Wow ... it just keeps getting better.

Maybe that explains why I can only get good cuban food in Miami.

China, South Korea, Japan, basically every country in the world except the US.

Yeah, to some extent, and I hate it. Don't even get me started on the FDA and/or agricultural subsidies. Nonetheless, free choice is the rule rather than the exception in that area of the market. Private producers and retailers, vying for private dollars, have provided a bewildering array of food products at ever-lower prices. Our food market is so good that we actually have a problem with obesity, despite the fact that we sell and give away milions of tons of food to other nations every quarter. We also possess some of the largest and most profitable agricultural firms in the world. Companies like Con-Agra and General Mills literally set the global standard for food goods, and they do it without state direction.

The point I was making, however, was that no one of sound mind in this country would willingly let the state run grocery stores or make purchasing decisions for them. Well, maybe some would, but we'd have food shortages faster than you can say "breadlines".

Not at all. It's the best because the free market provides competitive incentive. Private healthcare in the US generally is the best in the world, which is why patients the world over flock to our shores for treatment.
Where it falls down and becomes extremely costly is wherever the state is involved. About 25% of our ridiculously huge federal budget is spent on medicare and medicaid, and those programs are bar-none the worst the US has to offer. Just ask people who use them. The AARP(American Association of Retired Persons) spends a good deal of its' time and money breaking down the doors of Congress to demand more money for medicare and medicaid because their constituents are not happy with how the system works now. They think that more funding is the answer, but it isn't.

Case-in-point: The US education system. 90-something percent of all pre-university US students attend public schools, and about half of them are inexcusably stupid. Many do not graduate high school. They can't spell, they can't read well, and they have a only a tenuous grasp of mathematics. I dare anyone here to champion the US education system, any takers?

We are known worldwide for being stupid, largely because of our state-run public education system. The US spends more per student than any other country in the world, and yet we lag behind many of those nations. Why do you suppose that is? Could it have something to do with the fact that taxpaying parents have to pay for public schools whether their child attends one or not? Is it because teachers' jobs are protected by unions? Could it maybe be associated with a lack of competition and lack of incentive that such a system breeds? Perhaps the government "option" for education has crowded out private competition by virtue of the fact that people pay for whether they want it or not and only have a finite amount of income:o Sounds a little like the proposed healthcare "reform", doesn't it?
Actually, we have the opposite problem. People here suffer mostly from hypochondriasis and jurosomatic illness. They get "sick" because the state provides a mechanism for them to profit from it. If you would like, we can discuss the ADA(Americans with Disabilites Act) and the implications of it.

I won't pretend to know the dynamics of your healthcare system, but your apparent dissatisfaction with it would lead me to suggest that it might benefit from a little healthy competition.

Speaking of competition; if there is one area where Europe has the US beat, it is in the arena of politics. Europe has many political parties and nations competing for their individual interests. The US does not. That is why government works in Europe(not really well, though) where it fails in the US. We only have two parties, and they might as well just be one party. If it weren't for constitutional limits on state power our state would have failed long ago, and even those are steadily being overcome. The incentive provided by competition is a key factor in the performance of any societal system.

Competition makes things better, cheaper, and faster. That is the very essence of it. It is also the definition of social equality. Let those who risk capital reap the rewards and punishments for their actions. If they risk more, should they not stand to gain or lose more? Competition is the mechanism by which you build any successful society. Fiat monopoly is the means by which you destroy the same.

Lassiez-faire,

James

Could that be down to the state making grocery decisions for you?
Like allowing some rather nice growth promoters to become part of your food intake in your regulated grocery business?
Or maybe the policy of trying to rig the sugar market for political purposes plus bending to the corn lobby resulting in a bloody high usage of HFCS which just happens to cause obesity

Thanks, Undersea. Trust me, I do understand your reasoning behind preferring a 100% private system, as in a perfect world, I'd agree. The reasons I've decided to be a proponent of some degree of universal coverage is dominated by the fact that we already have a system which unfairly taxes everyone who's actually insured/pays their own medical bills.

The fact is that costs are higher due to adverse government involvement including the Patient Bill of Rights which leads to patient delinquency, lack of an effort to regulate tort, and the astronomical costs associated with dealing with government programs and insurance companies.

The problem arises is that we have a populace that is in no way interested in abandoning the Patient Bill of Rights (not that I think we should) and a government in the pockets of the trial lawyers, who have no interest in limiting damages. Furthermore, insurance companies are really the only act in town, and are able to further manipulate the industry by attempting to deny coverage of people who are likely to require expensive treatments, thereby increasing the cost of delinquencies passed along to the consumer, and moreso to the taxpayer.

Now, I have no problem with a company making a buck, not at all. I DO, however, have a problem with a company profiting off of a market that they directly manipulate - in other words, making money just because they said so.

Right now the economics of healthcare in this country is a cluster. We actually have one of the best infrastructures in the world as far as direct care is concerned. However, regulations that most people agree with have removed some of the capitalistic factors from the equations meaning that costs will continue to rise proportionate to the built-in demands for free service. For example, the underpriviliged are filling up hospital emergency departments (some of the most expensive care you can find) for head colds, knowing that they'll never have to pay a dime. The rest of us foot that bill.

So our choices really are as follows.

1: Purely capitalist. Deny care to those who are uninsured and can't pay.
2: Defacto, hyper-inefficient universal coverage (as we have today).
3: Bureaucratic, government run hyper-inefficient universal coverage (as much of the rest of the world).
4: Steamlined, efficient government regulated universal coverage.

Yeah, I know that "streamlined", "efficient", and "government" doesn't go well together traditionally - but I don't think that it's impossible. I think that, with a combined private/public effort, a balance could be achieved. For example, require insurance companies to cover EVERYONE at a certain rate. But, the government can insure that coverage for financially catastrophic cases. Furthermore, require the insurance to be simple and complete. And, benchmark efficiency in costs.

Just a thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKXWP2HuxGE :damn:

Funny, I haven't seen ANY health care company come out against health care reform. What I HAVE seen, is individuals who take the time to read, say 'Absolutely Not!" to the CURRENT reform proposals.

What is disturbing is that many of the liberals involved in crafting the various proposals - ADMIT they have no idea what the proposals actually say, and have refused to read them.

So what we have here is this. People that don't read the proposals, are all for them. The people that know what is contained in the various legislative bills, are deadset against it.

Why is it that it must be a immediate, total change in the system? Case in point - President Obama says there are BILLIONS wasted in Medicare every year, and he is going to keep from cutting benefits to our older citizens by cutting that waste to help fund the other initiatives. Here is an idea - reform MEDICARE so you don't waste Billions - show the American people that you can be good stewards of a health care related program - show us that you can create an efficient, government overseen medical program, and THEN start discussing how to use that same success to make health care better for even more people.

But the government takeover of health care can't wait - because its more about a power grab than it is looking out for the American People.

Is that because you havn't looked?

This ^

Tribesman - try putting some fact out to make the point. Don't try to repeat mookie's though - because while it was a valient attempt - the links referenced individuals who WORK in health care (they have a right to be heard just like anyone else) and an ASSOCIATION - not a specific company. Also note that they SUPPORT reform - just not THIS one. (Or did that mere fact not fit your preconcieved evil corporation viewpoint and thus was ignored?) Show me where Blue Cross Blue Shield for example is putting out commercials about how health care reform is a horrible Idea. Oh wait - you cant. They actually have run some here where they support it - with some major changes. Yet groups like the AARP (who know nothing ABOUT insurance) can sure put out flat out LIES about what is being proposed and no one raises an eyebrow.

Sorry - but double standards and accusation without fact just don't weigh heavy on my mind.

Like August, agreed. Well put and pragmatic.

Haplo, make your mind up.
If you want to try and dodge the issue by claiming its an association and as such not valid, then why on earth do you bring in an association and claim it backs up your point.
In case you don't understand.
AHIP is according to you not a valid example as it is an ASSOCIATION of health care providers.
Yet Blue Cross Blue Shield is a valid example despite being an ASSOCIATION of health care providers.

Tribesman - stop playing semantics when you know the difference. Unless of course your incapable of understanding the difference.

AHIP is an association in the classic sense, a group of divergent and INDEPENDANT companies that can speak through the association as a collective, singular voice. AHIP does NOT offer or provide any insurance to individual, private citizens, because that is NOT its purpose.

BCBS on the other hand, is an INSURANCE PROVIDER. While it is made up of members that are under contract - they must conform to the rules laid down by BCBS in the coverage they provide, how they deal with doctors, etc. In essence, to the consumer - BCBS is simply one large company.

The fact you try to confuse on semantics - over a word that both use but that is clearly different in their meaning, shows how desperate you are to NOT discuss the real topic - that reform is supported, but not this massive change everything and let the government run it all plan.

Its these kinds of tactics that make the average american look at liberals in power and shake their head. You can't win on facts, so you try everything you can to keep from having to deal with facts. Argue semantics, try and divert the conversation, call out people for having double standards, regardless of if its true, just to keep from having to deal with the facts. And yet your probably trying to figure out why the independants who elected this Congress and President have backed away from the support they once gave.

You can't answer the issue of "why not reform Medicare first" and show some success and build trust with the American people. You can't answer why it must all be done in one fell swoop via legistlation that none of those that support it have actually read. You don't have an answer for the fact that the people that have read it are against it. All you know is its something put out by "your side" - so reality, fact and honest discussion be damned.

That is why THIS health care reform is unlikely to happen. A much more reasonable, affordable plan will end up with support. Because not everyone is as willing as you to wear blinders and follow with ignorance.

*editted to correct 2 spelling errors.

Is that because the insurance providers who are pretty much cleaning up with the current Medicare program are spending lots of money to ensure that popliticians either block legislation on reform or only approve "reform" that doesn't actually reform.
Sorry you will have to remind me. Who are the people who are at meetings objecting to reform of Medicare?
You know the "Keep the stinking government out of my medicare" sort of thing.
If I am not mistaken thats some of the teabagging wingnuts isn't it.
But OK every little group has loonies.
So what about the political parties.
Which party has a good number of its politicians taking a stance that Medicare reform is simply not on the table at all?


Would that be winning on facts like calling policies nazi and communist at the same time as well as being unconstitutional and even traitorous and talking nonsense about death panels, euthenasia and illegal immigrants?

actually its the whole mess of american political debate that makes the world shake its head.

Thats funny as throughout the long discourse of the various healthcare topics people who object to any of the current proposed bills have displayed astounding levels of ignorance on the subject.

Ummm no.

Its all irrelevant anyhow at this point there going to vote on it anyhow.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...h-care-reform/

I had a very well thought-out response to this, replete with an asessment of price controls, but my browser decided to stop working.
Here's the jist of it; price controls= bad, they generate shortages and surpluses, so says some notable economists. The US does not have a healthcare shortage, it has a surplus, and there are more effective ways than state healthcare reform to make it more widely available and more resonably priced.

I'll re-type it all when I have some spare time and will.

Edit- almost forgot, I was going to bash tribesman's last post as well. If someone could do it for me and save me some time, I'd be most obliged.

Haha, I hate when that happens. :cool:

I do agree that price controls are generally bad, but I believe we're in a situation where there's already price "controls", except that they are dictated by insurers and the uninsured. Perhaps control is not the best word because its more like a giant, artificially inflated cluster you-know-what.

The problem with universal healthcare has typically been one of rationing (i.e., shortages). The problem with OUR version of universal healthcare (the defacto one we're currently using) has been different - it's the inflation of cost WITHOUT shortages.

Healthcare is about as artificial of a capitalist system as one can find. It is an item that is always in a state of increasing demand by the very nature of a burgeoning population enjoying increased longevity. Hell, even oil, as a commodity, has its competitors. But unlike oil and real commodities, healthcare is far more notional meaning that its specific value can nigh be determined.

So what happens is that even in the private sector bloated bureaucracies form ratcheting up the costs of an already hyperinflated sector. Now people must not only pay for the costs and profit of the doctors, nurses, medical equipment and supply manufacturers, drug companies, etc., but also the costs and profits of the bloated institutions that pay them (insurance companies), and even then only so much. Add to that an out of control civil legal system, and you've got a recipe for an unmitigated disaster of a system which determines its own value by nature of essentially just saying that "this is my value".

Hence my position that a drastic, universal overhaul is needed. But, let me restate - Obama's and this Congress' plan is absolutely, 100% guaranteed to be a worse disaster than what we already have.

[QUOTEUmmm no.

Its all irrelevant anyhow at this point they are going to vote on it anyhow.
][/QUOTE]
Really ?
on which bill?
what verdict did the bi-partisan group give to each of the proposals?

Don't let your ignorance get in the way.
Come on lance corporl , you raised issues , explore the very issues you raised yourself.
r are you just talking ****e?

Would you mind editing that so it makes a little more sense.

As to your question I provided the link just to kill time I guess. :doh:

Errrr...so sorry if its too hard to understand .
Which of the bills that went to the commitee are they going to vote on?
Simple isn't it.:rotfl2:
If you want to make it more complicated ..... what verdict did the committee deliver on those bills they reviewed?
If you want to make it even more complicated ....what verdict did the health care providers deliver on those bills?
if you want to keep it simple ...what do some rednecks say about that bill?

Have a clue. If you is on the same page as some of those rednecks then beware , there is a really valid conspiracy theory that the evil feds is going to burn your home down all the way to the chassis