Why are so many Christians fans of Ayn Rand?

[lordbt]

I definitely agree that we have the worst of all possible setups and that both a pure market approach and a socialized system would work better, and which you choose depends on what you want to happen.

I am actually entirely OK with implementing a complete free market system at this point because I am pretty sure that it would make the case for single payer a lot simpler.

Not a chance. If you cant make the case for single payer now when we have the worst system imaginable, you have no hope of making it when the market is free to do what it does for every other service or product out there--make it affordable, plentiful, efficient and of high quality. Right now, the market handles the food delivery system. Do you think you have any chance of convincing anyone that it out to be turned over to a single payer-type approach? I dont. And if that analogy doesnt work for you, come up with another service that you think would perform better taken out of the hands of the private sector and put in the hands of the state.

 

[variant]

Sure because like with any government coercion there is less of it and then comes rationing. All done by government dictocrats not doctor/patient.

Healthcare like any other commodity is going to be rationed somehow.

Our socialized first world countries have simply shown that they can do it better than we can, they get better overall health outcomes with lower overall costs.

France as I have pointed out in other threads, spends less on government healthcare per capita than the US to cover all of it's people for basic services while we only cover the elderly and the poor. So, if you want to make a case for efficiency our system is not doing it right, we could actually cut taxes and have single payer health care that is just how inefficient our system is.

But I'm game for experimentation, I try to base my views on data rather than deciding what is right before I go into a political question, give me a free market system and we shall see what people actually think of it.

 

[variant]

Not a chance. If you cant make the case for single payer now when we have the worst system imaginable, you have no hope of making it when the market is free to do what it does for every other service or product out there--make it affordable, plentiful, efficient and of high quality. Right now, the market handles the food delivery system. Do you think you have any chance of convincing anyone that it out to be turned over to a single payer-type approach? I dont. And if that analogy doesnt work for you, come up with another service that you think would perform better taken out of the hands of the private sector and put in the hands of the state.

Really?

The free market handling the food delivery system is a bit of a joke right?

What with price controls, agriculture subsidies, tariffs, and commodities market regulation, the FDA and food regulation, you can scarcely say that agriculture is a free market system in the US.

In fact liberalizations of the commodities markets to make it so that people can speculate further in this market (without ever having to risk receiving delivery) have had the effect of driving UP costs when crop supplies are plentiful rather than driving them down. The markets are dominated not by suppliers or buyers of the commodities but by the intermediaries.

Water delivery systems are a good example of a service better provided socially. The military. Police forces. Roads. The Justice system.

Unfortunately we have plenty of examples of places where there is no interference via the government in health care, just not in places where you and I want to live.

 

[Notamonkey]

As I have said before the costs we have for health care come from causes not address in the so called health care reform law. It is the FDA and the drug companies who are one and the same. It is batteries of testing that is wastefull but in many cases done to protect Doctors from lawsuits. It is drugs and surgeries that don't treat the cause, but treat symptoms- a number. It's universities that promote these "protocols" as well. THAT is why we have such poor outcomes for the money we spend. It is also the consumer who doesn't know jack and let's the doc dictate treatment rather than taking a pro-active role in THEIR treatment. And the"do it, I'm not paying for it." Doctors should work having a feduciary responsability the the patient, and the patient the same with their insurer. You know do no to others....

Another bigging that goes to the FDA/BigPharma cause is Direct to Comsumer Advertising the subverts the doc/patient relationship. The reason for higher cost for the same exact treatment in other countries is because we have the, well, had the money.

 

[variant]

As I have said before the costs we have for health care come from causes not address in the so called health care reform law.

Indeed, but the main cost of health care is what doctors charge patients, which it did not address, the health care law missed the mark completely by focusing on insurance companies.

Making an already broken system even more broken.

 

[Notamonkey]

Indeed, but the main cost of health care is what doctors charge patients, which it did not address, the health care law missed the mark completely by focusing on insurance companies.

Making an already broken system even more broken.

Lemme guess, it's more "evil profits". Those wicked doctors. Any idea about how much doctors spend on insurance every year?

So doctors will be told what they can earn, get 2/3rds of what they spend for care with medicaid, and of course they will eat the loss, right. Nope, more rationing because there will be less doctors, more patients. But I'm sure doctors will just work for free because they love the single payer.

 

[variant]

Lemme guess, it's more "evil profits". Those wicked doctors. Any idea about how much doctors spend on insurance every year?

So doctors will be told what they can earn, get 2/3rds of what they spend for care with medicaid, and of course they will eat the loss, right. Nope, more rationing because there will be less doctors, more patients. But I'm sure doctors will just work for free because they love the single payer.

I was making the point that the main cost of medical care is medical care, the cost of treating patients.

It's more like too many people tugging on the same rope and plenty of ways to gouge the American consumer (and we are being gouged here in a historically bad way).

You reform both the tort rules and medical insurance business (to socialize those risks as well), cover their medical schooling (and build more medical schools so that you can have more doctors) and subsidize their tax burden and the doctors tax burden.

Then when you set procedural costs at more reasonable levels they can do business.

 

[Notamonkey]

You reform both the tort rules and medical insurance business (to socialize those risks as well), cover their medical schooling and subsidize their tax burden.

Then when you set procedural costs at more reasonable levels they can do business.

It's a anbulance chasers who are socialilzing, latching on to the public nip to get at cut that just makes it more expensive, taking and providing nothing. The lawyers in most cases create a burden. Who wants to cover other people's education, you?

 

[variant]

It's a anbulance chasers who are socialilzing, latching on to the public nip to get at cut that just makes it more expensive, taking and providing nothing. The lawyers in most cases create a burden. Who wants to cover other people's education, you?

Good your with me on tort reform. (although I think in a completely free market they can not be trifled with, even with a free market justice system (of which I am skeptical))

Yes, I want to subsidize the education of doctors, it costs me half as much as paying through the nose for basic medical and provides me with better overall health as a result.

 

[Notamonkey]

Good your with me on tort reform. (although I think in a completely free market they can not be trifled with)

Yes, I want to subsidize the education of doctors, it costs me half as much as paying through the nose for basic medical and provides me with better overall health as a result.

Hmm, interesting. I don't get how you think paying for someone elses education will reduce costs- for you or anyone.

 

[Notamonkey]

Good your with me on tort reform. (although I think in a completely free market they can not be trifled with, even with a free market justice system (of which I am skeptical))

Yes, I want to subsidize the education of doctors, it costs me half as much as paying through the nose for basic medical and provides me with better overall health as a result.

The flip side is in a single payer is you have no option nor any contest. If they mess up, too bad for you, there is no appeal. There is no incentive to offer quality. It's back to the monopoly. You have no recourse.

 

[variant]

Hmm, interesting. I don't get how you think paying for someone elses education will reduce costs- for you or anyone.

You do it in return for lower costs of the services you will need later.

I didn't just make this stuff up, it's how they do it in atleast one single payer system.

The French Lesson In Health Care

Doctors:

Reasons Not To Become A Doctor - Forbes.com

Will have it pretty bad under the current system. We actually need to start building more medical schools and training more of the population that wants to become doctors (which would not reduce quality since the average applicant being turned down from medical school is getting more and more qualified.

 

[variant]

The flip side is in a single payer is you have no option nor any contest. If they mess up, too bad for you, there is no appeal. There is no incentive to offer quality. It's back to the monopoly. You have no recourse.

Tort reform not repeal.

The only problem with the system is that doctors and hospitals have less deep pockets to sue (which is what makes them a target in our system).

In the system I was talking about individual doctors act like private practitioners and so do supplemental insurers (to get you beyond basic coverage) so they do indeed have incentive to provide better service or they get no customers.

 

[Notamonkey]

You do it in return for lower costs of the services you will need later.

I didn't just make this stuff up, it's how they do it in atleast one single payer system.

The French Lesson In Health Care

Doctors:

Reasons Not To Become A Doctor - Forbes.com

Will have it pretty bad under the current system. We actually need to start building more medical schools and training more of the population that wants to become doctors (which would not reduce quality since the average applicant being turned down from medical school is getting more and more qualified.

Maybe you do but I like my insurance just the way it is. And it's a lie that the dictocrats use to dissarm those who know it will get worse and more expensive and less choice claiming "If you if your coverage and your doctor, you can keep it." Bull chips. Let's drop the deception. That is used as a wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

[IbrahimFahim]

Maybe you do but I like my insurance just the way it is. And it's a lie that the dictocrats use to dissarm those who know it will get worse and more expensive and less choice claiming "If you if your coverage and your doctor, you can keep it." Bull chips. Let's drop the deception. That is used as a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Under the current law can you keep your coverage? I will already answer, you are perfectly allowed to do so. So your claims of deception are themselves untrue.

 

[variant]

Maybe you do but I like my insurance just the way it is. And it's a lie that the dictocrats use to dissarm those who know it will get worse and more expensive and less choice claiming "If you if your coverage and your doctor, you can keep it." Bull chips. Let's drop the deception. That is used as a wolf in sheeps clothing.

It's like you didn't actually read my post or follow the links....

No, under that plan your basic coverage would completely change to a single payer system funded by tax dollars but you would be allowed to carry as much or as little supplemental insurance as you desired.

And no it is not more expensive or worse it is less expensive by every measure and provides people with better heathcare.

Follow the links and read.

 

[Umaro]

So doctors will be told what they can earn, get 2/3rds of what they spend for care with medicaid, and of course they will eat the loss, right. Nope, more rationing because there will be less doctors, more patients. But I'm sure doctors will just work for free because they love the single payer.

Isn't that exactly what we're doing with teachers right now? How is "the country is going broke, you teachers have to make less money" any different than "the country is going broke, you doctors have to make less money?"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I just wonder why, considering man's long and bloody history of governments oppressing, looting and brutalizing people, liberals believe this time they will get it right ... never mind, Thomas Sowell answered that in The Vision of the Anointed.

I'm sure liberals also wonder why, considering man's history of corporate exploitation and oppression, conservatives place their faith in market-place benevolence above all else. From one blind faith to another I suppose.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What you call slander, I call using the very words and actions of communists to determine who they are and what their agenda is. It doesn't get more simple than that.

So slander it is. You claimed that leftists/liberals/Marxists/Socialists (and whoever else you might disagree with on the left side of politics) hate Jews and Democracy. In so far as this is a sweeping generalization, it is most certainly a slanderous one, and one that you ought to apologise for in your misrepresentation of the various leftists/liberals/Marxists/whatever on this very forum.

 

[Notamonkey]

So slander it is. You claimed that leftists/liberals/Marxists/Socialists (and whoever else you might disagree with on the left side of politics) hate Jews and Democracy. In so far as this is a sweeping generalization, it is most certainly a slanderous one, and one that you ought to apologise for in your misrepresentation of the various leftists/liberals/Marxists/whatever on this very forum.

You're the one claiming it and you keep bring it up. If you can't handle the history of slavery supported by the left in America, or anti-semitism that's not my problem. That has been the trend. It can't be used as a club to say ALL liberals are that way and will always be that way. That is dishonest. Nor does it mean there are not conservatives that are antisemite. If you don't get that it's not my problem. Nice straw man. Geer, we just saw another classic liberal/communist tatic in Wisconson. Well, what do you know they played the Nazi card on conservatives. Too bad it doesn't fit. Conservatives aren't collectivists. They don't want other people to pay their bills. They don't call it a right. I'm npt going to alpologise for what the left has do, continues to do and will do in the future any more than I would tell you YOU should apologise for the left.