[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I’m not phaeton but I think he meant corporations and not companies. If so then that’s true because by definition a corporation requires laws in order to exist. And laws require a government.
james
[/quote]
I’m hoping that’s what he meant.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Companies, by their very nature, cannot.[/quote]
Can you explain this.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Not at all. There is a reason the worlds top 2000 companies have assets worth a combined ~$160 trillion.
Free enterprise certainly can exist without the government. Companies, by their very nature, cannot.[/quote]
Please explain your statement. It seems so nonsensical that I am genuinely curious to hear the explanation behind it. [/quote]
I’m not phaeton but I think he meant corporations and not companies. If so then that’s true because by definition a corporation requires laws in order to exist. And laws require a government.
james
[/quote]
If this is what he means then okay, that’s fine. I’m interested to hear if that’s the case.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Not at all. There is a reason the worlds top 2000 companies have assets worth a combined ~$160 trillion.
Free enterprise certainly can exist without the government. Companies, by their very nature, cannot.[/quote]
Please explain your statement. It seems so nonsensical that I am genuinely curious to hear the explanation behind it. [/quote]
I’m not phaeton but I think he meant corporations and not companies. If so then that’s true because by definition a corporation requires laws in order to exist. And laws require a government.
james
[/quote]
Yes that is what I meant. Thanks! In my home country company = corporation.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^
“Premature birth is a factor in more than two-thirds of infant deaths. From 2000 to 2005, the U.S. preterm birth rate went up from 11.6% to 12.7%.”
So 66% of infant mortality is tied to premature birth, what does that have to do with the healthcare system?
[/quote]
Then the question is why is this not happening in other developed countries?[/quote]
I agree, that’s a good question.
Again, though, what does infant mortality have to do with our healthcare system?[/quote]
Poster was alluding to the heavy cost of healthcare is determined by heart disease. What happens to infant mortality rates, is this determined by heart disease? Plenty of things wrong with this country’s healthcare especially considering the amount of money paid for services. To spend this kind of money and be ranked 29th in the world in regards to infant mortality is a travesty.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What about infant mortality rates? Are they to be blamed on heart disease? Can you explain this?
Waste and abuse in Medicare? Try the private sector. Why do government programs cost less? Medicare, V.A.? Why does every other county pay about half as much as we do when they have some form of government run healthcare? According to you it is because they don’t have heart disease ruining their system. Even if they didn’t have 1 case you have failed to give an answer as to why government run sectors of healthcare in this country operate more efficiently than the private sector. Do people who receive Medicare not suffer from heart disease? Only folks in the private sector?
My overall point is that private sector healthcare is a sham. It costs twice as much and forces folks into BK, why? What is your basic argument as to why this is or isn’t so? Heart disease, proven by CDC stats?[/quote]
Government programs do not cost less. You are truly every bit as stupid as you seem if you think that’s possible. A government can lower healthcare costs by enslaving people(if it was to force people to work for less than their value), spreading costs around(kind of like insurance companies do, but government forces some to pay huge amounts while others pay nothing), or by choosing what services it will and will not pay for(ex: you need this, but the cost is too great to justify it, so good luck).[/quote]
Really,government programs do not cost less? What are the private healthcare costs in this country compared to the government run sectors? And why do other industrialized countries pay about half as much when they have some form of government run healthcare?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Then why did Glass-Steigel work so long and so good?
I do not live in a fantasy world, regulations when enforced are good as they can curtail BIg Corporations abuse like Glass- Steigel. Gut the regulations and corporations run amuck.
I will agree that those who vote for democrats because they believe in their plank are delusional. The democrats, like the Republicans, are owned by corporate interests. It is to their interests that they pander.
Big banks need to be broken up, Glass-Steigel needs to be re-implemented and people need to be more involved in unionization.
[/quote]
Please explain how the Glass-Steagall Act worked “so long and so good.” I eagerly await your analysis of something that you don’t even know how to spell.
I don’t believe I mentioned voting for democrats, so I’m not sure what you’re agreeing with there.
The only thing that needs to be broken up is the Federal Reserve System.[/quote]
Wow a misspelling! You got me there. As long as Glass-Steagall was enforced we didn’t have a financial meltdown because it helped to prevent risky bets that the banks were making. As it was against the law. It was gutted and then banks were allowed to do what they wanted and almost brought down the whole economy.
You know free-market type shit. And once all those evil regulations were taken out of the way and “the market” was unleashed we had a crash. A regulation put in place in response to the Great Depression. I guess that was just a coincidence, huh? We had no financial crash for 70 years but take away Glass-Steagall and wallah, crash! Just like magic. But according to you there is no causation. And you have the balls to call me stupid.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^
“Premature birth is a factor in more than two-thirds of infant deaths. From 2000 to 2005, the U.S. preterm birth rate went up from 11.6% to 12.7%.”
So 66% of infant mortality is tied to premature birth, what does that have to do with the healthcare system?
[/quote]
Then the question is why is this not happening in other developed countries?[/quote]
I agree, that’s a good question.
Again, though, what does infant mortality have to do with our healthcare system?[/quote]
Poster was alluding to the heavy cost of healthcare is determined by heart disease. What happens to infant mortality rates, is this determined by heart disease? Plenty of things wrong with this country’s healthcare especially considering the amount of money paid for services. To spend this kind of money and be ranked 29th in the world in regards to infant mortality is a travesty.
[/quote]
No he wasn’t. Just never mind.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^
“Premature birth is a factor in more than two-thirds of infant deaths. From 2000 to 2005, the U.S. preterm birth rate went up from 11.6% to 12.7%.”
So 66% of infant mortality is tied to premature birth, what does that have to do with the healthcare system?
[/quote]
Then the question is why is this not happening in other developed countries?[/quote]
I agree, that’s a good question.
Again, though, what does infant mortality have to do with our healthcare system?[/quote]
Poster was alluding to the heavy cost of healthcare is determined by heart disease. What happens to infant mortality rates, is this determined by heart disease? Plenty of things wrong with this country’s healthcare especially considering the amount of money paid for services. To spend this kind of money and be ranked 29th in the world in regards to infant mortality is a travesty.
[/quote]
No he wasn’t. Just never mind. [/quote]
So what is your assessment as to the outrageous costs of U.S. healthcare?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^
“Premature birth is a factor in more than two-thirds of infant deaths. From 2000 to 2005, the U.S. preterm birth rate went up from 11.6% to 12.7%.”
So 66% of infant mortality is tied to premature birth, what does that have to do with the healthcare system?
[/quote]
Then the question is why is this not happening in other developed countries?[/quote]
I agree, that’s a good question.
Again, though, what does infant mortality have to do with our healthcare system?[/quote]
Poster was alluding to the heavy cost of healthcare is determined by heart disease. What happens to infant mortality rates, is this determined by heart disease? Plenty of things wrong with this country’s healthcare especially considering the amount of money paid for services. To spend this kind of money and be ranked 29th in the world in regards to infant mortality is a travesty.
[/quote]
No he wasn’t. Just never mind. [/quote]
So what is your assessment as to the outrageous costs of U.S. healthcare?[/quote]
I think the fact that we are fat as fucking is one of if not the # 1 reason our health care costs so much.
Infant mortality, what you brought up, has almost zero to do with health care cost espceially since 66% of these death are attributable to premature birth.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Really,government programs do not cost less? What are the private healthcare costs in this country compared to the government run sectors? And why do other industrialized countries pay about half as much when they have some form of government run healthcare? [/quote]
No, they can’t. The cost of healthcare is the cost of healthcare. If you argued taxpayer-paid healthcare costs less for the recipients, then you would have a point.
I’m not sure what private healthcare costs are compared to government healthcare costs. Why don’t you tell me? While you’re at it, please explain why and how “other industrialized countries pay about half as much when they have some form of government run healthcare.”
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Wow a misspelling! You got me there. As long as Glass-Steagall was enforced we didn’t have a financial meltdown because it helped to prevent risky bets that the banks were making. As it was against the law. It was gutted and then banks were allowed to do what they wanted and almost brought down the whole economy.
You know free-market type shit. And once all those evil regulations were taken out of the way and “the market” was unleashed we had a crash. A regulation put in place in response to the Great Depression. I guess that was just a coincidence, huh? We had no financial crash for 70 years but take away Glass-Steagall and wallah, crash! Just like magic. But according to you there is no causation. And you have the balls to call me stupid.[/quote]
How much can one know about a specific thing whose name he doesn’t know? Please explain the Glass-Steagall Act to me. I’m not sure I know as much as you do.
Imagine the fortune a bank which didn’t make those risky bets could make. Everybody would put their money in that bank, right? Please explain what was gutted. You seem to have little to no knowledge of this act, but continue to parrot what you’ve heard. Did the banks want to go broke? What “almost brought down the whole economy?”
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Blame the guy in the White House, this is his administration. [/quote]
no no no, this isn’t his administration, he just inherited it from his predecessor… two terms in a row.
[quote] Zeppelin795 wrote:
you have failed to give an answer as to why government run sectors of healthcare in this country operate more efficiently than the private sector.[/quote]
This is useless because you are completely dislodged from the reality we all live in, but I am going to ask once:
How do you define “efficiency” in the context of what I just quoted you as saying? Specifically. I want details. What is the measure or are the measures of the efficiency of which you speak, within the context you are speaking? Name all that apply.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Really,government programs do not cost less? What are the private healthcare costs in this country compared to the government run sectors? And why do other industrialized countries pay about half as much when they have some form of government run healthcare?[/quote]
Government healthcare doesn’t drive our costs. We essentially get reimbursed for services rendered or services that will get rendered. That figure is negotiated somewhere in Washington but you can’t say that the costs are driven in and of themselves by the fact that the government is paying for them.
Our healthcare costs are driven by a lot of factors including unrealistic licensing, cost of medical school, lack of small grassroots type of clinics, a population that isn’t staying healthy, etc.
james
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^
“Premature birth is a factor in more than two-thirds of infant deaths. From 2000 to 2005, the U.S. preterm birth rate went up from 11.6% to 12.7%.”
So 66% of infant mortality is tied to premature birth, what does that have to do with the healthcare system?
[/quote]
Then the question is why is this not happening in other developed countries?[/quote]
I agree, that’s a good question.
Again, though, what does infant mortality have to do with our healthcare system?[/quote]
Poster was alluding to the heavy cost of healthcare is determined by heart disease. What happens to infant mortality rates, is this determined by heart disease? Plenty of things wrong with this country’s healthcare especially considering the amount of money paid for services. To spend this kind of money and be ranked 29th in the world in regards to infant mortality is a travesty.
[/quote]
No he wasn’t. Just never mind. [/quote]
So what is your assessment as to the outrageous costs of U.S. healthcare?[/quote]
I think the fact that we are fat as fucking is one of if not the # 1 reason our health care costs so much.
Infant mortality, what you brought up, has almost zero to do with health care cost espceially since 66% of these death are attributable to premature birth. [/quote]
Is this why we spend twice as much as any other industrialized nation in the world? And even if infant mortality rates are not a significant contributor to high costs that says nothing about the imbalance of money spent vs. out come.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote] Zeppelin795 wrote:
you have failed to give an answer as to why government run sectors of healthcare in this country operate more efficiently than the private sector.[/quote]
This is useless because you are completely dislodged from the reality we all live in, but I am going to ask once:
How do you define “efficiency” in the context of what I just quoted you as saying? Specifically. I want details. What is the measure or are the measures of the efficiency of which you speak, within the context you are speaking? Name all that apply. [/quote]
Cost is a major issue. The fact that the U.S. pays about twice as much as the rest of the world and it is the major cause of BK in this country. You think this is a system that needs to be emulated? Why aren’t the populations of other countries clamouring for U.S. style healthcare?
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Really,government programs do not cost less? What are the private healthcare costs in this country compared to the government run sectors? And why do other industrialized countries pay about half as much when they have some form of government run healthcare?[/quote]
Government healthcare doesn’t drive our costs. We essentially get reimbursed for services rendered or services that will get rendered. That figure is negotiated somewhere in Washington but you can’t say that the costs are driven in and of themselves by the fact that the government is paying for them.
Our healthcare costs are driven by a lot of factors including unrealistic licensing, cost of medical school, lack of small grassroots type of clinics, a population that isn’t staying healthy, etc.
james
[/quote]
OKAy I agree that there are a lot of reasons for bad health. This doesn’t answer the question, what about the rest of the planet? Is the U.S. alone amongst the rest of the world and that is why we pay twice as much? It has nothing or very little to do with insurance companies and big pharma?
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Really,government programs do not cost less? What are the private healthcare costs in this country compared to the government run sectors? And why do other industrialized countries pay about half as much when they have some form of government run healthcare?[/quote]
Government healthcare doesn’t drive our costs. We essentially get reimbursed for services rendered or services that will get rendered. That figure is negotiated somewhere in Washington but you can’t say that the costs are driven in and of themselves by the fact that the government is paying for them.
Our healthcare costs are driven by a lot of factors including unrealistic licensing, cost of medical school, lack of small grassroots type of clinics, a population that isn’t staying healthy, etc.
james
[/quote]
I agree with this. To add if Washington negotiates (they really dont negotiate but tell them this is what we are going to pay) the price too low then doctors and clinics will stop taking patients with that insurance. This is what is happening in Obamacare. Doctors are tired of the government bringing the price down below a livable wage. See what I did there Zep? The government is the Wal-Mart of Healthcare.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Really,government programs do not cost less? What are the private healthcare costs in this country compared to the government run sectors? And why do other industrialized countries pay about half as much when they have some form of government run healthcare?[/quote]
Government healthcare doesn’t drive our costs. We essentially get reimbursed for services rendered or services that will get rendered. That figure is negotiated somewhere in Washington but you can’t say that the costs are driven in and of themselves by the fact that the government is paying for them.
Our healthcare costs are driven by a lot of factors including unrealistic licensing, cost of medical school, lack of small grassroots type of clinics, a population that isn’t staying healthy, etc.
james
[/quote]
I agree with this. To add if Washington negotiates (they really dont negotiate but tell them this is what we are going to pay) the price too low then doctors and clinics will stop taking patients with that insurance. This is what is happening in Obamacare. Doctors are tired of the government bringing the price down below a livable wage. See what I did there Zep? The government is the Wal-Mart of Healthcare.
[/quote]
Why are the rest of the industrialized countries paying about half as much as we do? Why aren’t other countries driving their population into BK?