Yes, huge obscene profits. It's unimaginable! All those people employed to provide goods and services. It's a travesty!
Competition is a good thing...maybe if there were only one camera company owned by the state...hmm...they could copy old Leica and Zeiss designs...quality wouldn't matter...heh heh...oh yeah, that already happened...
So, can you refute that in the real world large oligopolies choose NOT to compete (by definition, duh), or are you only interested in incoherently regurgitating nonsense? Seriously, I can't even figure out if you think that your various sentences are related...
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Bill,
It's hard to argue with any of that, but that won't stop those whose world picture is summed up in the old joke prayer:
God bless me and my wife
My brother Jack and his wife
We four!
No more!
It's also interesting that fundamentalist Christianity is increasingly irrelevant in Europe -- church attendance here in France is 6-7% (Catholic church figures) -- but social programmes, i.e. caring for your fellow citizens, are far more prevalent.
Maybe an excess of religion sometimes stands in the way of common decency, treating other people as if you really did respect them. Not always, of course. But sometimes.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
A long time ago, I read an article which suggested that 'Americanism' is America's substitute for socialism. An important part of the definition of 'Americanism', as used in the article, was that it incorporates a (substantially irrational) belief that everyone can get rich, and that if you're poor, it's always your own fault. Another part was exceptionalism, the belief that somehow, Americans are unlike everyone else in the world, which is patent nonsense: all sentient beings desire happiness and the causes of happiness, and to avoid suffering and the causes of suffering.
Incidentally, my sister-in-law is a doctor, and does not have a high opinion of the American health care system.
Cheers,
R.
Incidentally, my sister-in-law is a doctor, and does not have a high opinion of the American health care system.
Cheers,
R.
gdi
Mentor
This a common misconception about the insurance market; a surprising portion of the US population and Congress does not understand its basic principles. The private insurance market provides care to individuals in excess of the premiums they have paid, or has been paid on their behalf, every day.
In other words, they do not make a profit on that particular individual, but they still do in the aggregate. The risk of future costs for that individual is spread across all of those in the insured population. This means the company collects premiums for an uncertain future event (needed care) from all people in the population, with the understanding that some would need little care while others will have great needs. So, the people who do have the misfortune to need a lot of care get a great deal, and the company can make a profit and continue to provide their service, while those who needed only basic care may pay premiums that exceed the amount of their bills (for any particular period).
This is obvious to anyone who understands the situation for individuals with pre-exisiting conditions in the individual market vs the large group market. An individual with a pre-existing condition may not be able to get insurance at an affordable rate, or even at all, while the same person as a group member would have no problem and pay no extra ( and would probably never be asked about their health status, beyond their age range).
This is why it is important to have everyone or as many as possible in the system - something the single payer crowd complains about as a give away to the insurance companies. The more people the less stringent the underwriting can be and we can move toward eliminating pre-existing conditions on individuals and reductions in premiums on both individuals and small groups.
But you are right about one thing - private companies cannot, generally, provide their services to large numbers of people for free and remain profitable and in business. But under a government takeover there is also a cost; the money has to come from somewhere, and someone has to pay. That payment can come in the form of taxes, greater debt liabilities, or a devaluation of everyone's purchasing power ( just print more money). So it is a foregone conclusion that to cover everyone, the taxpayer will have to kick in. Doing this under a purely private system will require some taxpayer subsidies for those who cannot pay.
Obviously you have not read the Stupak amendment, you should, it is only a couple of pages. There is no attack on human rights anywhere in it, simply a clear outline for ensuring that taxpayer money does not fund abortions. The complaints about outlawing abortion or preventing insurance companies from offering plans that cover abortion are scaremongering, pure and simple.
Also, I haven't read the whole tome/bill so if you could let me know the sections describing the transfer of wealth to insurance companies, I would appreciate it. If you mean that it will result in them covering more people and collecting more premiums, please see my comments above.
Yes, the Weiner argument, it all over cable and the blogs (from a policy maker whose lack of understanding of insurance and the market is amazing.) Unfortunately, the insistence on this ideological stance may derail the whole effort and leave many millions without access to the health care system.
wgerrard
Mentor
Roger, it's worth noting, and more than a bit telling, that when someone over here cobbles together a reasonably cogent statement like that, the right-wing advocates of the status quo seldom address the specific issues raised.
wgerrard
Mentor
I know that, and it's not my point. Millions of people cannot get health care because they are uninsured. If the market system worked, health insurance would be available at a price those people could afford. It is not.
The amendment goes beyond the scope of the current status quo to increase the number of companies that would be barred from providing abortion coverage. The amendment's goal is to make abortions harder to get. That is a human rights issue. If Stupak and the others are so concerned about human life, let them vote no on defense appropriations. They have no right to impose their own narrow religious on the public stage.
Mandates requiring the purchase of insurance will transfer money from the public to the monopolistic unaccountable insurance corporations.
The existence of these insurance corporations are the fundamental cause of the health care problem and the fundamental reason American health care falls short.
Last edited:
Bike Tourist
Well-known
You have all provided interesting and educational comments on political and economic models. But, to return briefly to microstock . . .
I'm grateful to it for providing a supplement to my meager retirement income. RFF provides great discourse, but no money!
I'm grateful to it for providing a supplement to my meager retirement income. RFF provides great discourse, but no money!
wgerrard
Mentor
Very true. So many people here think their goal is to get rich -- the big house on the hill syndrome. Failure to do so isn't seen as a piece of bad luck or bad planning, but as a character failure.
As someone pointed out earlier, poverty is relative, meaning those who earn the least will always be in poverty no matter how the wage scale is skewed. Well, the same applies to the rich, on the other end of the scale. Someone always has more money.
There are fundamentalist churches here teaching that material wealth will come from God if only people worship and believe correctly. Many other churches adhere to an essentially social Darwinism spin that says those who are poor deserve their fate. Another strong fundamentalist tenet is the belief that we're all headed to some kind of cataclysmic end time (as in Revelations) so any attempt to manage or avoid crisis is violating the will of God. It's very much a "secret knowledge" thing that permeates much of the American right.
bmattock
Mentor
Health care is not a fundamental right according to the US Constitution. I do not place 'corporate wealth' above the health of my fellow citizens, I simply have a good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it does not.
If we in the US wish to define health care as a fundamental right, then there is a method to do that; an amendment to the US Constitution. This is the way such weighty decisions have been handled for our entire history, and there's no reason for it not to be done that way in this case. If we lack the will to ratify such an amendment, then the answer is that no, health care is not a fundamental right in the USA.
I have no objection if we decide as a nation to amend the Constitution in this way. And if we do, I feel strongly that the only appropriate solution to the problem is for the government to seize the health insurance industry and utterly nationalize it. Constant government meddling and tinkering in private industry results in chaos that changes with the zeitgeist.
The current bills before Congress are utter rubbish. They fix nothing, they will cost me more money, and put more money into the pockets of the very people the government intended to punish. If either of the 'public option' bills are signed into law, the federal government for the first time in our history will require citizens to purchase a good or service as a condition of being alive - this has never been done before and I object to it in the extreme. Purchasing auto insurance is not a valid comparison - millions of citizens do not own cars or drive and as such, are not required to purchase auto insurance. Under this steaming pile of crap, every citizen, no matter their means or personal choices, will be legally required to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty to the government. It's unconstitutional and will not stand.
What is currently being debated is a patch to a series of patches and it will do not fix anything for anyone. It's ugly and I hate it.
This day after Thanksgiving, I find myself thankful that cap-and-trade is utterly dead, at least partially due to the recent revelation that anthropogenic global warming has been shown to be an utter fraud; and I am thankful in advance for the garbage currently in Congress regarding health care dying a quiet death as well.
wgerrard
Mentor
I don't think the Constitution is a sacred document that creates our rights. It established a framework to guarantee our exercise of a number of those rights. But, I don't believe the people who wrote it claimed to be delineating every human right. We do not need to amend the Constitution to bring health care to all.
As I've indicated, I'm not fond of the mandates, and neither are many others who think like me. The core of the problem is that insurance is a prerequisite for health care. THe way to fix the problem is to eliminate that prerequisite. We need a single payer system. Yes, it would be financed via taxes. Yes, almost all of us would stop paying private insurance premiums. I'd take the deal in a heartbeat.
I'm thankful every day that the right in this country is exposing itself as the hostile, mean-sprited, Know Nothing reality-avoiding sectarian threat to democracy that it is. Every politician and every pundit who demands that the right maintain its ideological purity is only hastening the political demise of an embarrassing and dangerous cult. The U.S. can no more afford putting the right n power than France can afford Le Pen in power, or the British the BHP or the Germans their skinhead fascists. All of them are mirrors of each other.
As I've indicated, I'm not fond of the mandates, and neither are many others who think like me. The core of the problem is that insurance is a prerequisite for health care. THe way to fix the problem is to eliminate that prerequisite. We need a single payer system. Yes, it would be financed via taxes. Yes, almost all of us would stop paying private insurance premiums. I'd take the deal in a heartbeat.
I'm thankful every day that the right in this country is exposing itself as the hostile, mean-sprited, Know Nothing reality-avoiding sectarian threat to democracy that it is. Every politician and every pundit who demands that the right maintain its ideological purity is only hastening the political demise of an embarrassing and dangerous cult. The U.S. can no more afford putting the right n power than France can afford Le Pen in power, or the British the BHP or the Germans their skinhead fascists. All of them are mirrors of each other.
Last edited:
I reject that idea in a heartbeat for the reasons mentioned above...costs go up, quality goes down, the country is already bankrupt even though it is taking more and more of OUR money every day, and a bureaucrat comes between me and my doctor. Utterly unacceptable.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
It's odd how France provides better healthcare, cheaper, for more people than the United States, and how bureaucrats don't stand between anyone I know in this country and their doctor. But then, I've lived under both systems and have absolutely no doubt whatsoever which is superior.
On a nodding acquaintance with the French system, my sister-in-law the American doctor agrees; and she is fully conversant with her sister's (my wife's) health problems, treatments and outcomes. Oh: and with what my wife pays/has paid as against the US system.
Cheers,
R.
On a nodding acquaintance with the French system, my sister-in-law the American doctor agrees; and she is fully conversant with her sister's (my wife's) health problems, treatments and outcomes. Oh: and with what my wife pays/has paid as against the US system.
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Mentor
The Constitution is neither sacred nor does it grant rights. However, it does detail the role of government, and establish a barrier between the rights of citizens, the rights of states, and the rights of the federal government. It does not permit the federal government to take over the role of providing universal health care.
Yes, I agree. However, I will not accept the current proposals to 'kind of' patch things in lieu of a 'real' fix. This is not a step towards a real fix, it's chaos and unconstitutional into the mix.
We have the means to amend the Constitution and get on with providing national health care if that's what we want to do as a nation. If we choose not to do so, then that's the answer, no national health care, move on.
I am thankful for anything that fashes those in favor of the current proposals.
bmattock
Mentor
A system like unto France's is not currently on the table in the US. Therefore, discussions of how wonderful the French health care system is or is not have no real place in the current debate in the US Congress, since no proposal currently under consideration will provide anything even remotely resembling that.
A discussion of what is better than what we have and not at all what we're moving towards is simply distraction.
And in the US, such distractions are both common and intentional tools of the left. Rather than discuss the holes and shortcomings of the current proposals, they tell us how wonderful things are elsewhere - things that are not going to be part of the proposed changes. Like offering us powdered toast and telling us how great steak tastes.
gb hill
Mentor
It simply amazes me how some of you can express a love thy neighbor attitude by wishing health care to all, while at the same time deny the very one who spoke those words 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' by running down His Church & 'fundamentalist Christians' constantly throughout this discussion. Then not even realizing that you have set up your own little religious system of do goods, thinking good deeds are going to earn you some sort of badge in the hereafter by sending your tithe to your Party whose Temple stands in Washington DC. I caught your post Bill calling the republican party a cult before you changed it! I think both Dem's & Republicans are a cult. The Dem's worship Darwin & the Repubs. worship Pat Robertson & the two of you keep fighting & never nothing will get done! Bill Mattox post above said it all for me Health Care is not a right & it's not! It's a privilege. Are we to love our neighbor: sure! I'll end it with this, As Bill M was thankful, I'm glad I'm thankful that obtaining a life in the hereafter is not by a system of good works as most believe, but it's obtained by Grace through Faith "alone" believing in the finished work of the one that spoke the words Love thy neighbor.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Haha... Microstock -> economy -> politics -> healthcare -> God...
gb hill
Mentor
I'm quite amazed at how it got this far off topic & it's still going while knowing any of us are going to change anyone elses mind!
Roger, I'd love to hear more about the French system. I *do* know how things work in America...everything the government decides it should run, becomes a morass of red tape, delays, customer disservice, cost overruns, fraud, waste and abuse, declining quality, and the like. Ask anyone who has been 'treated' (and I use that term loosely) at a VA hospital...check and see how well Medicare and Social Security are being operated (hint...both are bankrupt.) These are just a *few* of reasons for rejecting government healthcare...not to mention how the (cough, cough) 'stimulus' bill was ram-rodded through without even being read by the lawmakers who were voting on it!
Who can possibly read and grasp everything in a 2000 page bill without studying it several weeks? And yet this is SO UNBELIEVABLY URGENT, IT MUST BE DONE IMMEDIATELY! Even though it would not take effect for at least three years!
What does this tell you? It's simply a power grab; they are worried about mid-terms next year, and they realize if they don't get it ram-rodded now, the opportunity will be lost...
Two successive votes late on a Saturday, so as to fly under the radar as much as possible, because they know the American people will soundly reject it (google for poll results, especially when the public is asked how they feel about going to prison if they don't purchase health insurance.)
http://bit.ly/iVRt0
Support for Health Care Plan Falls to New Low
Monday, November 23, 2009
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.
Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.
Who can possibly read and grasp everything in a 2000 page bill without studying it several weeks? And yet this is SO UNBELIEVABLY URGENT, IT MUST BE DONE IMMEDIATELY! Even though it would not take effect for at least three years!
What does this tell you? It's simply a power grab; they are worried about mid-terms next year, and they realize if they don't get it ram-rodded now, the opportunity will be lost...
Two successive votes late on a Saturday, so as to fly under the radar as much as possible, because they know the American people will soundly reject it (google for poll results, especially when the public is asked how they feel about going to prison if they don't purchase health insurance.)
http://bit.ly/iVRt0
Support for Health Care Plan Falls to New Low
Monday, November 23, 2009
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.
Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.
Last edited by a moderator:
emraphoto
Mentor
not once have i seen anyone run down "His church" in this conversation. what i have seen is "christians" doing a damn good job of it themselves and thus i stated so.
being a "christian" doesn't give you sole rights to loving thy neighbor. the hereafter is an irrelevant subject for me but i can certainly try and do good deeds in the present without a sound disbelief in the archetype of the afterlife negating their importance.
skibeerr
Well-known
Here in Belgium it is unimaginable that anybody does not get medical attention, if you have no money and live on welfare you will get major hart surgery if needed.
A lot of people here complain about the same things as in other countries concerning governement and welfare and whatever, but (almost) nobody complains about our healthcare system actualy we are proud of it.
My wife can see a CEO at 10 and a pauper at 11 on consultation and they receive the same care.
A lot of people here complain about the same things as in other countries concerning governement and welfare and whatever, but (almost) nobody complains about our healthcare system actualy we are proud of it.
My wife can see a CEO at 10 and a pauper at 11 on consultation and they receive the same care.