Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Single Payer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shockfan89_ View Post
    There are VERY few instances where private companies couldn't provide the same services for far less money. That doesn't mean it would work every time, but we should always check to see if a private company could provide the service before creating a government program to do it.
    I agree with this. I also think that's the system we already have, and with some exceptions at mainly local levels, you're asking for private companies to do something they don't want to do because there's no economic incentive. Are you willing to go without certain public services because a private company cannot be found to provide them? That's my biggest gripe with libertarian theory--it assumes that a service is only worthy to be provided to the public if it is profitable. The national parks aren't profitable, but I wouldn't want to go without them. No private company is going to insure low income people that can't afford health insurance, but I'm glad Medicaid is there to help them. Nothing like the FDIC existed before the Depression, but I can rest easy at night knowing my deposits are safe and insured should my bank go all Lehman Brothers.

    And on that note, the biggest argument against the "private failure" discussion going on right now is the crash of 2008. The US taxpayer spent trillions of dollars bailing out a few really super efficient private companies and their moron managers who put our entire financial system on the brink of collapse. Hooray for private company efficiency!!
    "It's amazing to watch Ron slide into that open area, Fred will find him and it's straight cash homie."--HCGM

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Rocky Mountain Shock View Post
      And on that note, the biggest argument against the "private failure" discussion going on right now is the crash of 2008. The US taxpayer spent trillions of dollars bailing out a few really super efficient private companies and their moron managers who put our entire financial system on the brink of collapse. Hooray for private company efficiency!!
      But is isn't a very good argument. It's akin to needing to hook up some very big pumps in the short-term on your ship when it gets torpedoed versus sailing around on the good ship LeaksaLot that is constantly adding pumps to stay above water because it was never designed to operate without them.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shockfan89_ View Post
        There are VERY few instances where private companies couldn't provide the same services for far less money.
        In a free market system, the government will never provide a service for less money than a competitive private company. However, true free market systems require more than a private market. They require:

        * Ease of entry into the marketplace
        * Voluntary purchase by consumers
        * Voluntary sales by producers
        * Fair access to resources by all competing producers
        * Homogeneous products
        * Access to product information (inc. price) for both competing producers and consumers
        * A large number of producers and consumers
        * No dominant producer that can set market rates
        * Rational, non-coerced consumers

        The more you get away from that, the less of a free market you have. Healthcare barely resembles that at all.

        It isn't easy to enter into the marketplace. It requires extensive investment (as a financial instrument) to start an insurance company, potentially even more for a provider to build a hospital and purchase equipment. And in many places there are laws and restrictions preventing easy entry. Get past all that, and you need doctors, a very scarce resource (~6,000 in KS for instance).

        It isn't always a voluntary purchase by consumers. When you have a heart attack, sitting back and resting often isn't an option. Even if that is your choice, you might still pass out and be taken by ambulance for a hefty fee. And insurance is often employer provided, not purchased independently as a choice by the consumer/employee.

        It isn't always voluntarily sold by producers. The Hippocratic Oath (and Reagan-era restrictions) can force hospitals to provide care, and there are substantial restrictions on the types of care that can be provided and the plans that can cover them.

        Competing companies don't have fair access to the same resources. Big Insurance Inc. can negotiate far better deals than Startup Insurance Co., can cover more and better physicians and hospitals, and can etc.

        The products and services sold aren't homogeneous. Susy's checkup to clear her for middle school volleyball is an entirely different product from Gertrude's skin cancer treatments or the emergency services keeping Bob alive after he fell off a ladder while trimming his tree. Yet somehow insurance companies and hospitals have to decide which procedures to cover and what to charge for them, and customers are supposed to judge if this is fair.

        There is no access to information. Insurance Corp. doesn't know what deals Blue Hammer gets, and Alex doesn't know what his knee surgery will cost. Everything is hidden in murky backroom deals between companies and providers.

        There aren't a lot of producers and consumers. The market is dominated by a few large insurance companies and providers, with plans bought by a few large employers. Even if you want an option, you may not find one.

        And because of the nature of the producers and consumers, price fixing is entirely possible if not standard.

        People generally are not rational with healthcare decisions. At a grocery store, you can bet we will take our time to determine whether it is worth buying FancyPants Olives for $10.51 or going for StoreMart brand Olives at the lowest $/oz. In healthcare, it is all about saving Jimmy, I don't care what it takes.

        That is why I say either a government-based solution or an actual free market would solve the issue. It is true that a free market healthcare system would likely settle at a lower price point than a government based plan, but we are a long ways away from that and leaving things alone won't get us any closer.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cdizzle View Post
          But is isn't a very good argument. It's akin to needing to hook up some very big pumps in the short-term on your ship when it gets torpedoed versus sailing around on the good ship LeaksaLot that is constantly adding pumps to stay above water because it was never designed to operate without them.
          But the argument is basically private companies don't need pumps because only the efficient ones survive. I call BS. We have an example just a few short years ago of private companies needing trillions of taxpayer bailouts because not only did they act irresponsibly, but they were also so big and powerful that we could not afford them to fail. If the argument against public agencies are that they "continue to do business" when they fail, then we need strict regulations on private enterprise so they do not do the same.
          "It's amazing to watch Ron slide into that open area, Fred will find him and it's straight cash homie."--HCGM

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Aargh View Post
            If I were to support a flat tax as wufan proposed, I'd prefer a rather high "poverty line". I'd be thinking more in terms of $40,000 for a family (after exemptions for family size). That would protect lower-level earners. It might even need an cost-of-living adjustment based on where you live. $40,000 won't get you housing in southern California, but in Kansas, you could live in reasonable housing.

            Please don't argue with my numbers. I just threw some out for examples to understand the viewpoint, rather than stating what those numbers should be. The point is that the amount exempt from a flat tax should be high enough that people could afford something in the lower-middle-class of the economic scale.

            And...unless you want to simultaneously impose drastic government spending cuts, any new tax bill should not be revenue-neutral. It should increase revenues going to the government. If that would be too devastating to the economy, then we're already past the point of no return on our national debt.

            Kansas recently gave us a great example of how effective those insisting on shrinking government really are when they get into power. They don't have the willpower to actually cut anything for fear they would get voted out of office and lose their power. Political power seems to be way higher on politicians' desirability scale than responsibility.
            I also threw out 20% as a round number and not THE number. There is a revenue neutral number that could be debated. As for the higher number on the poverty line. That too is something that could be debated. What's that number? Those are good debates to have, but first, you have to agree on principle to the concept, as you and I have.

            IMO, you set the poverty level at the minimum amount to have a home and food and utilities. Anything above that is taxed. What's that number and what should be considered? That's a debate worth having where a compromise could be reached.
            Livin the dream

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rocky Mountain Shock View Post
              But the argument is basically private companies don't need pumps because only the efficient ones survive. I call BS. We have an example just a few short years ago of private companies needing trillions of taxpayer bailouts because not only did they act irresponsibly, but they were also so big and powerful that we could not afford them to fail. If the argument against public agencies are that they "continue to do business" when they fail, then we need strict regulations on private enterprise so they do not do the same.
              I don't disagree with this. They all should have been allowed to fail or at the very least should have been provided interest bearing loans that must be paid back before bonuses and profit sharing. In my book, too big to fail = government. You have removed the incentive to keep your house in order because the government has already proven they will bail you out. What is the incentive for any of those companies to operate efficiently and ethically when they have been tabbed "too big to fail"?

              The underlying problem is the belief in this country that everything should be fair, and nobody should fail or have to work for what they get. We don't deserve federal parks, that is a benefit we can afford when we operate efficiently and keep costs down. We don't deserve to go to the doctor without worrying how the bill will get paid. We don't deserve to work fast food and make a living wage. We don't deserve to depend on the federal government for our retirement. We don't deserve funding for every little program that makes our lives better or more fulfilling. Somebody, somewhere is paying for that and likely getting no benefit for it. I for one am tired of paying and watching my money wasted by people jumping up and down and saying they deserve these benefits. No, you deserve the OPPORTUNITY to make something of yourself through hard work and I DESERVE TO KEEP THE MONEY I EARN!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shockfan89_ View Post
                I don't disagree with this. They all should have been allowed to fail or at the very least should have been provided interest bearing loans that must be paid back before bonuses and profit sharing. In my book, too big to fail = government. You have removed the incentive to keep your house in order because the government has already proven they will bail you out. What is the incentive for any of those companies to operate efficiently and ethically when they have been tabbed "too big to fail"?
                100% agree. Nobody should be too big to fail. Bailouts send the wrong message.

                I'm reminded of Penn Central in the early '70s. Biggest bankruptcy in history up to that time. Its demise brought the Northeast, and much of the industrial capacity of the US, to a grinding halt. But the feds let it collapse, and then scooped up the remains and rebuilt it into Conrail which was a huge success.
                "It's amazing to watch Ron slide into that open area, Fred will find him and it's straight cash homie."--HCGM

                Comment


                • Here is an interesting way that some people have helped themselves regarding Health Insurance

                  Comment


                  • PJ O'Rourke Quote - if you think that health insurance is expensive now, wait and see what it costs when it's free.

                    Comment


                    • These two issues sees this board steering clear of discussion.
                      1. The latest health care plan. There is a lot of lying and attacking a Senator and doctor who has dedicated much of his medical career to helping the less fortunate and uninsured. The object of the lies is to save the democrat Obama care. Kansas would do quite well under this system compared to Cal. New York, and Mass.

                      2. Tax Reform - I think true tax reform is an oxy-moron for the Swamp. Too many entrenched wealthy politicians, lawyers, accountants, and elitists from both political parties benefit from the current tax system.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shockmonster View Post
                        These two issues sees this board steering clear of discussion.
                        1. The latest health care plan. There is a lot of lying and attacking a Senator and doctor who has dedicated much of his medical career to helping the less fortunate and uninsured. The object of the lies is to save the democrat Obama care. Kansas would do quite well under this system compared to Cal. New York, and Mass.

                        2. Tax Reform - I think true tax reform is an oxy-moron for the Swamp. Too many entrenched wealthy politicians, lawyers, accountants, and elitists from both political parties benefit from the current tax system.
                        Both of these issues seem to be a lot more about political posturing than about political ideals. That's true on both sides.
                        Livin the dream

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X