So basically what I’m saying is that our “standards of living” will determine how financially stable we are, more often than not. People wouldn’t NEED to make as much money as they do if they didn’t demand so much crap they don’t need.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
We already have Medicaid to provide for those who can’t afford insurance. If that’s not reaching the population that it should then in my mind the answer is to revamp that not to add another layer of complexity on top of everything. It just seems like we should be busy fixing the things that really need fixing.
Govt can be very efficient if we held it to a high standard and made government service actually something to aspire to instead of a fall back.
james[/quote]
The problem with just allowing the people that do not work to get free Ins. is it disincentivizes work.
Good Insurance for a single person is over $1000 , I can not fathom what a family of 4 would go for .
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
So basically what I’m saying is that our “standards of living” will determine how financially stable we are, more often than not. People wouldn’t NEED to make as much money as they do if they didn’t demand so much crap they don’t need. [/quote]
This is how I feel every time I see people rush out to buy the latest iPhone to replace their “old” one.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
We already have Medicaid to provide for those who can’t afford insurance. If that’s not reaching the population that it should then in my mind the answer is to revamp that not to add another layer of complexity on top of everything. It just seems like we should be busy fixing the things that really need fixing.
Govt can be very efficient if we held it to a high standard and made government service actually something to aspire to instead of a fall back.
james[/quote]
The problem with just allowing the people that do not work to get free Ins. is it disincentivizes work.
Good Insurance for a single person is over $1000 , I can not fathom what a family of 4 would go for .
[/quote]
x2. Not a big fan of medicaid. That sort of thing is not something government should be handling, imho.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The problem with just allowing the people that do not work to get free Ins. is it disincentivizes work.
Good Insurance for a single person is over $1000 , I can not fathom what a family of 4 would go for .
[/quote]
I think that is blown way out of proportion. That is to say that I don’t think that most people want to just milk the system. Does it happen? Of course it does and that’s why we should have people in the field investigating these abuses. But, as you mention, health care is stupidly expensive and people should have access to care that is affordable for them. There’s no reason that everyone in this country shouldn’t have some sort of access to care. Especially children.
I’ve been lucky in my life in that I’ve always had access to health care. My dad was active military, then he went right into the agency, then I enlisted, then became an officer, then was always in jobs with good health care coverage. I’ve never had to go without. Some of that is from good decisions I’ve made and some is just by being born into a family that had that coverage. That has definitely given me an advantage regarding my health.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
There’s also regulation required in the financial sector (we can see what happens when we remove all controls). [/quote]
No. We cannot. That’s a statement of fact - not an argument either way.
What is the precise difference between a corporation and a gov’t?
They are both legal entities. They have rules they operate by. Beyond this, they are just groups of people, organized within that legal structure.
Insofar as a gov’t is providing basic law and order, it has a “monopoly” on those functions
As you say, corporations get big and bulky, inefficient. They either wise up and get organized, they shrink, or they die.
So too with gov’ts, they just take longer - since there is either much less, or at least a different sort of competition.
When most people talk about regulating the free market, they give examples of basic laws in my opinion. Key word being basic. Dumping waste into my water is basic. The frauds of today are also basic. The tricks and scams of today are not.
If you’re alive today, I don’t think you’ve ever really seen an unregulated free market (in America at least). Our problems today come at least in part from people being to trusty of things they shouldn’t be - to trusty of gov’t regulations.
If there were no regulations to trust - people would think for themselves with untold clarity and focus. No idea what that would look like, becuase the financial scams would also get tricky on an unseen level, I’m sure. But frauds would still be illegal
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
1- The government will not willingly reduce the size of itself
2- The government will never run efficiently, because there is no incentive to do so
On another note:
3- Businesses will always be more efficient than government, because there IS an incentive to do so (profit)
4- Because of this, government involvement in providing services that can be provided by the private sector should be minimalized (such as education, post office, etc)[/quote]
3 and 4 are a stretch. I know the post office is like bayonets and horses but if you want to ship a letter do you call UPS or FED EX ? I do see they have a private freeway down in Texas. If free enterprise could do it all we would not have places like Somalia , Afghanistan and the like Free enterprise requires A Government to keep it free.And I do know there is no perfect Government as there is no perfect business
[/quote]
A stretch? The post office loses millions of dollars every day, ups and fedex make profits.
The only reason people don’t use ups or fedex for general letters is bc the post office has a monopoly on first class mail. Nobody is allowed to sgip first class mail except the post office. I am 100% sure that if the post office shut down there would be no problems.
I still think the government should be responsible for public roads, military, some welfare programs, etc. But they are involved in WAY more stuff then they should be.
If you don’t think businesses are more efficient than government, I’ll give a couple examples : social security and education. Social security is an absolute clusterfuck, would you trust your money to social security or to a private retirement account? Then have a look at private vs public education. Private is pretty much always better. I take the same side as Bill Gates on public education. The government should still fund it, but the money should follow the student, not the school. All the schools are privatized, and will have to compete to get students, and therfore funding.
If you read my post, I never said government wasn’t neccessary. Those countries you mentioned have/had tyrannical governments that stifiled their development as a nation. My argument is for smaller government, not larger, so you are actually proving my point.[/quote]
You can have any trucking company in America deliver a letter , UPS and Fed Ex are probably best equipped to compete with USPS
I agree the gov should be responsible for what you said, but in my opinion we could throw health Care in there . It is something we will all need at some time of our life . Those that do pay their bills are presently subsidizing those that do not pay.It has the potential to be a great thing
[/quote]
Well if health care is taken over by the government, you will still have the same system.
Currently, those that pay subsidize those that don’t.
With government takeover, those who can afford it will subsidize those who can’t.
Pretty much the same system.
I think there should be systems in place for a homeless person that gets sick, a baby needs surgery that their parents cannot afford, etc.
But at the same time, I am tired of the government forcing people to buy things because they are too irresponsible to buy it themselves. It’s the same situation that happened with social security. People were too irresponsible to save for retirement, so the government stepped in and forced everyone to. And you can see how that worked out.
In my opinion, when in doubt, leave the government out of it.
[/quote]
IMO what Insurance companies see as profit and bonuses are us over paying
[/quote]
These aren’t nonprofit companies. They exist to make a profit, and that is not a bad thing. Profit is good. Without profit, why the hell would anyone start a helth insurance company? They wouldnt.
On another note, I don’t think car insurance is a good example for health insurance for a number of reasons. 1- cars are absolutely neccessary in the first place, and 2-if you can’t afford car insurance, nobody pays it for you. If you get into a wreck without insurance, you still pay the bill, you don’t get subsidized.
With the whole health care mandate deabate, it’s hard for me to have an easy yes/no answer. I agree that noone should be turned away from a hospital if they have their arm cut off because they don’t have insurance. But then again, I hate the idea of the government telling me I have to buy something if I don’t want to. I also hate the idea of having to pay for other people’s insurance because they can’t/won’t pay for it themselves.
I also hate the idea of paying for someone else’s health insurance if they don’t take care of their bodies. Imagine that car insurance was like health insurance (if you can’t afford it, everyone else pays it for you). Now image some jackass is driving a hundred miles an hour and drunk. He totals his car and has no insurance, so now me/you/everyone has to pay for him being an idiot.
Bc of this, I really think health care wouldn’t be near as expensive if the government/insurance companies/citizens themselves took a preventative approach to healthcare. Instead of just treating heart attacks, try to keep people from getting them. It’s a hell of a lot less expensive that way.
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
Bc of this, I really think health care wouldn’t be near as expensive if the government/insurance companies/citizens themselves took a preventative approach to healthcare. Instead of just treating heart attacks, try to keep people from getting them. It’s a hell of a lot less expensive that way.[/quote]
We’ve tried that and it doesn’t work. You can’t force people to be healthy.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
Bc of this, I really think health care wouldn’t be near as expensive if the government/insurance companies/citizens themselves took a preventative approach to healthcare. Instead of just treating heart attacks, try to keep people from getting them. It’s a hell of a lot less expensive that way.[/quote]
We’ve tried that and it doesn’t work. You can’t force people to be healthy.
james
[/quote]
You could, if you make them pay for their own health care.
People pay for their own health care now. When I go to the hospital and see fat nurses I know there’s no way we are going to be able to make a good case for taking care of yourself.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
People pay for their own health care now. When I go to the hospital and see fat nurses I know there’s no way we are going to be able to make a good case for taking care of yourself.
james[/quote]
I know. But when/if mandatory health care is implemented, that isn’t going to be the case. As an individual, you/me/whoever will pay a price based on how much the average person needs in healthcare, which is BS. I take care of myself so I won’t be sick/spend a bunch of money on healthcare. Jackass next to me eats donuts all day and gets diabetis, so essentially we will split the price of his meds, even though it is entirely his fault that he got diabetis in the first place.
I know you can never force the whole population to take an active approach like people on this board do, but there are a lot of things that could be done to help. An example that I wrote a pretty in depth report/suggestion on is redefining the importance of physical education, putting it on the same level with all the other academic classes. I wrote an 8 page paper about how I would set it up at every level, there would be requirements that much be met (for high school) in order to graduate. Failing PE (either by not meeting the standards or participation) would me failing the grade, etc.
I certainly believe that private health insurance companies should be the norm providing health insurance for people. Again, free market. All they’d have to do would be charge people more money for doing things they deem hazardous, such as smoking, heavy drinking, obesity, recreational drugs if they so choose, etc. Would some deem ridiculous stuff dangerous? Sure. And if it really was that crazy, then that company wouldn’t last long, since people will have other, more sane, options. That’s what free market is supposed to be all about, right? Letting the people choose, with their wallet, what they want?
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I certainly believe that private health insurance companies should be the norm providing health insurance for people. Again, free market. All they’d have to do would be charge people more money for doing things they deem hazardous, such as smoking, heavy drinking, obesity, recreational drugs if they so choose, etc. Would some deem ridiculous stuff dangerous? Sure. And if it really was that crazy, then that company wouldn’t last long, since people will have other, more sane, options. That’s what free market is supposed to be all about, right? Letting the people choose, with their wallet, what they want? [/quote]
I cannot understand why more people don’t think like this. That’s pretty much exactly how life and auto insurance works, why can’t healthcare be the same way?
It also gives people an incentive to not be sloppy mouth breathers and improve their health, which will decrease costs.
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I certainly believe that private health insurance companies should be the norm providing health insurance for people. Again, free market. All they’d have to do would be charge people more money for doing things they deem hazardous, such as smoking, heavy drinking, obesity, recreational drugs if they so choose, etc. Would some deem ridiculous stuff dangerous? Sure. And if it really was that crazy, then that company wouldn’t last long, since people will have other, more sane, options. That’s what free market is supposed to be all about, right? Letting the people choose, with their wallet, what they want? [/quote]
I cannot understand why more people don’t think like this. That’s pretty much exactly how life and auto insurance works, why can’t healthcare be the same way?
It also gives people an incentive to not be sloppy mouth breathers and improve their health, which will decrease costs.[/quote]
Gross. Mouth-breathers. Shudders
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
People pay for their own health care now. When I go to the hospital and see fat nurses I know there’s no way we are going to be able to make a good case for taking care of yourself.
james[/quote]
I know. But when/if mandatory health care is implemented, that isn’t going to be the case. As an individual, you/me/whoever will pay a price based on how much the average person needs in healthcare, which is BS. I take care of myself so I won’t be sick/spend a bunch of money on healthcare. Jackass next to me eats donuts all day and gets diabetis, so essentially we will split the price of his meds, even though it is entirely his fault that he got diabetis in the first place.
I know you can never force the whole population to take an active approach like people on this board do, but there are a lot of things that could be done to help. An example that I wrote a pretty in depth report/suggestion on is redefining the importance of physical education, putting it on the same level with all the other academic classes. I wrote an 8 page paper about how I would set it up at every level, there would be requirements that much be met (for high school) in order to graduate. Failing PE (either by not meeting the standards or participation) would me failing the grade, etc.[/quote]
So, you don’t have any private health insurance?
[quote]jonzy91 wrote:
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
People pay for their own health care now. When I go to the hospital and see fat nurses I know there’s no way we are going to be able to make a good case for taking care of yourself.
james[/quote]
I know. But when/if mandatory health care is implemented, that isn’t going to be the case. As an individual, you/me/whoever will pay a price based on how much the average person needs in healthcare, which is BS. I take care of myself so I won’t be sick/spend a bunch of money on healthcare. Jackass next to me eats donuts all day and gets diabetis, so essentially we will split the price of his meds, even though it is entirely his fault that he got diabetis in the first place.
I know you can never force the whole population to take an active approach like people on this board do, but there are a lot of things that could be done to help. An example that I wrote a pretty in depth report/suggestion on is redefining the importance of physical education, putting it on the same level with all the other academic classes. I wrote an 8 page paper about how I would set it up at every level, there would be requirements that much be met (for high school) in order to graduate. Failing PE (either by not meeting the standards or participation) would me failing the grade, etc.[/quote]
So, you don’t have any private health insurance?[/quote]
What? I am in favor of private insurance, not government insurance
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I certainly believe that private health insurance companies should be the norm providing health insurance for people. Again, free market. All they’d have to do would be charge people more money for doing things they deem hazardous, such as smoking, heavy drinking, obesity, recreational drugs if they so choose, etc. Would some deem ridiculous stuff dangerous? Sure. And if it really was that crazy, then that company wouldn’t last long, since people will have other, more sane, options. That’s what free market is supposed to be all about, right? Letting the people choose, with their wallet, what they want? [/quote]
I cannot understand why more people don’t think like this. That’s pretty much exactly how life and auto insurance works, why can’t healthcare be the same way?
It also gives people an incentive to not be sloppy mouth breathers and improve their health, which will decrease costs.[/quote]
I have some bad news for you guys, they already do this. Activities they deem risky or careers they deem as dangerous get you a higher premium.
Not to mention the cost of the unisured are already being passed along in the form of higher costs at a hospital, ambulance company or insurance.
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
[quote]jonzy91 wrote:
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
People pay for their own health care now. When I go to the hospital and see fat nurses I know there’s no way we are going to be able to make a good case for taking care of yourself.
james[/quote]
I know. But when/if mandatory health care is implemented, that isn’t going to be the case. As an individual, you/me/whoever will pay a price based on how much the average person needs in healthcare, which is BS. I take care of myself so I won’t be sick/spend a bunch of money on healthcare. Jackass next to me eats donuts all day and gets diabetis, so essentially we will split the price of his meds, even though it is entirely his fault that he got diabetis in the first place.
I know you can never force the whole population to take an active approach like people on this board do, but there are a lot of things that could be done to help. An example that I wrote a pretty in depth report/suggestion on is redefining the importance of physical education, putting it on the same level with all the other academic classes. I wrote an 8 page paper about how I would set it up at every level, there would be requirements that much be met (for high school) in order to graduate. Failing PE (either by not meeting the standards or participation) would me failing the grade, etc.[/quote]
So, you don’t have any private health insurance?[/quote]
What? I am in favor of private insurance, not government insurance[/quote]
With private insurance you are already paying a price based on what the average person needs in health care.
[quote]jonzy91 wrote:
With private insurance you are already paying a price based on what the average person needs in health care. [/quote]
Sorta. If you’re on an individual plan then you’re underwritten based on your own health history. If you’re on a group plan then you’re underwritten using a different set of tables.
james
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I would imagine that even yourself, Beans, would admit that there are checks and balances required even in the free market.
[/quote]
I’d be the first to say clear, simple regulation that prevents irrational behavior becomes needed as the market becomes larger.
But, the point I was making to pitt is that, once you regulate a market it isn’t free. Regulation prevents freedom. There is a difference between what you said and what he said. [/quote]
With out laws what would prevent some one from stealing ?[/quote]
Somebody blowing your fucking head off if they catch you.