... I have been trying to figure out the true "market" cost of my birth control for ages... especially after the whole birth control debate a few months ago... I know what I used to pay back in 2005 ($25 btw) and I know what I pay now with insurance ($82)... but I couldn't for the life of me find out what it would cost without insurance... until I actually paid for it without insurance ($102 if anyone was wondering....). Things like this isn't widely publicized... and I have to wonder if it were, then would health care become cheaper...
This has been an issue in the debate on health care for many years. We actually have a triangular system, which I think is the cause of many problems. The end consumers of health care (patient) do not directly pay for the healthcare, and those who pay for the health care (insurance companies) do not directly receive the care. The doctors are stuck in the middle--wanting to serve the direct customer (patient), but having to answer to the payer. So you do not have a direct "customer--service provider" relationship the way you do in another type of commercial transaction.
So that raises questions as to what kind of "market" forces can really be included effectively in the system. I keep seeing the term "market" thrown around as a solution, without any detailed explanation of what that means (except to trot out the old cliches of "tort reform" and "selling insurance across state lines").
And without trying to sound condescending, there is also some question about how capable the average person is in evaluating the quality of doctors and healthcare providers. Having spent most of the past 30 years working in healthcare-related businesses, I have my doubts about whether the average consumer can evaluate various healthcare choices the way they do buying a microwave. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am wary of using wal mart as the model for our healthcare system.
One could also argue that there ARE "market forces" at work now, and that it is those same capitalist principles that are causing the problems. When private insurance companies must first and foremost maximize profits, not only does that add a huge markup to the bill, it provides a built-in disincentive to skimp on coverage.
I guess, bottom line, the way I look at it, republicans have had plenty of time and opportunity to both address health care reform (2001-2007) and to provide input into the current ACA. They chose not to do so, and so, by both the principles of personal accountability and the free market, they are stuck with what they got.
Can't complain about the rules, when you refuse to play the game.
First off, the current ACA is largely based on the Republican model from the 90's I believe... that they couldn't get passed... and I would argue that capitalist principles AREN'T at work... corporatist principles are... We have little to no choice in who provides us coverage... right now the only choice that a person might have is whether or not they get coverage... and that's only for the people that have that choice in the first place, but there is virtually no choice on who will cover them or how... the insurance industry lobbied hard for ACA... so did the pharmacuetical industry... which is the biggest reason I am against this legislation.... and if it were a truly capitalist driven market, people would have more choices than they have... We have the States deciding what should be covered, instead of the insurance companies and the insured themselves... We have insurance companies deciding rates at which patients will be charged, both premium/deductible wise, as well as, out of pocket and/or as uninsured wise.
We seem to have reached that awkward point in a discussion where I can't tell--or have forgotten--if we are agreeing or disagreeing..............:embarassed:0 -
As always, those with more money can always buy better. It's not against the law to practice private medicine in countries with a Nat'l Health Service - and those who have the want/need/desier/$ can buy something better than the baseline. It is always thus.
In Canada, yes money can buy you whatever you want in another country, but doctors and hospitals here are paid per service, by the provincial health insurance plans. The amounts are set. They are not allowed to charge more. Money only changes hands in a doctor's office for things not covered by the plan, like notes for employers. Extended health care insurance, if you can afford it, or it's part of an employment benefit plan covers things like drugs, private hospital rooms, physio, dental, etc. For day to day doctors visits, specialists, surgeries, hospital stays, it's pretty much one system for everyone.0 -
I don't think that's the case. In reality, some people will always have better access to better care than others. What universal systems do is establish a baseline. They provide a minimum level of care that everyone is entitled to - and like any other large program there are problems and it's not perfect.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Also, the universal system is supposed to put life above anything else, everyone is suppossed to gave equal access to the best treatment regardless of income. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As always, those with more money can always buy better. It's not against the law to practice private medicine in countries with a Nat'l Health Service - and those who have the want/need/desier/$ can buy something better than the baseline. It is always thus.
Not in Canada unless they've changed that law.
That is entirely the case. What is the common things most said about why we need to have a gov run system? It always comes down to fairness and access. Our system is accused of not being fair because not everyone has equal access, yet, the gov run systems provide that so we're told. That's what is touted about the greatness of that kind of system. Nobody is left behind because supposedly nobody gets left out. This is not the case, because many people are left out. Research it and you will see that many people go without the care they need because of the wait or rationing. There are some horrific stories about how people have not been able to get care. There are people who don't get knee replacements even though they are in pain because they haven't reached the gov threshold.
And who defines what is fair and who's suffering is greater than the next? How does the gov come up with that? And what do you do when you have a bad experience? I'm sure most of us can attest to the fact that complaining to a government agency get's you nowhere. Try complaining to the DMV, IRS, EPA about how you were treated and see what kind of justice you get. People are fooling themselves if they think a national health service would be run any better.
If people don't have the same access, and they don't have the same ability of others, then the universal system is failing on it's promise.
The problem is these governments can't keep affording to do this without lessening the quality of care. Rationing is a necessity because there isn't enough resources to go around. There are countless stories about people having to come to the US to seek care because they couldn't be seen in time in their homeland. Everyone might be covered, but they all don't get to be seen when they need it.
Ask a vet if they like the VA and I'd bet 9 out of 10 would tell you it sucks.
I highly doubt an inefficient entity such as the government can run 1/6 of the economy in a cost efficient way.
I suggest that you take a look at some of the links I provided and you will see that there are not as many people left out of our system as we are led to believe.
We need a fix, but it cannot be done without the free market. Our system isn't free enough for the free market to work in favor of the consumer. Free the consumer, add competition and you'll see prices come down.0 -
I was not aware that it is illegal to practice private medicine in Canada - I stand corrected, thank you.
There are lots of countries with universal coverage - including France & Germany which have hybrid private/public systems that function very well. In many countries the gov program is the baseline, those who wish can buy more & better.
I'm a Veteran. I'm not eligible for VA benefits. My uncle is a disabled vet with 2 brand new knees, 40 years of VA care. My grandmother is on Medicare. They both get better care for less out of pocket cost than my Blue Cross.0 -
This is why a Tylenol costs $63 at the hospital.
So...you have a bill that states you were charged $36 (or $63) for a Tylenol?If the culprits are greedy insurance companies, then what are the hospitals that charge $36 for a tylenol?
No, I don't have any hospital bills for myself at the moment. But I did recieve a $15 charge for one local call when I had my son in 2007. It's no secret that the cost of procedures, services and supplies are extremely inflated.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2010/03/01/cohen.health.care.bills.cnn
And according to the article below, "the average family of four paid a "hidden tax" of $1,500 each year to offset underpayments from Medicare/Medicaid".
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/FIN-258088/Healthcare-Costs-Soar-Above-Overall-Inflation0 -
We need a fix, but it cannot be done without the free market. Our system isn't free enough for the free market to work in favor of the consumer. Free the consumer, add competition and you'll see prices come down.
I content that a profit driven free market will never work in favor of the consumer as it become more free. It's cute in theory, but greed rules the market when regulation becomes too loose, and the consumers lose.
If only we had some example of how such a market could bring an industrialized nation to its knees...oh wait..0 -
This is why a Tylenol costs $63 at the hospital.
So...you have a bill that states you were charged $36 (or $63) for a Tylenol?If the culprits are greedy insurance companies, then what are the hospitals that charge $36 for a tylenol?
No, I don't have any hospital bills for myself at the moment. But I did recieve a $15 charge for one local call when I had my son in 2007. It's no secret that the cost of procedures, services and supplies are extremely inflated.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2010/03/01/cohen.health.care.bills.cnn
And according to the article below, "the average family of four paid a "hidden tax" of $1,500 each year to offset underpayments from Medicare/Medicaid".
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/FIN-258088/Healthcare-Costs-Soar-Above-Overall-Inflation
Hospitals have to play all kinds of tricks to navigate the reimbursement maze. Hospital "charges" don't mean much at face value. They bear little resemblance to what the hospitals are actually paid. There are contractual write offs, charity care, bad debt, etc.
Things may have changed somewhat in recent years, but figuring out how to bill for services, and price items and services is a specialty skill, involving a lot of people and work. Prices are not set necessarily on what the item cost, but in such a way as to maximize reimbursement. A high charge for mundane item just means it has a better reimbursement rate and it is being used to make up for something else that isn't reimbursed very well.
You put all the charges in one end, then it goes through a rube goldberg contraption, and your actual revenue comes out the other end. The most important numbers are what comes out vs what goes in -- the details (i.e. the specific prices) don't mean all that much. When I was working with the budgets directly, it was not unusual for hospitals to receive less than 40 cents for every dollar charged for inpatient services.0 -
Yes, the cost is inflated. What do you do for a living, that you or the business you work for doesn't inflate the cost in order to make a profit?No, I don't have any hospital bills for myself at the moment. But I did recieve a $15 charge for one local call when I had my son in 2007. It's no secret that the cost of procedures, services and supplies are extremely inflated.
Not that I disagree that the overall cost of our healthcare system is a wreck, but the hospital has to pay what it is charged, too, or it'll go out of business.0 -
Didn't see your Forbes link earlier - will check that out. And is it just me, or is your current system not market-based?
It is to some extent, except it is VERY hard to comparison shop.. There is virtually no way to know what something will cost until AFTER you have seen the doctor... with an exception of places like the CVS Minute Clinic and other various small limited clinics placed in pharmacies, where they post what each procedure and vaccination will cost online. So it's very hard to get the best rates for medications and services. But it is largely dictated by insurance companies.... many times an insurance company will tell a hospital or clinic to price things one price so they can "negotiate" to a "lower" price and make it look like the insurance companies are getting a good deal for their customers...
eta: an example would be just recently we were in between health insurance coverage because my husband was changing jobs... I have been trying to figure out the true "market" cost of my birth control for ages... especially after the whole birth control debate a few months ago... I know what I used to pay back in 2005 ($25 btw) and I know what I pay now with insurance ($82)... but I couldn't for the life of me find out what it would cost without insurance... until I actually paid for it without insurance ($102 if anyone was wondering....). Things like this isn't widely publicized... and I have to wonder if it were, then would health care become cheaper...
This has been an issue in the debate on health care for many years. We actually have a triangular system, which I think is the cause of many problems. The end consumers of health care (patient) do not directly pay for the healthcare, and those who pay for the health care (insurance companies) do not directly receive the care. The doctors are stuck in the middle--wanting to serve the direct customer (patient), but having to answer to the payer. So you do not have a direct "customer--service provider" relationship the way you do in another type of commercial transaction.
So that raises questions as to what kind of "market" forces can really be included effectively in the system. I keep seeing the term "market" thrown around as a solution, without any detailed explanation of what that means (except to trot out the old cliches of "tort reform" and "selling insurance across state lines").
And without trying to sound condescending, there is also some question about how capable the average person is in evaluating the quality of doctors and healthcare providers. Having spent most of the past 30 years working in healthcare-related businesses, I have my doubts about whether the average consumer can evaluate various healthcare choices the way they do buying a microwave. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am wary of using wal mart as the model for our healthcare system.
One could also argue that there ARE "market forces" at work now, and that it is those same capitalist principles that are causing the problems. When private insurance companies must first and foremost maximize profits, not only does that add a huge markup to the bill, it provides a built-in disincentive to skimp on coverage.
I guess, bottom line, the way I look at it, republicans have had plenty of time and opportunity to both address health care reform (2001-2007) and to provide input into the current ACA. They chose not to do so, and so, by both the principles of personal accountability and the free market, they are stuck with what they got.
Can't complain about the rules, when you refuse to play the game.
First off, the current ACA is largely based on the Republican model from the 90's I believe... that they couldn't get passed... and I would argue that capitalist principles AREN'T at work... corporatist principles are... We have little to no choice in who provides us coverage... right now the only choice that a person might have is whether or not they get coverage... and that's only for the people that have that choice in the first place, but there is virtually no choice on who will cover them or how... the insurance industry lobbied hard for ACA... so did the pharmacuetical industry... which is the biggest reason I am against this legislation.... and if it were a truly capitalist driven market, people would have more choices than they have... We have the States deciding what should be covered, instead of the insurance companies and the insured themselves... We have insurance companies deciding rates at which patients will be charged, both premium/deductible wise, as well as, out of pocket and/or as uninsured wise.
We seem to have reached that awkward point in a discussion where I can't tell--or have forgotten--if we are agreeing or disagreeing..............:embarassed:
:laugh: That's probably because we agree with most things... just not the most obvious things... I'm complicated like that.0 -
Yes, the cost is inflated. What do you do for a living, that you or the business you work for doesn't inflate the cost in order to make a profit?No, I don't have any hospital bills for myself at the moment. But I did recieve a $15 charge for one local call when I had my son in 2007. It's no secret that the cost of procedures, services and supplies are extremely inflated.
Not that I disagree that the overall cost of our healthcare system is a wreck, but the hospital has to pay what it is charged, too, or it'll go out of business.
I work for a non-profit real estate board. We don't operate for a profit.
If a hospital inflates the way they do, how are they any better than the 'greedy' insurance companies that inflate their prices?? It's not fair to a patient to put another person's debt on them, but I understand they have costs to cover.
I just find it so strange that people are quick to blame the private sector insurance companies, when the hospitals and government are doing the same things. The government has a horrible track record of paying claims for medicare and medicaid but expanding that kind of coverage, in my opinion, if going to result in HIGHER hospital costs. There is a reason it is hard to find a doctor who accepts government insurance, whether it be medicaid or military coverage..0 -
We need a fix, but it cannot be done without the free market. Our system isn't free enough for the free market to work in favor of the consumer. Free the consumer, add competition and you'll see prices come down.
I content that a profit driven free market will never work in favor of the consumer as it become more free. It's cute in theory, but greed rules the market when regulation becomes too loose, and the consumers lose.
If only we had some example of how such a market could bring an industrialized nation to its knees...oh wait..
If only we had an example of a gov spending itself into dust we...oh wait
The free market is what allowed this country to be as prosperous as it has become. This prosperity has not been brought about through benevolent government regulations or redistribution of wealth. You're fooling yourself if you think gov is the answer and can provide the kind of life we now live. I don't care to hear about the lib wet dream known as Europe. They only exist because of our economic strength provided by the free market. It's not the paradise that people make it out to be. The more social programs and redistribution, the less free a society is. You may feel the need for the gov to take care of you, but I contend an able bodied person can do much better than rely on a cradle to grave system. We are reaching the point to where every taxpaying citizen will become a slave to the IRS because the bloated government needs more and more to fund its programs.
I love how corporations are eeeevil and greeeeedy but the government does nothing wrong and always has the best intentions. Not like we haven't experienced government greed lately. Not like the gov raided SS or anything, or given our money to failed green companies. Nah, bureaucrats are much better at administering our needs and making decisions for our life.
Profits are good, they provide companies with money to meet payrolls. In fact, huge profits are good for companies, especially for those who have their retirements invested in them. Oil companies have been demonized, yet most people don't realize their some of their retirement is invested in them. Greed drives businesses into expanding and creating more jobs and providing more services. As long as they do it ethically, the greed for profits is good for the economy. However, greed to lobby the government to force people to buy your product is not good, as we saw the insurance industry side with Maobama.
Competition drives prices down. The more we have the less companies can charge for services. We don't have that in our health insurance system right now. Of course there needs to be consumer protection, nobody here has said there wasn't a need. But we've become a far over-regualted society, regulations cost the consumer and business owner billions each year. Think about what would happen if even half the money in regs when back to the consumer and businesses.0 -
We need a fix, but it cannot be done without the free market. Our system isn't free enough for the free market to work in favor of the consumer. Free the consumer, add competition and you'll see prices come down.
I content that a profit driven free market will never work in favor of the consumer as it become more free. It's cute in theory, but greed rules the market when regulation becomes too loose, and the consumers lose.
If only we had some example of how such a market could bring an industrialized nation to its knees...oh wait..
If only we had an example of a gov spending itself into dust we...oh wait
The free market is what allowed this country to be as prosperous as it has become. This prosperity has not been brought about through benevolent government regulations or redistribution of wealth. You're fooling yourself if you think gov is the answer and can provide the kind of life we now live. I don't care to hear about the lib wet dream known as Europe. They only exist because of our economic strength provided by the free market. It's not the paradise that people make it out to be. The more social programs and redistribution, the less free a society is. You may feel the need for the gov to take care of you, but I contend an able bodied person can do much better than rely on a cradle to grave system. We are reaching the point to where every taxpaying citizen will become a slave to the IRS because the bloated government needs more and more to fund its programs.
I love how corporations are eeeevil and greeeeedy but the government does nothing wrong and always has the best intentions. Not like we haven't experienced government greed lately. Not like the gov raided SS or anything, or given our money to failed green companies. Nah, bureaucrats are much better at administering our needs and making decisions for our life.
Profits are good, they provide companies with money to meet payrolls. In fact, huge profits are good for companies, especially for those who have their retirements invested in them. Oil companies have been demonized, yet most people don't realize their some of their retirement is invested in them. Greed drives businesses into expanding and creating more jobs and providing more services. As long as they do it ethically, the greed for profits is good for the economy. However, greed to lobby the government to force people to buy your product is not good, as we saw the insurance industry side with Maobama.
Competition drives prices down. The more we have the less companies can charge for services. We don't have that in our health insurance system right now. Of course there needs to be consumer protection, nobody here has said there wasn't a need. But we've become a far over-regualted society, regulations cost the consumer and business owner billions each year. Think about what would happen if even half the money in regs when back to the consumer and businesses.
Crack a history book. It was the US government spending money on this country that made it prosper in that last century. I never said the government could do no wrong. Obviously any extreme system isn't going work.
Your view of economics is laughably myopic at best. I'm not surprised. Profits are good? So why are insurance company profits going through the roof when the coverage and our healthcare sucks?
All this fun textbook crap your spouting hasn't worked.
Feel free to continue writing your over-worded works of fiction, though.0 -
We need a fix, but it cannot be done without the free market. Our system isn't free enough for the free market to work in favor of the consumer. Free the consumer, add competition and you'll see prices come down.
I content that a profit driven free market will never work in favor of the consumer as it become more free. It's cute in theory, but greed rules the market when regulation becomes too loose, and the consumers lose.
If only we had some example of how such a market could bring an industrialized nation to its knees...oh wait..
If only we had an example of a gov spending itself into dust we...oh wait
The free market is what allowed this country to be as prosperous as it has become. This prosperity has not been brought about through benevolent government regulations or redistribution of wealth. You're fooling yourself if you think gov is the answer and can provide the kind of life we now live. I don't care to hear about the lib wet dream known as Europe. They only exist because of our economic strength provided by the free market. It's not the paradise that people make it out to be. The more social programs and redistribution, the less free a society is. You may feel the need for the gov to take care of you, but I contend an able bodied person can do much better than rely on a cradle to grave system. We are reaching the point to where every taxpaying citizen will become a slave to the IRS because the bloated government needs more and more to fund its programs.
I love how corporations are eeeevil and greeeeedy but the government does nothing wrong and always has the best intentions. Not like we haven't experienced government greed lately. Not like the gov raided SS or anything, or given our money to failed green companies. Nah, bureaucrats are much better at administering our needs and making decisions for our life.
Profits are good, they provide companies with money to meet payrolls. In fact, huge profits are good for companies, especially for those who have their retirements invested in them. Oil companies have been demonized, yet most people don't realize their some of their retirement is invested in them. Greed drives businesses into expanding and creating more jobs and providing more services. As long as they do it ethically, the greed for profits is good for the economy. However, greed to lobby the government to force people to buy your product is not good, as we saw the insurance industry side with Maobama.
Competition drives prices down. The more we have the less companies can charge for services. We don't have that in our health insurance system right now. Of course there needs to be consumer protection, nobody here has said there wasn't a need. But we've become a far over-regualted society, regulations cost the consumer and business owner billions each year. Think about what would happen if even half the money in regs when back to the consumer and businesses.
Crack a history book. It was the US government spending money on this country that made it prosper in that last century. I never said the government could do no wrong. Obviously any extreme system isn't going work.
Your view of economics is laughably myopic at best. I'm not surprised. Profits are good? So why are insurance company profits going through the roof when the coverage and our healthcare sucks?
All this fun textbook crap your spouting hasn't worked.
Feel free to continue writing your over-worded works of fiction, though.
Just curious....How did US government spending make the country economically prosperous in the last century?
Secondly, could you define "sucky" healthcare?0 -
Just curious....How did US government spending of private sector tax revenue make the country economically prosperous in the last century? Wouldnt the economy have to be "successful"(profit-generating) first to supply the government with money to spend? What came first the egg or the chicken?
Secondly, could you define "sucky" healthcare?
I don't actually care to give you a history lesson (at least without getting paid by someone--perhaps the government?). The information is widely available. Suffice to say, what makes you think that it came from tax revenue initially? Your assertion that it would have to be successful is false. How do you think we've recovered from previous economic disasters? It wasn't because we tightened our budgets and used all that non-existent surplus.
As to our craptastic health system, it depends on what ranking system you're looking at. Most notably and recently, we could look at the Commonwealth Fund that put the U.S. in 7th place out of 7 industrialized nations based on: quality, efficiency, access, equity, and healthy lives. I bet more specific information can be found on their site if you care to dispute it.0 -
Just curious....How did US government spending of private sector tax revenue make the country economically prosperous in the last century? Wouldnt the economy have to be "successful"(profit-generating) first to supply the government with money to spend? What came first the egg or the chicken?
Secondly, could you define "sucky" healthcare?
I don't actually care to give you a history lesson (at least without getting paid by someone--perhaps the government?). The information is widely available. Suffice to say, what makes you think that it came from tax revenue initially? Your assertion that it would have to be successful is false. How do you think we've recovered from previous economic disasters? It wasn't because we tightened our budgets and used all that non-existent surplus.
As to our craptastic health system, it depends on what ranking system you're looking at. Most notably and recently, we could look at the Commonwealth Fund that put the U.S. in 7th place out of 7 industrialized nations based on: quality, efficiency, access, equity, and healthy lives. I bet more specific information can be found on their site if you care to dispute it.
We didn't recover from the deep recession of the late 1970's with government stimulus. It was done primarily through deregulation (smaller government), the lowering of income taxes and capital gains taxes and inflation reduction by controlling the monetary supply. Reagan experienced unemployment rates as high as 10.8% in his first term yet by the end of his first term unemployment had dropped to 7.2%. We have had over 40 months of 8.0% unemployment or higher since Obama has taken office and this number is not a true indication of the real unemployment in this country. The U-6 unemployment rate which includes individuals "looking for and not looking for" employment hasn't been below 14.2% anytime during Obama's first term. Your assertions that US government spending is what made this country prosperous couldn't be more wrong. The current administrations failed attempts of spending us back into prosperity is a clear example of this. "Your view of economics is laughably myopic at best."0 -
Just curious....How did US government spending of private sector tax revenue make the country economically prosperous in the last century? Wouldnt the economy have to be "successful"(profit-generating) first to supply the government with money to spend? What came first the egg or the chicken?
Secondly, could you define "sucky" healthcare?
I don't actually care to give you a history lesson (at least without getting paid by someone--perhaps the government?). The information is widely available. Suffice to say, what makes you think that it came from tax revenue initially? Your assertion that it would have to be successful is false. How do you think we've recovered from previous economic disasters? It wasn't because we tightened our budgets and used all that non-existent surplus.
As to our craptastic health system, it depends on what ranking system you're looking at. Most notably and recently, we could look at the Commonwealth Fund that put the U.S. in 7th place out of 7 industrialized nations based on: quality, efficiency, access, equity, and healthy lives. I bet more specific information can be found on their site if you care to dispute it.
We didn't recover from the deep recession of the late 1970's with government stimulus. It was done primarily through deregulation (smaller government), the lowering of income taxes and capital gains taxes and inflation reduction by controlling the monetary supply. Reagan experienced unemployment rates as high as 10.8% in his first term yet by the end of his first term unemployment had dropped to 7.2%. We have had over 40 months of 8.0% unemployment or higher since Obama has taken office and this number is not a true indication of the real unemployment in this country. The U-6 unemployment rate which includes individuals "looking for and not looking for" employment hasn't been below 14.2% anytime during Obama's first term. Your assertions that US government spending is what made this country prosperous couldn't be more wrong. The current administrations failed attempts of spending us back into prosperity is a clear example of this. "Your view of economics is laughably myopic at best."
And yet government spending through war efforts and government contracts did end the Great Depression. I never said anything about intended stimulus as such. You did. Government spending is government spending, after all. I wouldn't suggest we start a world war to boost the economy; it isn't doing much for us these days. But taking care of our infrastructure might be a nice start. Works Project Commission, anyone? Private industry isn't about to do that, though. There's no profit in it, unless the government pays them.
Laugh on, skippy. You're not convincing anyone. You vote your way, and I'll vote mine
EDIT: and as a fun side note, don't you think it's a tad ironic to call Obama out for unemployment numbers that are being driven by a shrinking public sector?0 -
Thank you, slour441. I still don't know how to do it, but you have it up so that works, yeah. (not my twitter page by the way. found it on the web)0
-
You have to just post the image.. not your twitter page.
0 -
nvm, you got it 0
-
Oh ok.. the link you had was to a twitter page. I just found the link to the picture and then put it in
[ img ] link to image[ /img ]
You know for next time 0 -
Just curious....How did US government spending of private sector tax revenue make the country economically prosperous in the last century? Wouldnt the economy have to be "successful"(profit-generating) first to supply the government with money to spend? What came first the egg or the chicken?
Secondly, could you define "sucky" healthcare?
I don't actually care to give you a history lesson (at least without getting paid by someone--perhaps the government?). The information is widely available. Suffice to say, what makes you think that it came from tax revenue initially? Your assertion that it would have to be successful is false. How do you think we've recovered from previous economic disasters? It wasn't because we tightened our budgets and used all that non-existent surplus.
As to our craptastic health system, it depends on what ranking system you're looking at. Most notably and recently, we could look at the Commonwealth Fund that put the U.S. in 7th place out of 7 industrialized nations based on: quality, efficiency, access, equity, and healthy lives. I bet more specific information can be found on their site if you care to dispute it.
We didn't recover from the deep recession of the late 1970's with government stimulus. It was done primarily through deregulation (smaller government), the lowering of income taxes and capital gains taxes and inflation reduction by controlling the monetary supply. Reagan experienced unemployment rates as high as 10.8% in his first term yet by the end of his first term unemployment had dropped to 7.2%. We have had over 40 months of 8.0% unemployment or higher since Obama has taken office and this number is not a true indication of the real unemployment in this country. The U-6 unemployment rate which includes individuals "looking for and not looking for" employment hasn't been below 14.2% anytime during Obama's first term. Your assertions that US government spending is what made this country prosperous couldn't be more wrong. The current administrations failed attempts of spending us back into prosperity is a clear example of this. "Your view of economics is laughably myopic at best."
And yet government spending through war efforts and government contracts did end the Great Depression. I never said anything about intended stimulus as such. You did. Government spending is government spending, after all. I wouldn't suggest we start a world war to boost the economy; it isn't doing much for us these days. But taking care of our infrastructure might be a nice start. Works Project Commission, anyone? Private industry isn't about to do that, though. There's no profit in it, unless the government pays them.
Laugh on, skippy. You're not convincing anyone. You vote your way, and I'll vote mine
EDIT: and as a fun side note, don't you think it's a tad ironic to call Obama out for unemployment numbers that are being driven by a shrinking public sector?
Funny you say that you're not suggesting starting a war yet you use the example of WWII as a way government can reverse an economic downturn. How then do we recover from cyclical dowturns without causing WWIII? You merely state the obvious result of WWII yet you fail to explain how that can be translated to tangible economic policy. If you agree with the notion of government spending as the answer then you must agree with the current administration's stimulus(government spending) policies in trying to stoke our economy. Unfortunately it has, time an again, proven to be failed policy. I agree infrastructure should have been front and center, yet again, politics trumps sound reasoning and the stimulus was primarily used to prop up public sector(union) jobs, temporarily. If the stimulus was used for infrastructure, private industry would have been involved as subcontractors. This would have had a much more profound effect on the economy compared to handing the money over to public sector workers who are takers and not producers.
Oh and as for your shrinking public sector. The stimulus that was used primarily for public sector jobs in the form of payments to states to cover budget shortfalls, was only 2/3 spent by 10/10 and yet the unemployment rate was still climbing. Where do you think those jobs were coming from? It wasn't from the public sector, genius.
You might not be listening but I know you hear me. I look forward to your response.:drinker:0 -
Yes, the cost is inflated. What do you do for a living, that you or the business you work for doesn't inflate the cost in order to make a profit?No, I don't have any hospital bills for myself at the moment. But I did recieve a $15 charge for one local call when I had my son in 2007. It's no secret that the cost of procedures, services and supplies are extremely inflated.
Not that I disagree that the overall cost of our healthcare system is a wreck, but the hospital has to pay what it is charged, too, or it'll go out of business.
I work for a non-profit real estate board. We don't operate for a profit.
If a hospital inflates the way they do, how are they any better than the 'greedy' insurance companies that inflate their prices?? It's not fair to a patient to put another person's debt on them, but I understand they have costs to cover.
I just find it so strange that people are quick to blame the private sector insurance companies, when the hospitals and government are doing the same things. The government has a horrible track record of paying claims for medicare and medicaid but expanding that kind of coverage, in my opinion, if going to result in HIGHER hospital costs. There is a reason it is hard to find a doctor who accepts government insurance, whether it be medicaid or military coverage..
Medicaid is a shared federal/state program. Medicaid shortages and payment problems, as I understand it, are almost always due to states not paying their share. Part of the ACA includes increased funding for medicaid--however that is one area specifically targeted by the SCOTUS ruling and, again as I understand, gives the states a great deal of leeway to opt out of the government programs, so I suspect that medicaid will continue to be an issue.0 -
Funny you say that you're not suggesting starting a war yet you use the example of WWII as a way government can reverse an economic downturn. How then do we recover from cyclical dowturns without causing WWIII? You merely state the obvious result of WWII yet you fail to explain how that can be translated to tangible economic policy. If you agree with the notion of government spending as the answer then you must agree with the current administration's stimulus(government spending) policies in trying to stoke our economy. Unfortunately it has, time an again, proven to be failed policy. I agree infrastructure should have been front and center, yet again, politics trumps sound reasoning and the stimulus was primarily used to prop up public sector(union) jobs, temporarily. If the stimulus was used for infrastructure, private industry would have been involved as subcontractors. This would have had a much more profound effect on the economy compared to handing the money over to public sector workers who are takers and not producers.
Oh and as for your shrinking public sector. The stimulus that was used primarily for public sector jobs in the form of payments to states to cover budget shortfalls, was only 2/3 spent by 10/10 and yet the unemployment rate was still climbing. Where do you think those jobs were coming from? It wasn't from the public sector, genius.
You might not be listening but I know you hear me. I look forward to your response.:drinker:
I mentioned the war as another example of government spending apart from what is generally considered stimulus, even though it was obviously stimulative. By all accounts the most recent recession was significantly worse than we first thought. Keeping public workers employed and spending was still effective. It just wasn't enough.
It takes time to recover even a little bit, obviously. But now those public sector jobs are gone, and the private sector, experiencing nice tidy profits btw, isn't holding up their end of the bargain and hasn't been. Where are the jobs if they're doing so well? No where, hence the unemployment rate. Ah the wonders of our system, that values itself above the people supporting it. Oh I'm sure the government must be to blame for that too somehow.
Government stimulus can work; it just has to be done correctly. Bush, for example, gave us all some nice little checks, as I recall. It didn't do squat because stimulus works better when people don't know it's going on on a regular basis over time. See you got me to admit the government can screw it up Grats.
You obviously have your own view of things based on...something, maybe...that runs contrary to mine, but this particular conversation appears to be a derailment of the Obamney care subject at hand.0
This discussion has been closed.