patrick.net

NO that's silly those that work in the Federal Heathcare system should be responsible for health. It shouldn't be anyone's business but theirs and yours.

Ironman says

Except Obamacare put 3/4 of new enrollees on Medicaid, significantly EXPANDING the number of people on FREE, unlimited healthcare (that YOU'RE paying for).

You don't get it.
You are paying for them, one way or an other.

Ironman says

Why should OTHER people have to contribute to the healthcare of people who VOLUNTARILY destroyed their bodies by stuffing their pie holes and NOT taking care of themselves??

That average people have limited will power is obvious and unchangeable.
Of course there are PhDs studying every ways to make food addictive and how to trick idiots into consuming gallons of sodas.
But of course you don't have a problem with that: it drives profit.
So you can't complain about the consequences.

Dan8267 says

Put old people on icebergs and set them to sea, and then let global warming take care of the problem.

APCOLYPSEFUCKCARE!!!

Ironman says

Well, finally a truthful statement

You really are incapable of being clever. Aren't you?

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

So, FortWayne, do you feel that you are responsible for the care of others brought on by bad luck? This is not a rhetorical question.

I believe that only bad choices that could have been avoided should not be socialized such as alcoholism, obesity, etc. Reward responsibility, punish irresponsibility. Bad luck isn't irresponsible, it's just shitty so hence it is ok. What does government do? Generally they reward irresponsible behavior, which is why I don't trust our government to get it right.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you, "do you feel that you are responsible for the care of others brought on by bad luck?". It's a valid question.

Unlike you, if I were gay I'd have no problem with it. And frankly, you'd be happier if you just came out of the closet.

Dan8267 says

That's not what I asked you. I asked you, "do you feel that you are responsible for the care of others brought on by bad luck?". It's a valid question.

I see. Well since you asked. I don't feel that it's a must, however I would not be opposed to the idea if it brings benefit to everyone (lowers costs for everyone through pooling). If it makes it cost more for me than I'll be selfish and oppose the idea naturally.

FortWayne says

If it makes it cost more for me than I'll be selfish and oppose the idea naturally.

And that's why you vote Republican. They embody that philosophy.

Funny how the Jesus lovers turn out to be the least compassionate, the most cruel, unforgiving and selfish.

FP says

Funny how the Jesus lovers turn out to be the least compassionate, the most cruel, unforgiving and selfish.

Subjecting people to government run health care(ie single payer) is the most cruel punishment of all.

joeyjojojunior says

FortWayne says

If it makes it cost more for me than I'll be selfish and oppose the idea naturally.

And that's why you vote Republican. They embody that philosophy.

It's because I'm honest about it. You liberals aren't, you want a handout and you want someone else to pay for you. The typical case of have nots wanting the haves to share with them. Not my problem. Try North Korea, where everyone "shares" in sacrifice, if that's the bondage you are looking for.

FortWayne says

If it makes it cost more for me than I'll be selfish and oppose the idea naturally.

Exactly. You are basically a selfish person that does not have any compassion for other people. However, you want to be viewed as a morally outstanding person. This is an internal conflict of interest. You don't actually believe in the teachings of your false god, that you are your brother's keeper and responsible for his well-being, but you want to be perceived as charitable because your god and religion demands it. This is Christian hypocrisy. If your religion actually promoted real morality, you would gladly sacrifice your own wealth for your neighbor.

Not only do you fail to live up to the morality your religion claims to hold dearly, but you lack the wisdom to realize that the practical benefits of socialized medicine far outweigh the costs to you. Because of economies of scale, reduced waste and needless competition, better coordination, and elimination of redundancies, socialized medicine would provide better health care for you at a lower cost. However, because you view economics as a religion with dogma that is unanswerable to empirical testing, you cannot accept this fact.

Your combination of false virtual signally, failure to grasp the mathematical and engineering properties of socialized versus capitalized medicine, and disregard for empirical evidence is why you consistently make foolish and incorrect conclusions. And you will continue to make these mistakes for as long as you treat politics and economics like a religion instead of like a science. You base your entire world view on your emotions rather than on frontal lobe thinking, and that is a failing strategy.

Dan8267 says

You are basically a selfish person that does not have any compassion for other people. However, you want to be viewed as a morally outstanding person. This is an internal conflict of interest. You don't actually believe in the teachings of your false god, that you are your brother's keeper and responsible for his well-being, but you want to be perceived as charitable because your god and religion demands it. This is Christian hypocrisy. If your religion actually promoted real morality, you would gladly sacrifice your own wealth for your neighbor.

Selfish, hardly... I do charitable work. That's not selfish Dan, it's just not being naive like most liberals, about how the world works. God does not require one to blindly sacrifice, god teaches love. Sacrifice isn't the only solution, nor it's always the right one.

Every government imposed "shared sacrifice" society is complete crap hole (North Korea), or already fell apart and rebuilding Capitalism (USSR).

As I said Dan, I'm just honest with myself. You liberals pretend that you have "Virtue" on your side, but you don't.

FortWayne says

I do charitable work.

Hahaha. Yeah, I know.

www.youtube.com/embed/mcdtVD8X1-A

I shouldn't have to be responsible for taking care of any body else's skeevy piss poor DNA, but they should all be responsible for taking care of mine.

Ironman says

Actually Obama did do that in the device industry, my past career, and destroyed the industry. O'Bozo decided to go after the low hanging fruit that was maybe 5% of the Medicare budget because we didn't have a powerful lobby like the physicians and hospitals.

So O'Bozo allowed the hospitals and physicians to bill Medicare like drunken soldiers, but was able to say, "see I reduced costs on necessary medical equipment". What a fucking piker..

You are confused. An excise tax is to raise revenue plain and simple. There isn't any cost reduction involved. Maybe the industry shouldn't have spent $40 million a year lobbying against the tax if they were concerned about profits. So how many medical equipment makers went out of business? I haven't seen that number. How much have sales fallen?

#2, only because this will draw in sick illegal immigrants to the hospital emergency wards, where ICE can set up vetting stations and intercept to deport. ( after treatment, of course)

Single payer which should provide basic medical care with catastrophic cost coverage.
Ability to "buy up" in quality and scheduling of care for those that can afford it. It is a bonus for those in society that produce vs those that don't do shit.
Do away with insurance companies and cap drug prices to pay for the whole goddamn thing.

Dan8267 says

cost savings of socialized medicine

The only reason this is a less than laughable point, is because we have destroyed our healthcare system w intervention already. We need far more free market spice in this soup, not less.

The free market fails miserably in markets with highly inelastic demand, such as health care.

Dan8267 says

Because of economies of scale, reduced waste and needless competition, better coordination, and elimination of redundancies, socialized

This is the promise of every socialized program. Its an evil lie.

joeyjojojunior says

The free market fails miserably in markets with highly inelastic demand, such as health care.

You can't blame free markets for healthcare destruction, given how there isn't anything close to a free market in healthcare.

"You can't blame free markets for healthcare destruction, given how there isn't anything close to a free market in healthcare."

I didn't. I said the free market does horribly in markets with highly inelastic demand, such as health care. So, it seems dubious to think that the free market will help things.

FortWayne says

Selfish, hardly... I do charitable work.

Use carrots to spread religious propaganda doesn't qualify as morality. Deep down in your heart, you hate people. Until you learn to empathize with other people, no virtue signally activity is going to change who you really are.

FortWayne says

You liberals pretend that you have "Virtue" on your side

True virtue comes from what you do, not what others think of you. What matter is what is virtuous, not who is virtuous. That's one point you keep missing.

FortWayne says

Sacrifice isn't the only solution, nor it's always the right one.

And the other point you are missing is that socialized medicine is not a sacrifice on your part. All empirical evidence demonstrates that socialized medicine is a cost savings to you while being more effective. It is in your own selfish interests and the interest of your family that health care is socialized. You just aren't wise enough to accept this despite all the evidence.

WOMEN CONSUME 30% MORE HEALTHCARE SERVICES THAN MEN

CBOEtrader says

The only reason this is a less than laughable point, is because we have destroyed our healthcare system w intervention already. We need far more free market spice in this soup, not less.

The military has fucked up many times. Does that mean we should disband the military?

The police have fucked up many times. Does that mean we should have no police?

This is a complete non-sequitur. The government implements some good polices and some bad policies; therefore, all polices that could possibly be enacted by the government must be bad. This is conservative right logic in a nutshell, and it's obviously wrong.

Instead of looking at whether or not a policy is implement by group A or group B, how about looking at the policy itself? The policy of socialized medicine has worked in other countries much better than the U.S. system. You statement that government policies must fail is empirically false. It is religious dogma, not engineering.

joeyjojojunior says

The free market fails miserably in markets with highly inelastic demand, such as health care.

Correct. The free market works in and only in situations where the following constraints are met.
1. Demand is highly elastic.
2. Substitute goods are readily available.
3. There are few barriers to entry.
4. There are many competitors.

Infrastructure and necessities never meet these constraints, and so free markets utterly fail at them. Free markets are best for luxury goods, electronics, software, low-skill services, restaurants, and similar things that the customer can simply walk away from if unpleased.

CBOEtrader says

You can't blame free markets for healthcare destruction, given how there isn't anything close to a free market in healthcare.

This is also true. We cannot blame free markets for the terrible healthcare system. We have to blame capitalism. The current health care system and the pre-ACA version are both the direct result of capitalism preventing free markets. Capitalists will always undermine free markets because rigged markets are more profitable and profit means everything. Capitalism and free markets are utterly mutually exclusive.

joeyjojojunior says

"You can't blame free markets for healthcare destruction, given how there isn't anything close to a free market in healthcare."

I didn't.

This is also true. Joey didn't make the claim that free markets caused this mess, but rather that free markets won't solve it, and he is correct.

There are huge costs to free markets, which is why we don't use them for sewers, the police, highways, traffic lights, the military, and lots of other things that fall into the categories of infrastructure or necessity. Hell, we don't even use free markets for agriculture. If you wanted more free markets, you should start there by revoking the farm bill and ending all farm subsidies. It's funny how republicans love to subsidize farms.

That's true. Jojo did...

Dan8267 says

This is also true. Joey didn't make the claim that free markets caused this mess,

BlueSardine says

That's true. Jojo did...

You cannot simply assert that. You must show it because it's quite clear to the rest of us that he did not say or even imply that. As such, you are making a straw man.

I said she said it.
You need to read the fine print...

Dan8267 says

You cannot simply assert that. You must show it because it's quite clear to the rest of us that he did not say or even imply that.

Dan8267 says

CBOEtrader says

The only reason this is a less than laughable point, is because we have destroyed our healthcare system w intervention already. We need far more free market spice in this soup, not less.

The military has fucked up many times. Does that mean we should disband the military?

The police have fucked up many times. Does that mean we should have no police?

This is a complete non-sequitur. The government implements some good polices and some bad policies; therefore, all polices that could possibly be enacted by the government must be bad. This is conservative right logic in a nutshell, and it's obviously wrong.

Instead of looking at whether or not a policy is implement by group A or group B, how about looking at the policy itself? The policy of socialized medicine has worked in other countries much better than the U.S. system. You statement that gove...

Straw man much? You consistently take concepts to the extreme. I never said any of this.

You claimed that government could lower healthcare costs. Our empirical evidence suggests the opposite.

CBOEtrader says

Our empirical evidence suggests the opposite.

what??

see any other developed country in the world

"Our empirical evidence suggests the opposite."

Yes, please show that empirical evidence. Because I can show a buttload of evidence that government run health care is orders of magnitude cheaper than the US cluster of a system.

You are just yourself responsible? This aregument put the nail on the coffin on this guy:

https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/5/4/15547364/baumol-cost-disease-explained

joeyjojojunior says

Because I can show a buttload of evidence that government run health care is orders of magnitude cheaper than the US cluster of a system.

Yes, please share. We already have government run healthcare in the US. Our government spends more than per capita on healthcare than all but a tiny handfull of countries. Our current cluster of a system is a perfect example of the mess caused by a lack of a free market.

FP says

see any other developed country in the world

you are mistaken, but please give it a try and show us.

CBOEtrader says

Straw man much? You consistently take concepts to the extreme. I never said any of this.

This is not a straw man A straw man is a fallacy in which a person misrepresents the argument of his opponent. What I did was showed the logical consequence of your reasoning. If your reasoning leads to five conclusions and you disagree with four of them, why should I accept your reasoning?
CBOEtrader says

You claimed that government could lower healthcare costs. Our empirical evidence suggests the opposite.

Socialized medicine empirically provides better health care at lower cost. Here's the evidence.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwin-g-dolan/bernie-health-care-europe_b_9387966.html

Now present your evidence. This is going to be fun. People evidently haven't learned the most important lessons of PatNet, the most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this. Never go in against Dan in an evidence war.