Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 02:14:50 PM
Yeah, free market, because the govt has no damned business in the free market.

I agree with you.  I dont support single payer.

However, that wouldn't guarantee healthcare for everybody which is obvious.  For, a child for example, of parents unable or unwilling to buy healthcare, wouldn';t be covered.

The only way to gurantee health care for everybody is medicare for all.

Quote from: blake allyn on March 28, 2017, 02:17:46 PM
I agree with you.  I dont support single payer.

However, that wouldn't guarantee healthcare for everybody which is obvious.  For, a child for example, of parents unable or unwilling to buy healthcare, wouldn';t be covered.

The only way to gurantee health care for everybody is medicare for all.

Why? Why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else's healthcare?
What do you think happened in the 70s and before, when people didn't have healthcare/insurance?
They paid their bills. Guess why it costs as much as it does today? Because of govt interference.

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 02:13:32 PM
So in essence, you lied when you claimed "poll that 60% of the pop wants single payer."

"Overall, 43% of Democrats and Democratic leaners support a so-called single payer approach,"

Your right, I should have said medicare for all.  I wasn't lying misspoke.  But you are correct.

This one shows majority for single payer:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/16/most-americans-want-to-replace-obamacare-with-a-single-payer-system-including-a-lot-of-republicans/?utm_term=.a5693dc325f6

And this one: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds


Of course single payer doesn't mean that there would be no private insurance.  Single payer simply means there is a government option for everyone, the so-called public option.  Which from a competitive standpoint is kinda good.  So I think I was generally right in interpreting the first poll.  Most Americans beleive health care should be guaranteed, but want the option of private plans.

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 02:22:48 PM
Why? Why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else's healthcare?
What do you think happened in the 70s and before, when people didn't have healthcare/insurance?
They paid their bills. Guess why it costs as much as it does today? Because of govt interference.

I agree with you ideologically geez.  But you are dead wrong about why health care costs what it does.

For starters, Pharma drugs prices are out of control.

But a huge reason is that in a sense we have universal healthcare.  If you are uninsured and go to the emergency room they will treat you.  But hospitals have to recoup these costs by overcharging the insured.  Like you or I. 

Additionally, if you dont have coverage you avoid going to the doctor and wind up in the hospital when an ailment otherwise easily treated, balloons into a hospital stay.  Those are where the real costs come in. 

That was the idea of the mandate, flawed as it was.  When everybody is covered overall costs go down because of that reason. 

In a free market system, if you are young and healthy you dont bother to get health care.  Thus, only the sickest are covered, meaning insurance companies are forced to charge heavily.  They need healthy bodies to defray the cost.  It would be like geico only insuring drunk drivers.

Quote from: blake allyn on March 28, 2017, 02:29:55 PM
I agree with you ideologically geez.  But you are dead wrong about why health care costs what it does.

For starters, Pharma drugs prices are out of control.

But a huge reason is that in a sense we have universal healthcare.  If you are uninsured and go to the emergency room they will treat you.  But hospitals have to recoup these costs by overcharging the insured.  Like you or I. 

Additionally, if you dont have coverage you avoid going to the doctor and wind up in the hospital when an ailment otherwise easily treated, balloons into a hospital stay.  Those are where the real costs come in. 

That was the idea of the mandate, flawed as it was.  When everybody is covered overall costs go down because of that reason. 

In a free market system, if you are young and healthy you dont bother to get health care.  Thus, only the sickest are covered, meaning insurance companies are forced to charge heavily.  They need healthy bodies to defray the cost.  It would be like geico only insuring drunk drivers.

It starts with govt picking winners and losers along with killing off competition.
But the bare truth is, it all started with Unions and like a cancer, spread with the assistance of the Marxist left.
You can do a search, I'm sure you'll find the original study.

It's been decades, but I remember the day it came out.

As to the claim that the young don't buy something they don't need, that's true, that's why the free mkt worked up until the Marxists forced everyone to buy something they didn't want and why the entire nation is pissed off at the left and why the Dim party failed.

You really shouldn't believe headlines and especially Washpo's fake news.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/191486/americans-slowly-embracing-affordable-care-act.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles

Your other link doesn't even link to the poll:
"More than five years after the single-payer system was scrapped from ObamaCare policy debates, just over 50 percent of people say they still support the idea, including one-quarter of Republicans, according to a new poll."

If they had posted the metrics, it would have been exposed as a fraudulent poll, I assure you.

Oh, and for our TEA members, you'll love this bull shit!
Yeah, They're just another, 'bought and paid for' front organization for Marxists Pubs.


TEA PARTY EXPRESS ENDORSES DISASTROUS RINOCARE BILL

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/establishment-front-tea-party-express-endorses-disastrous-rinocare-bill

Quote from: blake allyn on March 28, 2017, 01:58:04 PM
Can you name another way?

How about free market for the majority, assistance for lower income brackets ranging from subsidies to full support such as medicaid.

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 02:43:17 PM
It starts with govt picking winners and losers along with killing off competition.
But the bare truth is, it all started with Unions and like a cancer, spread with the assistance of the Marxist left.
You can do a search, I'm sure you'll find the original study.

It's been decades, but I remember the day it came out.

As to the claim that the young don't buy something they don't need, that's true, that's why the free mkt worked up until the Marxists forced everyone to buy something they didn't want and why the entire nation is pissed off at the left and why the Dim party failed.

You really shouldn't believe headlines and especially Washpo's fake news.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/191486/americans-slowly-embracing-affordable-care-act.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles

Your other link doesn't even link to the poll:
"More than five years after the single-payer system was scrapped from ObamaCare policy debates, just over 50 percent of people say they still support the idea, including one-quarter of Republicans, according to a new poll."

If they had posted the metrics, it would have been exposed as a fraudulent poll, I assure you.

I honestly have no clue what you are trying tosay.

Anything you dont agree with is a fraud?  I dont buy into that.  But Ill drop the topic.  You didn't respond to any of the points I made about rising costs.

The government does not pick pharma winners and losers, for example.  In fact, they dont even negotiate drug prices.

Quote from: blake allyn on March 28, 2017, 03:23:44 PM
I honestly have no clue what you are trying tosay.

Anything you dont agree with is a fraud?  I dont buy into that.  But Ill drop the topic.  You didn't respond to any of the points I made about rising costs.

The government does not pick pharma winners and losers, for example.  In fact, they dont even negotiate drug prices.

Ah, but the government does have an agency called the FDA.  The fiscal year (FY) 2016 Final Level for the FDA was $4.7 billion and they do oversee/regulate big pharma.

Half the people who work in the FDA either go on to work in Pharma or already have.

The highest profits, and the quickest rising costs in healthcare, are in Pharma.  They are doing wonderfully well.  I am not sure what the FDA is doing to harm that under your estimation.  Try again.

Quote from: blake allyn on March 28, 2017, 03:23:44 PM
I honestly have no clue what you are trying tosay.

Anything you dont agree with is a fraud?  I dont buy into that.  But Ill drop the topic.  You didn't respond to any of the points I made about rising costs.

The government does not pick pharma winners and losers, for example.  In fact, they dont even negotiate drug prices.

I addressed your point which was based on a false premise.
Govt sets the rules by which the market must play to participate and if you don't have millions in capital, you're not playing, hence picking winners and losers.
Congress helped set these rules so as o favor their crony investors, all designed to kill off competition. You either go through their crony firms, or you simply don't play.

Well but that is a consequence of free markets.  You avoided the issue of why health care costs are rising cause you didn't have a proper response.  There have been dozens of mergers simply because bigger companies get bigger.  That's capitalism.  It cost alot of money to research drugs and develop them.  This isn't like a tech startup. 

In health care you cant have competition where one company charges the least because they cut out cancer coverage.  It just doesn't work in this field.  In fact, congress, which are lackeys to health care industries no doubt, actually keep their hands off of pharma.  They in no way influence it and aside from passing meager guidelines, allow those companies to charge whatever they want.  The result?  Skyrocketing costs of drugs.  You seem to be criticizing capitalism for creating dominant companies.  The idea that congress created these rich companies is borderline insane.  They do however, once these companies get powerful, as in every other industry, help enshrine legislation to keep them poewrful.  But that means less regulation not more. For example, Jansen and Jansen, doesn't want to negotiate drug prices with the government.  SO they made sure in Obamacare they didn't.  But Obamacare didn't make Jansen and Jansen rich.  You cant ask for free markets and then criticize the fact that as a result of free markets a few insurance companies have come to dominate.  In fact, both sides try to prevent mergers often only because other insurance companies complain.

It seems if you want competition, then a public option is exactly what you are looking for.  Let the private companies compete with public.  In fact, Obamacare attempted to have a free market side to it with the exchange.  Predictably it failed.  If you de-regulated everything and restarted fresh tom, at some point a few companies would come to dominate like in every other industry.  But moreso in healthcare, because you can only go so low in the product.  And even in the case they do.  Lets say I buy health care only for common flus, or viruses, but say you know I dont want coverage in case I get in a car accident or in case I have a stroke.  Are you, under your plan, not going to cover me if I rush to the emergency room?  Are you gonna let me die cause I couldn't afford it?  Not if it was your mother or child for sure. 

The private sphere is vital, but so is a steady public option to compete with it.  Thats how you break up the giants.  Not de-regulating them and letting them dominate further, which is essentially the case.  The government didn't pick the winners.  They now that they have won, cow to their demands on issues like negotiating drug prices, etc. 

You dont seem well versed on this issue. 

Quote from: blake allyn on March 28, 2017, 06:50:01 PM
Well but that is a consequence of free markets.  You avoided the issue of why health care costs are rising cause you didn't have a proper response.  There have been dozens of mergers simply because bigger companies get bigger.  That's capitalism.  It cost alot of money to research drugs and develop them.  This isn't like a tech startup. 

Use the quote function, I almost missed this post because you didn't address me specifically.

No, that's due to cronyism. From FDA rulemaking to Wall St being propped up by the Fed, it's become a leech/host symbiotic relationship designed to keep one company in the favors of the Fed as long as the shareholders keep their mouths shut.

QuoteIn health care you cant have competition where one company charges the least because they cut out cancer coverage.

ROFL!!!
In the free mkt, one would be allowed to choose if they want cancer coverage, a very basic care package, while another may cover every illness under the sun, but in a free mkt it's my choice to pay for the coverage I want.
What the govt did was forced the industry to create a one size fits all, which weeded out companies that refused to take that risk, while others got Fed backing, in other words, the govt picked winners and losers, further shrinking competition.

QuoteIt just doesn't work in this field.  In fact, congress, which are lackeys to health care industries no doubt, actually keep their hands off of pharma.  They in no way influence it and aside from passing meager guidelines, allow those companies to charge whatever they want.  The result?  Skyrocketing costs of drugs.  You seem to be criticizing capitalism for creating dominant companies.  The idea that congress created these rich companies is borderline insane.  They do however, once these companies get powerful, as in every other industry, help enshrine legislation to keep them poewrful.  But that means less regulation not more. For example, Jansen and Jansen, doesn't want to negotiate drug prices with the government.  SO they made sure in Obamacare they didn't.  But Obamacare didn't make Jansen and Jansen rich.  You cant ask for free markets and then criticize the fact that as a result of free markets a few insurance companies have come to dominate.  In fact, both sides try to prevent mergers often only because other insurance companies complain.

Meager rules? Do you know how long it takes to bring a new drug to the market?
"For example, Jansen and Jansen" You need to site sources, I have no idea what you're talking about.

QuoteIt seems if you want competition, then a public option is exactly what you are looking for.  Let the private companies compete with public.  In fact, Obamacare attempted to have a free market side to it with the exchange.  Predictably it failed.  If you de-regulated everything and restarted fresh tom, at some point a few companies would come to dominate like in every other industry.  But moreso in healthcare, because you can only go so low in the product.  And even in the case they do.  Lets say I buy health care only for common flus, or viruses, but say you know I dont want coverage in case I get in a car accident or in case I have a stroke.  Are you, under your plan, not going to cover me if I rush to the emergency room?  Are you gonna let me die cause I couldn't afford it?  Not if it was your mother or child for sure. 

Do you realize just how ludicrous that sounds? "if you want competition, then a public option is exactly what you are looking for"
Again, you want govt entering the free Mkt, that's not a free mkt, that's a hybrid type of nationalizzed mkt, you kicked free to the curb.

QuoteThe private sphere is vital, but so is a steady public option to compete with it.  Thats how you break up the giants.  Not de-regulating them and letting them dominate further, which is essentially the case.  The government didn't pick the winners.  They now that they have won, cow to their demands on issues like negotiating drug prices, etc. 

You have it completely backward, govt involvement beyond regulation is what creates monopolies.
We have laws against monopolies, but govt wants to control the free mkt and by doing so, literally creates unbreakable monopolies.

QuoteYou dont seem well versed on this issue.