want proof of how FuckedUP Health care in the US is?

[guerilla]

I'm not sure I really believe in the concept of rights at all. I agree that it's probably erroneous to believe that we have a right to those things you mentioned. But why do we have any rights? Why should I not have the right to take from you if I'm bigger or stronger? Or why should I not have the right piss on the lawn of city hall? I know the negative/positive right postulate, if you will, tidies up the argument. But isn't any conversation or argument on rights necessarily arbitrary, since rights are a function of what we believe to be right, moral, ethical, etc. ?

So my point is, talking in terms of rights is not something I'm comfortable with, as programming has taught me that usually the right way to solve a problem or to decide a course of action is not through adherence to any particular set of principles or philosophies, but simply thinking of it more in terms of a flow chart. From State1, Action1 will lead to State2, Action1a will lead to State2a, etc. Then decide which course will best meet our goals and live up to the expectations of our values.

You should check out David Friedman. He covers the ideas I am about, without the supernatural notion of natural rights, but more from a utilitarian perspective, closer to your programmer's method of problem solving. You might find his stuff interesting. He recently did a Google Talk that is on YouTube.

He also makes the case that even from a utilitarian perspective, the market produces the best outcomes, because it has the most efficiency.

Obviously if one is predisposed to a natural rights perspective, then you can take Friedman's position on utility and roll it up into a comfortable ethical system. But as you said, and I will admit, that is not entirely necessary.

 

[fvaldes]

You should check out David Friedman. He covers the ideas I am about, without the supernatural notion of natural rights, but more from a utilitarian perspective, closer to your programmer's method of problem solving. You might find his stuff interesting. He recently did a Google Talk that is on YouTube.

He also makes the case that even from a utilitarian perspective, the market produces the best outcomes, because it has the most efficiency.

Obviously if one is predisposed to a natural rights perspective, then you can take Friedman's position on utility and roll it up into a comfortable ethical system. But as you said, and I will admit, that is not entirely necessary.

the market produces the best outcome, efficient??? yeah look at the amazing economy we have now..

the market is not an entity that controls itself... it is controlled by human decisions and we are all greedy and egomaniacs bastards to some degree.

 

[guerilla]

going back to my poor teacher above.. she is BROKE man....BROKE.
are you really going to make chemo a $5 experience? what is the difference between that and zero???

if that woman will be saved by free chemo SO BE IT if she can't afford it.

It's not free though. Someone else is paying for it. The price hasn't changed. the doctors have not taken pay cuts. The hospitals have not lowered their operating costs. The same high price is being wastefully paid on those resources, the only difference is, someone is paying it for her.

It is still inefficient, and it is still a short term solution, and it is unsustainable. It's not an answer. It's just a stalling tactic.

If you want to help not just her, but everyone in the world get healthcare, you must lower its cost. And the only way to lower cost, without creating shortages, is competition. You need more doctors, nurses and hospitals.

and although much of the movie Sicko is FACT the cuban part was a total joke. He was played like a violin by the cubans... i should know ,.... I am cuban and lived there.

I can't stand Cubans or Venzuelans. I'm sure you guys are nice people, but it is impossible to argue for free markets with you guys. You have socialist stockholm syndrome. You don't like the system, but you insist upon being a victim of it.

Honestly, no hard feelings. I've done this debate with many socialist latinos before and it always turns out the same.

 

[guerilla]

the market produces the best outcome, efficient??? yeah look at the amazing economy we have now..

Is this a market economy? I already addressed this up thread...

the market is not an entity that controls itself... it is controlled by human decisions and we are all greedy and egomaniacs bastards to some degree.

Indeed, the market works because it punishes inefficient behavior not because it is a force for good or bad.

If you think inefficiency is bad, then the market is ideal.

If you think that it is good to be inefficient, then the market is a poor choice.

So now the question to you is, can efficiency solve the problems that concern you?

I'm not an idealist. I am a realist. The people who think that politicians and bureaucrats can run healthcare are the idealists.

 

[fvaldes]

It's not free though. Someone else is paying for it. The price hasn;t changed. the doctors have not taken pay cuts. The hospitals have not lowered their operating costs. The same high price is being wastefully paid on those resources, the only difference is, someone is paying it for her.

It is still inefficient, and it is still a short term solution, and it is unsustainable. It's not an answer. It's just a stalling tactic.

If you want to help not just her, but everyone in the world get healthcare, you must lower it's cost. And the only way to lower cost, without creating shortages, is competition. You need more doctors, nurses and hospitals.


I can't stand Cubans or Venzuelans. I'm sure you guys are nice people, but it is impossible to argue for free markets with you guys. You have socialist stockhold syndrome. You don't like the system, but you insist upon being a victim of it.

Honestly, no hard feelings. I've done this debate with many socialist latinos before and it always turns out the same.

that is easy man... becasue in Cuba there NEVER was socialism , communism of whatever you want to call it. Not even close. What needs to be done in this country has nothing to do with socialism or communism.


about our poor, soon to die teacher..... those that can afford it should do it. Are you telling me you would be against paying say $20 a year to help other people like our teacher? later on, when she gets on her feet and can do the same i am sure she will... and one day it could be you needing the helping hand.

 

[fvaldes]

Is this a market economy? I already addressed this up thread...


Indeed, the market works because it punishes inefficient behavior not because it is a force for good or bad.

If you think inefficiency is bad, then the market is ideal.

If you think that it is good to be inefficient, then the market is a poor choice.

So now the question to you is, can efficiency solve the problems that concern you?

I'm not an idealist. I am a realist. The people who think that politicians and bureaucrats can run healthcare are the idealists.

the market punishes unefficient behavior? certainly not in this country.

 

[guerilla]

that is easy man... becasue in Cuba there NEVER was socialism , communism of whatever you want to call it. Not even close. What needs to be done in this country has nothing to do with socialism or communism.

That's another argument for another time then.

about our poor, soon to die teacher..... those that can afford it should do it. Are you telling me you would be against paying say $20 a year to help other people like our teacher? later on, when she gets on her feet and can do the same i am sure she will... and one day it could be you
needing the helping hand.

No, I am all for charity. But why should I pay $15,000 for her chemo? I should pay $15,000 and 15 people get chemo.

Again, the problem isn't her need. It's that her need is because the service is so expensive that the only way to provide it, is to take it from others by force.

Charity is fantastic. In a word where we can afford to feed, clothe and educate everyone, charity will help the few who fall between the cracks because life will never be perfect where everyone is perfectly healthy and always gets perfect care.

But if we want to be serious and realistic about helping the hungry, we need more food. And if we want to help the sick, we need more doctors.

The only way that I know, and has always worked, is open competition in the market.

 

[fvaldes]

That's another argument for another time then.


No, I am all for charity. But why should I pay $15,000 for her chemo? I should pay $15,000 and 15 people get chemo.

Again, the problem isn't her need. It's that her need is because the service is so expensive that the only way to provide it, is to take it from others by force.

Charity is fantastic. In a word where we can afford to feed, clothe and educate everyone, charity will help the few who fall between the cracks because life will never be perfect where everyone is perfectly healthy and always gets perfect care.

But if we want to be serious and realistic about helping the hungry, we need more food. And if we want to help the sick, we need more doctors.

The only way that I know, and has always worked, is open competition in the market.

you wouldnt pay $15,000.. you would pay close to nothing as others also contribute. I gave the $20/year example.



im with you in increasing the supply as well... that surely would bring costs down but an option has to be available for EVERYBODY... even our teacher that has nothing left.

 

[guerilla]

the market punishes unefficient behavior? certainly not in this country.

Is it a market economy? Yes or no?

Is everyone allowed to freely compete in medicine? Is everyone allowed to freely compete in education? In agriculture? In banking? and so on.

A market economy is one where the market actors decide the exchanges, not bureaucrats. What the current western economies are GENEROUSLY referred to as, are "mixed economies" which is part capitalism, part socialism.

Mises, an economist I really like, and who debunked socialism (marxism, communism, fascism) as a viable economic system, made the very important observation that there is no third solution. You have the market, and everything else. Anything which is not decided by free exchange, necessarily must be (this is an a priori deduction if Riddar is still reading) socialistic.

 

[fvaldes]

Is it a market economy? Yes or no?

Is everyone allowed to freely compete in medicine? Is everyone allowed to freely compete in education? In agriculture? In banking? and so on.

A market economy is one where the market actors decide the exchanges, not bureaucrats. What the current western economies are GENEROUSLY referred to as, are "mixed economies" which is part capitalism, part socialism.

Mises, an economist I really like, and who debunked socialism (marxism, communism, fascism) as a viable economic system, made the very important observation that there is no third solution. You have the market, and everything else. Anything which is not decided by free exchange, necessarily must be (this is an a priori deduction if Riddar is still reading) socialistic.

le tme ask you then.. which country has the most acceptable health care system by your standards?/

 

[guerilla]

you wouldnt pay $15,000.. you would pay close to nothing as others also contribute. I gave the $20/year example.

The cost would still be $15,000.

You are trying to appeal to my greed with the low contribution cost. I am trying to appeal to your reason by aiming for lower prices. Let's have $20 chemo, instead of everyone paying $20 towards $15,000 chemo.

im with you in increasing the supply as well... that surely would bring costs down but an option has to be available for EVERYBODY... even our teacher that has nothing left.

We live in a world of scarce resources. That is why efficiency is so important to raising our standard of living.

If we have one person who needs surgery, and all doctors are not working that day, they have worked the maximum number of days allowed, they are exhausted, etc but there are no doctors, would you say we should put a gun to the head of one of the doctors, and force him to perform surgery?

Of course not. There is no perfect paradigm where everyone gets treatment, so we aim for getting treatment for 99.9% of the population. That is the reality of living in a world of scarce resources, which is simply a material fact of human existence.

The solution to "every person needs care", is to have the maximum number of doctors and hospitals available.

 

[guerilla]

le tme ask you then.. which country has the most acceptable health care system by your standards?/

I can't claim to have an intelligent answer to that, although I have heard great things about Singapore's system. Apparently they used a lot of public funding to build it up, but it is private care, low cost, very high quality,

 

[papajohn56]

the market produces the best outcome, efficient??? yeah look at the amazing economy we have now..

the market is not an entity that controls itself... it is controlled by human decisions and we are all greedy and egomaniacs bastards to some degree.

Really? If you think that this economic free-fall was a result of lack of regulation on the market, you'd be dead wrong. Back in the 1990's, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) spearheaded the campaign for "affordable housing" for everyone. This campaign ended in laws that required lenders and banks to issue mortgages to under-qualified and unqualified minorities. As a result, new mortgages came into existence. Balloon mortgages, etc etc. Interest only mortgages were no longer used as a temporary aid, they were used as permanent mortgages! Sickening.

In 2003, Bush (Yes, George W. Bush) sounded the alarm bells on this, saying that the backing agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in serious trouble due to this.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - The New York Times

What did Barney Frank say?

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Uh oh. So it looks like Barney Frank and his forced mortgages for underqualified or unqualified people may have led to a flood of foreclosures! Who would've thought.

 

[fvaldes]

I can't claim to have an intelligent answer to that, although I have heard great things about Singapore's system. Apparently they used a lot of public funding to build it up, but it is private care, low cost, very high quality,

at least we agree on that something has to be done... fast.

Did you watch my original videos by the way?/

 

[fvaldes]

Really? If you think that this economic free-fall was a result of lack of regulation on the market, you'd be dead wrong. Back in the 1990's, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) spearheaded the campaign for "affordable housing" for everyone. This campaign ended in laws that required lenders and banks to issue mortgages to under-qualified and unqualified minorities. As a result, new mortgages came into existence. Balloon mortgages, etc etc. Interest only mortgages were no longer used as a temporary aid, they were used as permanent mortgages! Sickening.

In 2003, Bush (Yes, George W. Bush) sounded the alarm bells on this, saying that the backing agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in serious trouble due to this.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - The New York Times

What did Barney Frank say?

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Uh oh. So it looks like Barney Frank and his forced mortgages for underqualified or unqualified people may have led to a flood of foreclosures! Who would've thought.

i know and agree. You are just reinforcing my point that the market doesnt "work itself out"........ your example proves what i said...

 

[guerilla]

i know and agree. You are just reinforcing my point that the market doesnt "work itself out"........ your example proves what i said...

*Sighs*

The market does work itself out. It is a self-correcting mechanism. That example is not one of market failure...

 

[guerilla]

at least we agree on that something has to be done... fast.

fast or slow, what has to be done is something intelligent.

Again, you're worried about your reaction time as much, if not more than, the actual appropriate reaction.

Haste makes waste. Short term thinking will lead to long term failures.

Did you watch my original videos by the way?/

No, no time sorry.

 

[knukk]

Spend some times in hospitals for working class Norwegians and then compare them to hospitals that deal with working Class Americans....then I'll ask you to answer that question.....

I am from Norway so I have a fairly good insight how it is here. Once again, you make the error of presenting the private American health care system as a result of free markets.

One of my best friends is an American trade Swede who's done volunteer work in the USA and Scandinavia - a top tier degree, she could command any market price she wants....she could tell you a thing or two about health care systems in both country and all this for profit rubbish when it comes to the basic well-being of a country's citizenry....

Can you explain to me why profit is "rubbish" when it comes to "the basic well-being" of a citizen? Can you also answer to me which of the following are essential for a citizen's well being:

• A place to live
• Food
• Water

 

[papajohn56]

i know and agree. You are just reinforcing my point that the market doesnt "work itself out"........ your example proves what i said...

Uh no. My example proves that there was no free market at all, it was forced and it over-corrected because it was fucked with by idiot politicians. Had it been left alone, we would not have this mess.

 

[knukk]

It's a pointless argument from my perspective, because the people think it should be "free" then government will give them a system that is "free" in that no patient is accountable for the costs, and thus the doctors are not accountable to the patients.

What the people living under socialized medicine regimes do not understand, is that someone is paying. They just don't pay at the time they need it. Nothing is "free". Doctors and nurses still make great livings. The drug companies and medical equipment suppliers still rack up massive profits, even in socialized systems. The places where cuts come, are always on service to patients. With collective pricing, the patient is unable to compare the value of one service to another, and thus is kept insulated from choice and rational decision making.

Many are blind folded about that over here in Norway. They first claim my system would not be for the good of the people because the health care today is free of charge. When I explain to them why it isn't they still favor it with another argument. There is no consistency in their argumentation. They also don't see that what the social democracts and socialist politicians over here har over them is their fear. Fear has always been the #1 tool to keep this system in place. If people would let the fear go and think rationally many problems would be solved.

I have no idea where they get the idea of that it's free from. It seems that to them that as long as you don't pay "there and then", it's free. Teachers teach this to blind high school kids who buy the fear propaganda right on.

I remember a teacher I had in modern historics in high school saying "blabla but we have free health care here blablbla". I said "It's not free". He: "What are you talking about?" "It's not free" "Well does it look like you're paying for health care here?". "Yes. Taxes." "Well, I don't think that that makes the health care not free". "So, you pay for it in taxes, but it's still free?" "Yes, I think one could say it's free." "Ok so what you're saying is that as long as it's financed, that is, PAYED for, via a tax payment, it's free?" "Yes. As long as you don't pay there and then."

And then I got most of the class against me too. I was really shockened by the responses, because I wasn't even discussing whether health care should be private or public, I was merely saying that public health care is not free.