So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[Travis]

We're all terminally ill. The "public goods" argument for charity (e.g., tax-subsidization of care for people with pre-existing conditions) contains a flaw: corporate oversight is a public good and the State itself is a corporation. State assumption of responsibility for the provision of the public good of charity transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

Yes, do go on about how allowing all people to have healthcare is so evil.

I still don't get why people in the US are against UHC.

Every country that has it spends less than the US and has similar, if not better outcomes. As a bonus, people don't lose their houses if they get cancer or in a bad accident.

The ACA is a start, but it's a compromise that benefits the insurance industry.

There are two blocks that are against it. The first block are avid Fox News watchers who think universal healthcare leads to the bankruptcy of nations. See when the whole Greek crisis erupted Fox News went to great lengths to mention their universal healthcare system every time it was brought up. Was their healthcare system in any way relevant to their debt crisis? No. But mentioning it when talking about it sure gave that impression.

Then there are those that just don't care. See Malcolm above. They really just don't give a crap that people die for lack of healthcare every day in this country that wouldn't die in nations with universal healthcare. They see that as a feature of America not a bug.

America: where the poor and ill get what they deserve!

 

[Corsair 115]

YThere are two blocks that are against it. The first block are avid Fox News watchers who think universal healthcare leads to the bankruptcy of nations. See when the whole Greek crisis erupted Fox News went to great lengths to mention their universal healthcare system every time it was brought up. Was their healthcare system in any way relevant to their debt crisis? No. But mentioning it when talking about it sure gave that impression.

Then there are those that just don't care. See Malcolm above. They really just don't give a crap that people die for lack of healthcare every day in this country that wouldn't die in nations with universal healthcare. They see that as a feature of America not a bug.

America: where the poor and ill get what they deserve!

That's the long way of explaining it. Here's the short way: because UHC is *gasp* SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I still don't get why people in the US are against UHC.

Because the universe isn't sick.

Every country that has it spends less than the US and has similar, if not better outcomes.

On a syndrome by syndrome basis, this generalization is over-broad. For some types of care, US specialists are the best. Why do Brits travel to for-profit clinics in Spain if the NHS is so wonderful? If any socialized system really could outperform for-profit providers in a country without State-operated or tax-subsidized care, that socialized system could generate revenue selling services to foreigners. They don't. Therefore...

... The ACA is a start

That's one fear of opponents.

 

[Robrob]

Because the universe isn't sick.On a syndrome by syndrome basis, this generalization is over-broad. For some types of care, US specialists are the best. Why do Brits travel to for-profit clinics in Spain if the NHS is so wonderful? If any socialized system really could outperform for-profit providers in a country without State-operated or tax-subsidized care, that socialized system could generate revenue selling services to foreigners. They don't. Therefore...

... The ACA is a start ...[That's one fear of opponents.

Well to be fair (and accurate) no one is suggesting socialized medicine is going to be universally superior to for profit medicine. What they are saying is it will provide affordable medical care for people who can not afford medical care now.

Something being better than nothing.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm Kirkpatrick, how much money is a human life worth?

Depends on the life. Obviously. There are over seven billion people on this planet. Value is determined by supply and demand. How many friends do you need? How many street people? Do you work 'til you collapse everyday to support orphanages in Abuja? I didn't think so.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's the long way of explaining it. Here's the short way: because UHC is *gasp* SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition).
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" (Mao).
"...(A) compulsory political organization with continuous operations wil be called a 'state' insofar as its administrative staff successfully defends the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order." (Max Weber, 1921).

Eduardo Zambrano
Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy
Applications
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138.

Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

Socialism is an infantile, self-congratulatory power fantasy: "What a wonderful world it would be if I ran it".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Cheaper and more efficient than having all their medical stuff done for free in the emergency room. And yes, in a civilized society, the young and healthy DO contribute to the well-being of the old and feeble. What would you recommend we do with them?

I recommend that "we" leave these decisions to non-State actors, to individuals and their physicians, to friends and to voluntary organizations (churches, etc.).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I recommend that "we" leave these decisions to non-State actors, to individuals and their physicians, to friends and to voluntary organizations (churches, etc.).

Uh, in case you haven't noticed, individuals are deciding which level of insurance coverage to get. Not sure where voluntary organizations come in, but I am sure you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Upchurch]

We're all terminally ill.

vs.

Because the universe isn't sick.

I think I see the problem.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I recommend that "we" leave these decisions to non-State actors, to individuals and their physicians, to friends and to voluntary organizations (churches, etc.).

Do you have health insurance? Auto insurance? Home, fire, life insurance?

 

[elbe]

Do you have health insurance? Auto insurance? Home, fire, life insurance?

Don't worry, it's still ok for for-profit corporations to go between you and your doctor. A monetary motivation has never caused anyone to harm anyone else.

 

[Bob001]

A Washington Post columnist sees the Republican extremists as the "rise of the New Confederacy," opposed to the federal government and hoping to destroy it any way they can. They even use some of the same language about "states' rights" as the traitors who went to war against the Union.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html?tid=pm_pop

 

[Peephole]

Why do Brits travel to for-profit clinics in Spain if the NHS is so wonderful?

Why do Americans migrate to the UK to get access to universal health care?

 

[rustypouch]

Because the universe isn't sick.

Cute. Did you come up with that all by yourself?

On a syndrome by syndrome basis, this generalization is over-broad. For some types of care, US specialists are the best. Why do Brits travel to for-profit clinics in Spain if the NHS is so wonderful? If any socialized system really could outperform for-profit providers in a country without State-operated or tax-subsidized care, that socialized system could generate revenue selling services to foreigners. They don't. Therefore... That's one fear of opponents.

Do we really need to do this again?

 

[Neally]

How many, and how does it compare with the amount of people that will finally be able to get health insurance? I.e, do the costs outweigh the benefits for society at large?

So, even if Forbes is correct and 1000's will pay more, hundreds of thousands will pay the same or less. Then there are those who can get insurance now who couldn't before.

So again I ask you, where is the detail unbiased analysis of the full impact. Some people get sick from some vaccines, does that make them bad?

And hundreds of thousands will pay substantially less.

Your cherrypicking is noted, and dismissed for the misleading abuse of statistics that it is.

Do read the thread if you're going to chime in. I've already addressed the above. Once again, my point is that there are winners and losers. Many Obamacare fans are in denial that there are losers. GASP! As long as they are a winner, everyone else must be a winner, or alternatively, screw the losers.

Even if my premiums increase 5x it's a good deal since there is no cap on the benefit. With the ACA I'm not an accident or illness away from bankruptcy.

Not everyone shares your enthusiasm. Many preferred having some affordable coverage even with a cap.

Questioning the source in this matter is not an ad hominem attack. It's critical thinking 101.

Good thing then that I never said that the source shouldn't be "questioned". Do I really need to quote and cite the definition again?

Wait, are these actual numbers or hypothetical numbers based on demographics? Because it looks like the latter.

Also, I notice that even though you use yourself as an example, you do not support it with any real information, just assertions and hand waving.

Do you make over four times the poverty line? Do you get insurance through your employer? What was your premium now and what was it last month?

I've already said I'm paying more. So are others. Others that don't qualify for subsidies. We both know that any anecdotes will be summarily dismissed as false or unreliable. I've posted the data supporting my claims.

Oh yeah. I got mine! I now have the ability to purchase health insurance. What a freaking parasite I am!

Oh. But you think that I shouldn't be able to because some companies are acting without morals or ethics and cutting down on working hours?

I think the fact that Obamacare has screwed thousands shouldn't concern you, after all you got what you wanted.

My point being that we shouldn't end highly beneficial programs just because some companies out there are unscrupulous and will game the system. What we should do is make it so they can't game the system!

Your precious Obamacare is the direct cause of those suffering from a loss of income and higher insurance, but hey, if it helps with the cognitive dissonance, yeah, it's them evil companies fault.

That's a solution to the problem you brought up. Not going back to the same terrible system we had before where tens of millions of tax paying citizens such as myself are completely unable to buy health insurance because of pre-existing health problems.

Like I said, don't worry your little self about those now worse off. You got yours.

And you know what? We pay higher prices for gasoline because we implement safety laws for workers that drill for oil and transport it to refineries. Should we repeal basic worker safety laws?

I see, so as long as someone benefits, those that lose are irrelevant?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Uh, in case you haven't noticed, individuals are deciding which level of insurance coverage to get. Not sure where voluntary organizations come in, but I am sure you don't know what you are talking about.

Obviously, Skeptic doesn't know what s/he's talking about. Obamacare is mandatory (fines--"taxes" to Justice Roberts if people don't participate) and government mandates on insurers that coverage include, for example, abortion services.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Do we really need to do this again?

Until I tire of the argument or socialists admit the error of their ways and accept that the health care and education industries do not benefit from the application of the blunt instrument of State violence.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Why do Americans migrate to the UK to get access to universal health care?

Do they?

 

[Fudbucker]

Obviously, Skeptic doesn't know what s/he's talking about. Obamacare is mandatory (fines--"taxes" to Justice Roberts if people don't participate) and government mandates on insurers that coverage include, for example, abortion services.

That doesn't invalidate her point. Even though health insurance is mandatory:

individuals are deciding which level of insurance coverage to get

That ^^ is still a true statement. If you want a mortgage, better get home insurance, if you want to drive, better get car insurance. You act like mandatory insurance is this new thing. It's not.

 

[Fudbucker]

Until I tire of the argument or socialists admit the error of their ways and accept that the health care and education industries do not benefit from the application of the blunt instrument of State violence.

What does this word salad even mean?