The Tea Party

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hold the view that only a free market approach to health care is the best possible solution. Please do not confuse today’s state-sponsored insurance cartel with the free market – for I assure you, it is far from that.


I agree with you that we haven't had a free market healthcare in decades, that's why I have to laugh at those that keep repeating that slogan.

A truly free market in healthcare would even be more of a colossal failure. We'd have all the Viagra we want but diabetics would be dying left and right.
 
"Speak American" :doh:, and I thought the Tea Party was about spending?

Guess how much that wall is going to cost? A LOT more than you think once you start adding the rises in produce and labor...

Wow, no hatred at all right? What a loving fucking crowd of morons...

You should all be proud. :|
 
Good Lord. This guy apparently doesn't listen to himself.

The most disturbing aspect about this is that people like Janet Napolitano right now are trying to demonize tens of millions of Americans because of their political views.

Pot, kettle, black, yadda yadda.
 
Guess how much that wall is going to cost? A LOT more than you think once you start adding the rises in produce and labor...
Just so I’m clear - Are you suggesting it is acceptable to pay people below minimum wage if the cost of labor is too expensive to provide the good or service?
 
Just so I’m clear - Are you suggesting it is acceptable to pay people below minimum wage if the cost of labor is too expensive to provide the good or service?

I'm saying it happens and it's a big part of our economy and those that go off on these rants better understand that... Those that bitch and moan that "they don't pay taxes" better understand that... I think if these fiscal conservatives truly looked at the issue with a fine tooth comb they would stay quiet... I think this is a hot button issue and race plays a much bigger part than any of them are willing to admit.
 
I'm saying it happens and it's a big part of our economy and those that go off on these rants better understand that...

Do you think people would be willing to pay more for lettuce if it meant no more (or drastically reduced) illegal immigration? Or, do you think it’s necessary to keep illegal immigrants here in order to pay lower than minimum wage and keep the cost of lettuce cheap?

Personally, I would let the free market decide. The argument for what essentially amounts to slavery isn’t morally justifiable – just as you’ve pointed out that it wasn’t morally justifiable in the Confederacy.
 
Do you think people would be willing to pay more for lettuce if it meant no more (or drastically reduced) illegal immigration?
No, I don't think people are willing to pay more. I'm pretty sure they would just blame Obama.


Or, do you think it’s necessary to keep illegal immigrants here in order to pay lower than minimum wage and keep the cost of lettuce cheap?
I don't think this either.


Personally, I would let the free market decide. The argument for what essentially amounts to slavery isn’t morally justifiable – just as you’ve pointed out that it wasn’t morally justifiable in the Confederacy.
I'm not justifying anything. I point it out because I don't think all these tea partiers have a clue how much it's going to cost them. I point it out because the irony shines a light upon their hypocricy.
 
A truly free market in healthcare would even be more of a colossal failure. We'd have all the Viagra we want but diabetics would be dying left and right.

Diabetic care accounts for about all 10% of all health care spending. What in the name of greedy capitalism makes you think insulin, drug and diabetic device manufactures, health care providers and insurance companies looking to prevent having to pay for treating the many expensive complications of untreated or undiagnosed diabetes (stroke, heart failure, kidney failure, blindness, loss of lower limbs) ... would just up and abandon these patients to sell more boner pills?
 
Well, there were stories in the news of insurance companies refusing to insure babies because they were overweight, and after the health care bill passed, there were reports of insurance companies still looking for loopholes to not have to insure children, so if they can do that...

All I know is this: Medicare/Medicaid saved my family's butt financially. My dad had to go on it after he got really sick, and it's a good thing he did, 'cause had he not done that, my family'd be in debt up to our eyeballs right now. They paid most, if not all, the cost for practically EVERY pill, hospital treatment, etc. And he'd had a good private insurance policy before then. But he couldn't stay on it 'cause he still couldn't afford to. There's still a few minor things that we had to take care of ourselves, but they weren't very expensive things and we could afford to squeak by and get those, too.

Ironically, many people who are bitching and moaning about "Obamacare" being an intrusion (a bill, which, again, incorporated a lot of REPUBLICAN ideas, so if you're going to yell at anybody...) are generally pretty happy with Medicare/Medicaid. Remember the humor people found in the phrase "Get your government hands off my Medicare!" Ummmmmm... And until private insurance companies are more affordable and willing to cover everybody, sorry, we need an alternative. I don't have health insurance at all-I'm still looking for a job back in the town I live in currently. My mom and sister work part-time at retail stores, and they do offer some health coverage, but nothing really spectacular that could help us out. And my mom, sister, and I have been having some financial ups and downs as of late, sometimes particularly serious ones (like, for instance, there were times in recent months where my mom and I were just trying to cover the rent and food for our apartment, let alone anything else. Thankfully, we're getting help, some of it from those evil government organizations, no less!). So an option that would allow us to go for simple checkups, or go to a dentist, or treat an injury or sickness should we, god forbid, get one, would be a serious blessing.

Are there things in Medicare/Medicaid that could be fixed? Yeah. Every system has its kinks that have to be worked out. But to get rid of it altogether? No, don't agree with that. If we can manage to have both public and private options for other things going (i.e., schools, mail systems, etc.), then we can easily manage to have both a public and private health system coexist. Besides that, nobody has ever come up with an answer to why they're not bothered about the fact that they're REQUIRED to have car insurance, but when it comes to health insurance, boy, that gets their hair up.

Angela
 
And until private insurance companies are more affordable and willing to cover everybody, sorry, we need an alternative. [


Because the game is currently rigged by a state sponsored health insurance industry. Free markets would open competition (which is currently closed to selected companies) and this would drive down cost while increasing service. The current system, and the to-be-installed system, are the “the worst of both worlds” – taking all of the money while creating the demand.
 
Diabetic care accounts for about all 10% of all health care spending. What in the name of greedy capitalism makes you think insulin, drug and diabetic device manufactures, health care providers and insurance companies looking to prevent having to pay for treating the many expensive complications of untreated or undiagnosed diabetes (stroke, heart failure, kidney failure, blindness, loss of lower limbs) ... would just up and abandon these patients to sell more boner pills?

10%? I haven't seen that number, but I have seen is that it's about 50% less than it should be.

Do you know the reimbursment rate on diabetic treatment?

Do you know where most of the diabetes research came from?

Do you know what demographic suffers from diabetes the most?

Answer those questions and you'll get my point.
 
Free markets would open competition (which is currently closed to selected companies) and this would drive down cost while increasing service. The current system, and the to-be-installed system, are the “the worst of both worlds” – taking all of the money while creating the demand.

What makes you think this will increase service? The poverty striken are the sickest, why would a true free market cater to them?

What would cause the free market to do research in diabetes when viagra is much more profitable?

Please show me something to back up this claim, because I have yet to find one person that knows anything about the medical field that wholeheartedly agrees with this. Even the most diehard conservative doctors know this isn't the answer.
 
“You all suffer from the same f**king problem: you didn’t get laid enough when you were younger because you’re 5’ 3”. … Girls never paid any attention to you… You’re a little f**king dweeb who f**king didn’t get any p**** his whole f**king life… You’re a little f**king piece of shit and I would f**king step on your fu**king head quicker than you could shake a stick out, if I had the chance… You’re the f**king minority."

...so...um...did this person have, like, a point or anything, or did he/she just want to show off their beautiful grasp of the English language?

That Geico guy is a complete and utter moron. I like how on his blog he talked about how clearly he went a bit overboard-really, buddy, ya think?

Good lord-okay, everybody on BOTH sides: GROW. UP. ALREADY. This should not be that volatile a debate! It's not worth threatening people's lives over (nothing is, really).

Because the game is currently rigged by a state sponsored health insurance industry. Free markets would open competition (which is currently closed to selected companies) and this would drive down cost while increasing service. The current system, and the to-be-installed system, are the “the worst of both worlds” – taking all of the money while creating the demand.

Lack of regulation would only make the problem worse, not better.

Also, in regards to the YouTube clip-I just want someone to explain to me how "securing our borders" will solve anything when we've got these bodies of water called the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico on either side. So they don't get past the fence. They'll find other ways. Besides that, when has building a wall/fence as a solution to some dispute between two groups of people ever worked for those countries who had one? Generally seems to me it just gets people more pissed off.

And as for speaking English-well, when people born and raised here learn it {see quoted yahoo above with the curse words, those who talk only in Internet speak, the people who can't spell words properly at the tea party rallies, just to name a few), then we'll talk.

And that's about the only parts I could comment on. I got totally lost after that. What the hell?

Angela
 
What makes you think this will increase service? The poverty striken are the sickest, why would a true free market cater to them?

Charitable hospitals would cover the very poor. This could easily be accomplished by establishing a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity. Believe it or not, many people and organizations would love to help people in a direct, tangible manner.

What would cause the free market to do research in diabetes when viagra is much more profitable?
Trust me - if there’s a market for treating diabetes– it will get filled by some innovative researcher.
 
Lack of regulation would only make the problem worse, not better.
Angela

State created regulations usually serve a handful of players while eliminating competition and efficiency. Most current laws are sufficient enough to protect people – they just need to be enforced.
 
Charitable hospitals would cover the very poor. This could easily be accomplished by establishing a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity. Believe it or not, many people and organizations would love to help people in a direct, tangible manner.
I hate to call you naive, but there are many major cities that don't even have charitable hospitals, and those that do often aren't that charitable.


Trust me - if there’s a market for treating diabetes– it will get filled by some innovative researcher.

Once again... "if there's a market" which really means 'if it's profitable', well guess what? It's not. Diabetes research is crucial, because like INDY said the far end is costly and deadly. BUT, where's the profit in preventitive disease control? There is none, especially when it's the poor that suffer the most.

Free market is not an absolute answer, the sooner some figure that out the better. When it comes to healthcare the only solution I see is a combination. We're talking about human lives. Human lives should not be determined by profits, as a Christian I find it hard why so many on the right can't figure this out.
 
And how do we enforce them? Through regulations.
No, laws aren’t enforced by regulations, but by law enforcement.

Laws regarding fraud, bodily harm, and property rights (in this case intellectual) should be sufficient if properly enforced. For instance, our current financial crisis is a result of improper enforcement of fraud – not by lack of regulation.

In the end, it was the regulators and not the free market that determined who survived and who didn’t. The coming regulations will probably secure their positions (after a few wrist slaps).
 
I hate to call you naive, but there are many major cities that don't even have charitable hospitals, and those that do often aren't that charitable.
There would be if you allowed dollar-for-dollar tax credits for donations and the costs of medical equipment, supplies, and medicine weren’t hyper-inflated by the current health care robber barons.

Once again... "if there's a market" which really means 'if it's profitable', well guess what? It's not. Diabetes research is crucial, because like INDY said the far end is costly and deadly. BUT, where's the profit in preventitive disease control? There is none, especially when it's the poor that suffer the most.
The Lasik industry is an oft used example. It is a one-time fix and not covered by insurance (usually). Yet, through competition, Lasik is fast, reliable, and relatively inexpensive compared to insurance covered procedures of similar complexity.

Free market is not an absolute answer, the sooner some figure that out the better.
No, but it is certainly better than government sponsored thievery.
When it comes to healthcare the only solution I see is a combination. We're talking about human lives. Human lives should not be determined by profits, as a Christian I find it hard why so many on the right can't figure this out.
If history is any indication, the people "on the right" would be the largest contributors to the charitable hospitals or the organizations that fund them. I believe in the free market system because it fuels innovation and forces efficiency. In the end, that has a better chance of improving more lives.
 
You don't think it was a combination of both?

Why do you have so much faith in super-sized corporations?

Super-sized corporations are often created by regulations designed to keep competitors out of the market place. It’s a cycle: big corporation puts their man in office, man in office returns the favor passing regulatory reforms, regulatory reforms keep smaller companies from entering into the regulated space because of the cost of being regulated, big corporation becomes “too big to fail”

And as it turns out – the only “regulations” that we really needed are the current laws that protect the citizens from fraud, bodily harm, and property rights (including intellectual property).
 
There would be if you allowed dollar-for-dollar tax credits for donations and the costs of medical equipment, supplies, and medicine weren’t hyper-inflated by the current health care robber barons.
I'm not sure how YOU can say this. The inflation comes from a free market mentality. Trust me, I use to work for one of those hyper-inflated medical device companies. Things would be worse if it was pure free market.
The Lasik industry is an oft used example. It is a one-time fix and not covered by insurance (usually). Yet, through competition, Lasik is fast, reliable, and relatively inexpensive compared to insurance covered procedures of similar complexity.
INDY, Hannity, Rush all tried this one too, it must be in the handbook. It's an elective surgery!!! What part of that do you guys not get?

My mother was one of the first Lasik patients in the US, so I am very grateful, but guess what? It came from a combination of public and government funds.

No, but it is certainly better than government sponsored thievery.
Thievery? I thought you understood the current insurance system?

Leaving your life up to profit would be thievery.

If history is any indication, the people "on the right" would be the largest contributors to the charitable hospitals or the organizations that fund them. I believe in the free market system because it fuels innovation and forces efficiency. In the end, that has a better chance of improving more lives.
You would be wrong on the charitable aspect, that number is almost dead even... nice try.

"Fuels innovation and forces efficiency"? Ok, so you've avoided my one example of diabetes, I have many others believe me. So just answer that one example, how is the free market going to do this?
 
Super-sized corporations are often created by regulations designed to keep competitors out of the market place. It’s a cycle: big corporation puts their man in office, man in office returns the favor passing regulatory reforms, regulatory reforms keep smaller companies from entering into the regulated space because of the cost of being regulated, big corporation becomes “too big to fail”

And as it turns out – the only “regulations” that we really needed are the current laws that protect the citizens from fraud, bodily harm, and property rights (including intellectual property).

True and false.

We could both go all day long showing examples of each.

The truth is, we live in a world where there are corporations that are "too big to fail".

Is that right? Is that just the free market way? Is that just a fact of capitalism?

You and I both know, the world is not black and white.

I'm sure now you realize how tied up some of these systems go, can you honestly imagine where we would be if we just let them go bankrupt(especially multiple systems at a time)? Be honest.
 
I'm not sure how YOU can say this. The inflation comes from a free market mentality. Trust me, I use to work for one of those hyper-inflated medical device companies. Things would be worse if it was pure free market.
Whatever this device is – if it they were charging higher than market prices, someone would come in with a similar device for a lower price.

Leaving your life up to profit would be thievery.
Don’t we do this every time we visit a doctor? Leave our life up for profit as you say? Are they working at a loss?

This notion that regulators are these incorruptible, benevolent, altruistic, Assisi-type crusaders that are only looking out for the little guy is the naïve position. Trust me, you’re already leaving your life up to profit - unfortunately it is to those big bloated companies you despise protected by the regulators and lawmakers you love.

You would be wrong on the charitable aspect, that number is almost dead even... nice try.
Call it a hunch then.

"Fuels innovation and forces efficiency"? Ok, so you've avoided my one example of diabetes, I have many others believe me. So just answer that one example, how is the free market going to do this?
The free market would lower the cost of research across the board. Additionally, if you replaced bloated and corrupt organizations like the FDA with competing ratings type of agencies the cost of research would be lower still.
 
I'm sure now you realize how tied up some of these systems go, can you honestly imagine where we would be if we just let them go bankrupt(especially multiple systems at a time)? Be honest.

True - I'm not super critical of the steps taken by Bush/Obama to try and instill confidence in the economy and avoid world chaos. However, it is not capitalism that got us into this mess, but state sponsored capitalism.

Moving forward, strict enforcement of current laws regarding fraud and corruption is enough. Whatever this financial reform bill turns out to be will be sham meant to give lip service to companies like Goldman Sachs but will certainly do everything that only they and a few handpicked companies remain “too big to fail” – because only they are complex enough to handle the complex instruments created to maneuver the complex regulations…
 
Whatever this device is – if it they were charging higher than market prices, someone would come in with a similar device for a lower price.
Medical device companies build in their R&D, marketing, etc into the cost of a device. The device I was selling was retailing at 6,000. It had been on the market over 30 years, the r&d was over, so they were actually building in the r&d of other devices. The device cost 75 to make. The only reason it capped out at 6,000 is because of regulation, due to a combination of insurance companies and device companies. They all settled on a price and said this is what we'll spend on such device. It wasn't regulated for 25 years. How does a free market help in such a situation?

Don’t we do this every time we visit a doctor? Leave our life up for profit as you say? Are they working at a loss?
For the most part you're right, but why should this be the norm? Aren't we guaranteed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

This notion that regulators are these incorruptible, benevolent, altruistic, Assisi-type crusaders that are only looking out for the little guy is the naïve position. Trust me, you’re already leaving your life up to profit - unfortunately it is to those big bloated companies you despise protected by the regulators and lawmakers you love.
This I know. But I also know that without regulations it would be worse. Much, much, much worse.

Call it a hunch then.

The free market would lower the cost of research across the board. Additionally, if you replaced bloated and corrupt organizations like the FDA with competing ratings type of agencies the cost of research would be lower still.

Please show me an example!!!

Let's say we did have competing rating systems. How are they constructed? Are they profit driven? Where is the checks and balances?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom