ObamaCare Going Down?

both parties are stupid and seems to find new ways to do so... and regardless their loyal and brainwashed partisan base will vote for him no matter what they do...

You see them on here the real sad ones that insist that their party is correct and the other party is wrong and you must be an idiot drinking the kool-aid if you have a free/independent thought....

Covers knows the irony

I do agree we will eventually have some type of socialized health care system

isn't our current system pretty damn Socialized,,,,,or Fascist?

risk pooling = 'health' "insurance"

privatize gains
socialize losses

those peoples view of America

The only answers lie in pure free markets or pure socialized medicine.  we shall swing one way or the other as it all fails.

Free market has made health care unaffordable.

Eh, no........that was the socialized system. Obviously.

what is free market about medicare, medicaid, or SCHIP?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973

hmmm...that HMO act seems free market to me as well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

so does this...

so if the government mandates additional costs on service providers, where are they supposed to get that money? either they give time (charity) which was done before government got involved or they bill insurance companies who then bill their paying clients

a big fat wealth redistribution scam

Profit driven PRIVATE SECTOR is the main reason why US has the most unaffordable healthcare system in the world.  For decades, Republicans and Democrats have tried to achieve an universal healthcare system.  So whether Obamacare survives or not, there will be new versions in the future.

in Canada if youre 60 and need a hip you wait months in pain
here if youre 95 and demented , fall out of bed you get a new hip immediately even though its time to go.
thats goverment paid for stupidity influencing the private sector greed

For emergency care, Canadians receive fast service.  But for non-emergencies, Canadians may or may not wait depending on location.  Some delay can be expected when over 90% of population has access to healthcare.  However millions of uninsured Americans lack access.

No Canadian goes bankrupt because of medical bills.  In USA, most personal bankruptcies are caused by hospital costs.

Seriously?

If you want health insurance, you buy it. You have options. Free market.

When you reach a certain age depending on income level, you have insurance available through the government. That does not defeat free market activity for the majority of your life.

The EMTALA does not defeat free market activity. It just assures that people aren;t required to pay cash up front before entering an emergency room.

Well, if you want to be technical, tort reform is regulation. You cannot have it both ways.

With that being said, I agree with your last portion and don't really have an issue with that, except that everyone should receive basic health care, regardless of income.

The quickest way to achieve universal health care would be to become like Somalia. You have money, you see a doctor. If you don't, you die on the street.

I have faith that a majority of Americans would react appropriately if it came to stepping over dead bodies of children on the street who were too poor to get medical treatment.

please, whate3ver it is you are smoking, pass it over here!

Let's check our 'health care' industry to see how it holds up to free market standards. Three main tenets

1.) Informed participants
2.) Clear and transparent flow of information
3.) minimal unnecessary costs

how do you feel, that the problems facing our so called health care industry, measure up to it's free market-ness?

The three things you mentioned, while all true, have nothing to do with free markets or lack thereof. The free market is where minimal or non-existent government regulation allows for the costs to be dictated by demand, etc.

That is the current situation, and the problem, with the current health care system because the lack of government involvement with the exception of the EMTALA, has assisted in the creation of inflated costs for treatment, thus inflated prices for insurance. But the government which creates the inflation of treatment costs is hands off the actual insurance industry.

how so? the three tenets of a free market, have nothing to do with a free market?

The current situation is all the free money that the gov throws at the industry (medicare) distorts pricing, and crappy regulation brings us where we are today.

You are the one that always claims the main problem is (the government forcing) the health care service providers that take their government money, to treat anyone that walks in the door, regardless of ability to pay. doesn't sound very free market-ish to me

not to mention, there is zero transparency in the industry

the government forces us to use middle man (insurance industry) to be able to do business with health care service providers

people don't buy their own insurance, their employers provide it (and then the gov uses 160+ BILLION per year in tax incentives for this

etc etc etc

People buy their own insurance, even if their employer provides it. The money comes from somewhere and ultimately, from the pocket of the recipient.

If cars suddenly became extinct, and the only method of transporation was a bicycle, which suddenly became thousands of dollars, and people did not know how to use said bicycle, under your theory, it would fail the free market test?

That doesn't comport with the basic concept that multiple companies offer said bicycle and the buyer has multiple options in the purchase. That, my friend, is free market, even if the external factors have contributed to the cost.

I really do not think you can say that anything dealing with Care or insurance is free market. Precisely for the reason that you have alluded to.  When there is manipulation due to govt. intervention it distorts the entire market.  

i don't understand how you benefit from trying to spin the discussion, into something so silly, but it appears that is your M.O.

your analogy to transportation is beyond, poor, and i wouldn't want to insult the phrase "comparing apples to oranges", where you seem hellbent on obfuscating the discussion to a comparison between nutritious food, and feces

Do you notice why you couldn't respond in substance?

Do you know why that is?

Under your theory, free markets can never exist as long as there are external factors. A rain storm eliminates the free market in umbrellas, a snow storm in snow shovels.

That is what happens when one lacks education.

Again, under this view, any external factor would eliminate free markets. That cannot be true or free markets would never exist as it is impossible to divest externalisms.

free markets are a theory

i have yet to find an example of a large scale true "free" market

when you have laws that demand what you use as currency and that value is manipulated, no market will be free

It is possible to eliminate unnecessary governmental externalities

like subsidizing the hell out of agriculture, which forces the hand of the consumer to consume so much fructose, rather then animal protein

like the FDA putting out the food pyramid, misinforming people into eating themselves sick

like medicare and the 800 Billion of funny money that distorts individuals internal pricing mechanisms

like the 160+ billion in subsidies gifted to employers for providing health insurance to their employees


i can go on and on, but so long as you wish to continue the dishonesty you hid behind in post 46, what's the point? You don't wish to involve in discussion, rather just keep bellowing your statist talking points

Let's take a walk down memory lane, when on this site in the past, you used to bow out when economic discussions were taking place, admitting that you weren't informed or educated enough on the matters to interject. NOw, you are claiming to know or understand something that i do not, "That is what happens when one lacks education.", when i thought i'd seen you hand job WSC before when he says free markets never have, and never can exist.


My point that you are ignoring, is that 'free market' factors play zero role in health care being unaffordable.

Health insurance being the middle man, exacerbates the problem exponentially, as the consumer is left even further disconnected from the information and choices they need to be making, to have this market operate, more like a free market

Do health care service providers, advertise their prices? Do you know why they don't? Do they charge insurance companies one price, and turn around and mark up 10 fold on the uninsured consumer? DOes that sound free market-ish?

Does Medicare have any effect? Does medicare have any accountability, or is it like everything else the gov gets into, a blank check scribed by loobyists, used to drive up prices and benefit the health insurance suppliers and the cost of health care consumers?

What about the 160B per year employer deductions for providing insurance to their employees? DOes that have any effect on pricing? Why does it exist

If you wish to engage me like an adult in political discussions, cut that 14darouad crap out with "do you know why that is".  It smells more like you have fear of having this discussion, because you are more concerned with appearing to be correct, then to seek information that may prove beliefs that you are emotionally (and likely monetarily) married to, incorrect. But that my friend, is how those of us that seek truth, become informed


hilarious how you chide me in a post, and in the same post suggest

Under your theory, free markets can never exist as long as there are external factors. A rain storm eliminates the free market in umbrellas, a snow storm in snow shovels.

Maybe you were right. Maybe one of our capacity for discussion on economic matters, begins and ends in nursery rhymes and picture books

This discussion has nothing to do with economic theory. It has everything to do with health care. But this does remind me of the Friends Encyclopedia episode. No doubt you will somehow bring this around to a discussion from the 'R' book (rent). You seem to be in your element there.

I underlined the above because you are using this as an example of traits of the free market. Guess what? Health insurance advertises. Health insurance companies are multiple, compete in price, compete in product, One has multiple options in purchasing health care. All free market, despite your assertion that the sky is purple.

As I stated above and ad nauseam, the free market hasn't worked. It hasn't worked because under the auspice of insurance, it cannot work. You have far too many external factors that eliminate the ability for competition to lead to affordability. That is why I used the bicycle example. But the fact that is doesn't work does not mean that the actual availability of insurance is 'in the free market.'

I do think it is cute when you resort to namecalling, whenever you are frustrated in a discussion. Perhaps if you weren't homeschooled, you would be better adapt at having discussions in public.