I don't agree with cutting taxes on corporations nor do I agree that extending temporary tax cuts is a new tax cut or raise (whichever you do, they are meant to be temporary).

I agree that we have to reign in current spending and refine our system so we can tighten black holes of cash. I think we can cut fat, implement new programs that benefit all americans, and still come out on top and try to kill the national debt (something I have argued we should do for a long time).

We may disagree about this, but I do believe that implementing national healthcare should be a top priority for our nation. The system right now doesn't work, and the free market does not have a place for healthcare by nature.

Much like people say we should fight the oil companies and OPEC and threaten to drill off our coasts to lower oil prices, the US Government should threaten to open up all patents that were made for medicine that is based off of government funded research. See how the medicine companies react when faced with real competition.

7/8/2008 2:27:06 PM

Quote :

"the free market does not have a place for healthcare by nature."

how so? how does the free market not have a place for healthcare when tons of people get their healthcare through a private company already? i get health insurance through my work from a private company

7/8/2008 2:29:15 PM

I'm still looking for it, but there were WSJ articles on McCain and Obama's budgets and they said Obama had a better chance of paying for his than McCain did

I'm definitely down and keeping taxes on corporations. The best you can hope for on cutting taxes there is keeping your fingers crossed that some kind of price reduction trickles to consumers, imo.

7/8/2008 2:38:01 PM

Quote :

"The best you can hope for on cutting taxes there is keeping your fingers crossed that some kind of price reduction trickles to consumers, imo. "

Not exactly.

here is a good article that explains the benefits. Again dont fall into the "evil corporation" talking point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html?fta=y

I do disagree monky. The govt has no business in healthcare and they are the ones causing the problems. The free market will save healthcare if we would only allow it to work. Look no further for govt fucking up pharm companies than the flu vaccines, good ole hillary fucked us over on taht one. Take away profits, you take away the drugs. Pretty simple equation. Im sure you plan on working for free one day too.

[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM. Reason : I misspelled a word. I corrected it to keep 420 from changing his tampon. ]

[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2008 2:48:12 PM

Quote :

"how does the free market not have a place for healthcare when tons of people get their healthcare through a private company already?"

Obviously there *is* a place, but it is horribly implemented at the moment. For those who do not get it through direct employment, the road is rocky at best. Prices are high, the insurance companies fight with you to give you even the most basic coverage, the list goes on.

I disagree with you eyedrb, but I know this isn't a debate either of us will really budge on so I suggest we just leave it at that for the sake of ending this stupid thread.

[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2008 3:00:15 PM

thank you for the straightforward reply to my straightforward question, i look forward to future civil discourse

7/8/2008 3:15:43 PM

Quote :

"Can we have 2 threads for this election. One where we bash Obama with all the tripe bullshit we can find, and the other for McCain? "

7/8/2008 3:18:07 PM

Well you can call it a talking point if you want but there are a lot more companies that don't care about anything but profits than ones that do. I mean there's Ben and Jerry's but besides that...???

Especially egregious are agricultural giants Monsanto and Smithfield, who stand to make both farming in the midwest and commercial fishing things of the past within 50 years with their pesticide and fertilization methods

7/8/2008 3:18:31 PM

why not discuss your opinion. Why do you feel things would get better with MORE govt intrusion into this market? They are directly responsible for causing healthcare prices to increase. If left alone, the market and consumers will dictate the costs and providers will again face free market pressures of providing good service at a lower cost.

Quote :

"Obviously there *is* a place, but it is horribly implemented at the moment. For those who do not get it through direct employment, the road is rocky at best. Prices are high, the insurance companies fight with you to give you even the most basic coverage, the list goes on. "

I disagree with you here too. I quit paying for my wife's coverage through work bc it went to 400 a month. We got her a plan on our own for less than 100 a month. Again, it was our govt that tied employers being responsible for health ins and taking choices away from consumers by allowing for tax deductions for employers and not individuals.

Did you get a chance to read the la times article on obama and spending?

[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2008 3:20:22 PM

Quote :

"how does the free market not have a place for healthcare when tons of people get their healthcare through a private company already?"

The point of contention here is that there isn't a free market solution to universal healthcare.

7/8/2008 3:24:59 PM

"... in a recent press release, Prime Minister Harper was quoted as saying 'We need an American-style war on accessible, affordable health care.'"

7/8/2008 3:37:21 PM

Quote :

"I misspelled a word. I corrected it to keep 420 from changing his tampon"

Like I said before, I know this is the internet and everything, but presentation still matters. Coupled with good content (another thing you lack) it creates a pretty unbeatable debater. You frequently misspell simple words and you lack a basic command of grammar at times. Honestly, I have a hard time believing you're a doctor because your peak posting times are in the middle of the day and when you do post I feel like I'm being bombarded by those spelling and grammar errors. I can let the occasional one go, but when you constantly make simple mistakes, it does hurt your credibility.

Let me give you an example. If a bum were to be on the side of the street shouting at the top of his lungs about a way to balance the budget AND provide universal health care, no one would listen to him because he's a bum. It doesn't matter if everything he says is 100% guaranteed to happen. Because he is a bum, no one will listen to him for more than 10 seconds. And it's all because his presentation is not up to par with what he's preaching.

But that would require you to have good content. The basic flow of your arguments goes something like this:

1. Assert stupid economic theory.
2. ???
3. Profit.

See:

Quote :

"They are directly responsible for causing healthcare prices to increase. If left alone, the market and consumers will dictate the costs and providers will again face free market pressures of providing good service at a lower cost."

You make some wild accusation and jump to a conclusion and nowhere in between do you actually describe how that conclusion is reached other than, "the free market will take care of it." That's a weak argument and it lacks content... something we've been trying to tell you for awhile now.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, but what I am saying is that you don't.

7/8/2008 8:12:56 PM

says the guy named IMStoned420

7/8/2008 9:35:31 PM

Make fun of my name all you want, but you can't argue that I don't present my ideas in a smart manner.

[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 9:52 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2008 9:52:24 PM

420, you can attack my presentation and grammer...they are easy targets. I typically type in a hurry and dont proof read. Its fair game. I really dont give a shit if you think Im a doctor or not. Now you presented an arguement against my point. Im sorry I dont have time to give you a history lession while Im working, but I do now.

Quote :

"You make some wild accusation and jump to a conclusion and nowhere in between do you actually describe how that conclusion is reached other than, "the free market will take care of it." That's a weak argument and it lacks content... something we've been trying to tell you for awhile now."

Ah, where to begin. Most of us are too young to remember that for decades we had the finest doctors, hospitals, high quality of care, affordable meds, and thousands of charities provided health services for the poor. People carried insurance policies for unexpected serious health problems and paid for their regular checkups in cash.

Flash forward. Today the majority of americans get thier health care through an HMO or a similar managed care structure, or medicare and medicaid. HMOs tend to charge most members similar monthly premiums bc in reality it is very hard to estimate the cost of "routine care". Since HMOs goal is to minimize costs, they deny payments for many drugs, treatments, and procedures. On the flip side, medicare/medicaid dont have unlimited funds either, so they only pay a portion of the costs of what is covered. With me so far 420? The result is this all makes it more difficult for the patient and the doctor to develop an appropriate treatment plan. Instead we deal with countless denials and referrals, handed down by accountants and bureaucrats.

You see when a third party is paying the bills and with the threat of lawsuits, the docs have every incentive to maximize costs and order more tests and treatments. It increases income from your shrinking reimbursements and CYA (covers your ass) as they refer to it in school. Do you understand how the incentive to cut costs is now lost? You now charge as much as the HMOs allow, not what your market can afford.

Ok, so before 1965 doctors and hospitals were just another business in the free market competing for your business, tried to keep thier costs down. As an aside. THe medicare act of 1965 is pretty interesting to read back over. Medicare was a voluntary program and this was one of thier statutes:

"Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided ... or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such [health-care] institution, agency, or person."

So thats how it began my friend. A far cry from what it is today. Give an inch, they take a yard.

Ok, so back to HMOs, which are basically a middleman in healthcare that drives up costs while degrading services and quality of care. Just look at the horror stories of denied procedures. In most other industries new technologies lead to lower prices.. well not with managed care. OUr costs keep rising. In the 70s congress embraced HMOs in order stem the rising costs of healthcare which started in the mid sixties..wonder why? Lets not forget that it was our govt itself that took the power away from the consumer and shielding the consumer from the actual costs. Now we want to give them MORE power to fix the first two problems THEY started, but we are too young/naive to realize.

This quote from economist Ludwig von Mises is perfect: "government interventions create unintended consequences that lead to calls for further intervention, and so on into a destructive spiral of more and more government control."

Ok, im probably losing you by now 420. Here is a quick recap.

Free market, no govt interventions till mid 60s.

Medicare act of 1965

HMO act of 1973 to address rising costs caused by thier first act. Get this, this one goes further. This one wasnt "voluntary". They gave a tax break for health insurance purchased ONLY through your employer. AND forced almost all companies(those over 25 employees) to offer HMOs to thier employees. So this tied employment with health insurance. Thus leaving the unemployed without any incentive to purchase it alone. HMOs grew rapidly during this time. Of course as time went on people complained they added more and more regulations to impress voters. Which did little but breed more costs and limit your choices.

NOW they want us to forget about the other stuff and trust them THIS time. No thanks.

The good news is some doctors are simply not taking insurances anymore. They are going back to when people paid cash at time of service. This allows the doctors to focus on the patient and not the insurance. Sadly, the insurance is important and determines often what we write down first on a chart.(different insurances have different guildlines and requirements). It even matters to medicare who promised earlier that:

"Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided ... or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such [health-care] institution, agency, or person"

Its always fun explaining why I have to bring them back tommorrow to do another test when they are sitting right next to the machine. "Well medicare will only pay for one today, I can bring you back tommorrow and they will pay..or you can pay today and we will go ahead and do it." Funny old world huh.

I hope that helps some. No doubt you will focus on some word I misspelled or grammatical error.

[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 11:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2008 10:55:50 PM

Here is a great article on medicare. Pretty much does a great summary of the system.

Gotta love todays medicare:

Cost-cutting measures in Medicare have either been patient-directed incentives to reduce medical utilization (deductibles, co-insurance, time limitations, and exclusions) and price controls to reduce payments to providers. Medicare now sets specific prices for most health care services to enrollees. While the price is technically the only amount Medicare will reimburse, in practice the provider is not allowed to charge the patient any additional amount, other than the deductible and co-insurance. Medicare also punishes a provider for any discounts or rebates to patients, as a form of "fraud." As a result, the Medicare price list controls a large slice of the U.S. health care market.


So very far from a "free market"

http://www.answers.com/topic/medicare-act-1965?cat=biz-fin

7/8/2008 11:07:34 PM

Mixed Capitalism FTW

7/9/2008 1:32:08 AM

Where did you go 420?

Here is another read for you.

"The irony of this debate is that the so-called "crisis" in sustainable Medicare reimbursement rates is caused by policies that lead to unsustainable increases in costs. Medicare was designed so physician reimbursement rates would keep pace with costs. Yet, this broken payment system predictably leaves doctors facing a larger cut every successive year - hence the annual crisis that requires difficult maintenance. Instead of fixing this problem once and for all, Senate leaders, and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, want to not only enshrine this dysfunctional model in Medicare but apply it to the entire health care system. "

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/senate_leaders_holding_doctors.html

7/9/2008 1:18:11 PM

Sorry, I'm still trying to finish up reading your last post. I've been knocking it out chapter by chapter. I should be done with it tonight or tomorrow.

7/9/2008 4:14:56 PM

well take your time, then you can understand my position about the free market can work and its govt itself that is causing the problem.... and that more govt isnt the answer.

Might explain my "wild accusations and weak argument" as you call it.

7/9/2008 5:20:54 PM