Way to go Michigan!

zoombwaz said:
These are not assumptions, but fact. How can you not know that our annual per capita expenditures on health care are the highest in the world, double those of the most expensive single payer system, and at least triple most of the rest? Of the G-20 countries, all have universal health care. Except one. Us. Despite being ranked #1 in health care costs, we are ranked 30th in outcome, not only behind all 19 of the other G-20 nations, but behind 10 developing nations as well. That's what makes it substandard. NONE OF THOSE NATIONS WHICH HAVE ABANDONED MEDICINE FOR PROFIT HAVE EVER MADE AN ATTEMPT TO GO BACK TO IT (and please don't try to pass off that nonsense about a for-profit system being destroyed forever and unable to come back, as that is just rank bullshit.)

When I entered college in 1969, the high-tech sector of the economy did not exist, but now it is a multi-trillion dollar sector. Whole sectors of the economy can't be destroyed forever, unless replaced by a new sector (like the carriager and buggy sector was replaced by the internal combustion engine and automobile), or regulated, like the patent medicine/snake oil market regulated by the FDA (and the second that regulation ceases, the sleazeballs come roaring back), so the notion that medicine for profit could be destroyed forever is laughable. The profit motive cannot be destroyed. If you don't believe me, ask the Russians or Chinese how their pathetic, deadly experiments in eliminating profit as a motive turned out. Commmunism was and is doomed to failure, as it is based on a precept that flies in the face of reality: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." What utter and complete bullshit. That is why the "worker's paradise" (spare me) lasted all of 70 brutal years, because you not only can't legislate or regulate the profit motive out of existence, you can't even stomp it out of existence by deadly force. The only thing you can do is to admit to its shortcomings and inadequacies in certain areas of human existence (like healthcare), and egulate it to optimize its overall effect in others.

If your goal is to deliver health care to as many citizens as possible, a for-profit system is the worst system possible, because maximizing profits depends on maximizing revenues and minimizing expenditures. It is inherent in the nature of the for profit insurance system that premiums be jacked up as much as we will allow (maximizing revenues), and coverage will be denied as much as we will allow (miminizing expenditures). The goals of affordable healthcare for as many citizens as possible, and the goals of any for-profit entity are mutually exclusive. Expecting insurance companies to moderate their policies without government intervention is not only unrealistic, but shows a complete misunderstanding of a corporation's fiduciary duties to its stockholders: it is required by law to maximize returns to its investors, so it is illegal for a corporation to voluntarily moderate its revenue increases by holding the line on premiums or voluntarily increase its expenditures by not withholding care from the sick, and anybody who expects otherwise hasn't got a clue.
Click to expand...

of course it's an assumption....my insurance is pretty good....it's from a non-profit corporation, I have a deductible I can live with, they can't cancel me for any health problems that come up under Michigan law....I actually have a better copay than the government option.....so, what makes it substandard?......and what evidence do you have that it costs more than the government plan?......
 
i saw something where we have the most 100+ in the world. So if you take care of yourself your good to live into your 90's+. The smoking, drunk, druggie, fat people are what pull the average down.
 
AssHatZombie said:
If your goal is to politicize healthcare, and then use the power of life and death to control society, a government option is the best choice.

Price fixing = rationing = death.
Click to expand...

Under a publlic option, your paranoia would be treated at no cost to you. I'm on Medicare. Price fixing and rationing, both of which are rampant with private insurance are not a problem with medicare, and there is far less unnecessary death under medicare than there is under private insurance. I have had seven surgical procedures under medicare, have never been denied, never been dropped, never had a rate hike other than the annual COLA. I doubt any private insurance would have done the same. The public option is nothing more than medicare for all.

The goal is not to politicize health care, but to deliver it.

The only ones politicizing it are the insurance conglomerates and big pharma, who are lying their asses off in order to continue profiteering, and their whores in congress of both parties, who are doing as their paymasters tell them.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
of course it's an assumption....my insurance is pretty good....it's from a non-profit corporation, I have a deductible I can live with, they can't cancel me for any health problems that come up under Michigan law....I actually have a better copay than the government option.....so, what makes it substandard?......and what evidence do you have that it costs more than the government plan?......
Click to expand...

I'm talking about for-profit health care. I thought I made that clear. The majority of Americans do not have access to non-profit insurance, so while your own insurance experience is nice for you, it is irrelevant to the debate over the public option versus private FOR-PROFIT insurance companies.
 
zoombwaz said:
Under a publlic option, your paranoia would be treated at no cost to you. I'm on Medicare. Price fixing and rationing, both of which are rampant with private insurance are not a problem with medicare, and there is far less unnecessary death under medicare than there is under private insurance. I have had seven surgical procedures under medicare, have never been denied, never been dropped, never had a rate hike other than the annual COLA. I doubt any private insurance would have done the same. The public option is nothing more than medicare for all.

The goal is not to politicize health care, but to deliver it.

The only ones politicizing it are the insurance conglomerates and big pharma, who are lying their asses off in order to continue profiteering, and their whores in congress of both parties, who are doing as their paymasters tell them.
Click to expand...

these "free options" are not really free. They just siphon off the value created in the for profit system. you cannot kill the golden goose or all innovation in health care will cease. There will still be "paymasters" in a public system, but they will just be stupider and more corrupt.
 
blackascoal said:
Did I miss the part where he talked about how healthcare costs in the US are the leading cause of bankruptcy, including among people with health insurance?
Click to expand...
You know what's funny is I brought this up to a wingnut and he tried to tell me that divorce is the number one cause of bankruptcy.
 
zoombwaz said:
I'm talking about for-profit health care. I thought I made that clear. The majority of Americans do not have access to non-profit insurance, so while your own insurance experience is nice for you, it is irrelevant to the debate over the public option versus private FOR-PROFIT insurance companies.
Click to expand...
why would you think you had made that clear, this is the first time you mentioned it.........in any event, this is the "Way to Go, Michigan" thread, and 100% of the people in Michigan have access to the same insurance policy I have, in addition, the majority of states have non-profit providers.....thus, your statement that 85% are stuck with "sub standard" insurance policies is flat out untrue.....then, on top of everything else.....what evidence do you have that even for profit insurance is "substandard" compared to the government option?....
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
these "free options" are not really free. They just siphon off the value created in the for profit system. you cannot kill the golden goose or all innovation in health care will cease. There will still be "paymasters" in a public system, but they will just be stupider and more corrupt.
Click to expand...

Who the hell claimed they are free? Nobody with an ounce of sense asys they are free, but they cost far less. Aas far as your claim that for profit health care produces innovations that will stop under a public system, that is total nonsense. Name one innovation that is directly attributable to the for profit system that would not have occurred under a public system. In point of fact, of the 14 most efficacious drugs developed during the last 25 years, 11 were either developed in public university hospitals with NIH funding, or were devloped by NIH itself and contracted to pharmaceutical companies for manufacture. Big phawrma not only doesn't do as much R&D as you think, they spend three times as much on advertising as they do on R&D, and they turn an obscene profit (two years ago Eli Lilly reported a 24.9% net profit). There is no justification for that kind of profiteering..
 
zoombwaz said:
Who the hell claimed they are free? Nobody with an ounce of sense asys they are free, but they cost far less. Aas far as your claim that for profit health care produces innovations that will stop under a public system, that is total nonsense. Name one innovation that is directly attributable to the for profit system that would not have occurred under a public system. In point of fact, of the 14 most efficacious drugs developed during the last 25 years, 11 were either developed in public university hospitals with NIH funding, or were devloped by NIH itself and contracted to pharmaceutical companies for manufacture. Big phawrma not only doesn't do as much R&D as you think, they spend three times as much on advertising as they do on R&D, and they turn an obscene profit (two years ago Eli Lilly reported a 24.9% net profit). There is no justification for that kind of profiteering..
Click to expand...

Just a quick point.

When people were trying to slam Exxon for its profits, they named a dollar amount. The fact that the profit margin remained the same for a decade didn't matter.

Now the profit margin matters.



Selective way of presenting facts?
 
zoombwaz said:
Who the hell claimed they are free? Nobody with an ounce of sense asys they are free, but they cost far less. Aas far as your claim that for profit health care produces innovations that will stop under a public system, that is total nonsense. Name one innovation that is directly attributable to the for profit system that would not have occurred under a public system. In point of fact, of the 14 most efficacious drugs developed during the last 25 years, 11 were either developed in public university hospitals with NIH funding, or were devloped by NIH itself and contracted to pharmaceutical companies for manufacture. Big phawrma not only doesn't do as much R&D as you think, they spend three times as much on advertising as they do on R&D, and they turn an obscene profit (two years ago Eli Lilly reported a 24.9% net profit). There is no justification for that kind of profiteering..
Click to expand...

You think they are free, obviously.

The only thing I'm naming is you. I dub thee "ShitFerBrains". You wear it well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top