Topic: . - page 36. (Read 46178 times)

Probably the simplest example, is that if I put you in a medically-induced coma, and stick a feeding tube down your throat, I can increase your lifespan while reducing your standard of living.  That's the basic concept.  It just so happens that socialized medicine incentivizes this.

As for Obamacare, I say this recent ruling that it's valid because it's a tax still scuttled the bill in it's entirety.  Even if Obama wins another term and the repubs fail to retake the Senate, the court's ruling that it's a tax despite the government's claims also makes it unconstitutional simply because it wasn't passed in the manner that a tax must be passed according to the Constitution itself.  The Constitution explicitly says that all revenue (taxes) must originate in the House.  This means that 1) the senate cannot initiate the bill and 2) the senate can only pass or deny the version that the house provides it or any amendments that the senate approves must return to the house for a revote.  Obamacare was passed via 'reconsiliation', which is a method of syncronising bills, but is invalid for a new tax.  Also, the version that was 'deemed passed' during reconsiliation was the senate version.  So as a tax, it was passed unconstitutionally under two different arguments right there.  Even if it never gets that far, a repeal of a tax cannot be filibustered in the senate; so if the repubs take back the senate and keep what they have in the house (something that I consider a reasonable likelyhood), the dems in minority cannot stop the bill with a filibuster.  Obviously Obama would veto it, but it would be futile because a veto overide requires a 2/3rds majority vote of both houses of congress in a joint session.  In other words, assuming the repubs keep their numbers in the house & a single vote majority in the senate, the repubs would have the supermajority in a joint session.

This thing is over and done, it won't last long enough for the provisions to even begin.  It will last long enough for both sides to make huge political hay about it though.

There are notable exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking whenever the private sector screws something up, someone loses their investment and then some other company comes in to fix it.  That does not mean that government engineers can't build a hydroplant.  Still, there is no reason to believe that government did a better job than a private project could have in the same location operating under the same conditions.

I live in Louisville, Kentucky; a city that has a (relatively small) hydroplant literally at the downtown riverfront.  There is a natural waterfall here that was partially developed into a lock & dam, and the dam part includes a 10 megawatt hydroplant.  It's not remotely enough to power the city anymore, but when it was built it powered everything.  It's technically owned by the government, since it's part of the locks, which is government infrastructure.  For all practical purposes, though, it's maintained by a private contractor for the local power company.



Indeed, but most of those great wonders were built against the will of those who paid for it.  Even the Hoover Dam couldn't get a majority of the taxpayers to think that it was a good idea, because the vast majority of those who contributed were (and are) beyond the range of benefiting from it.

I'll let Wikipedia do the talking:

Life expectancy is a factor in Standard of living. It is not the only factor, but it can be expected that an increase in all the other factors would not decrease one, nor would an increase in one decrease any of the other factors.

So, enlighten me, if you would, how an increased life expectancy decreases the standard of living in an area?

You're the one asserting a positive correlation between lifespan and living standards.  Explain the mechanism behind that.

I expect insurance costs to increase a lot over time, which will prompt more regulation to once again "fix the free market".

I would love to see some states nullify this. My state probably won't, unfortunately.

Ooooookay.... care to explain your assertion, then?

Wrong.

These two statements are incompatible. Not that I disagree with your statement that it will be a disaster, but if living standards decrease, lifespans can likewise be expected to shrink.

It will be a disaster, causing lifespans to increase, costs to skyrocket, and living standards of the 99% to plummet.

Basically, take a look at the UK.  That's the future, except with more fat people.

I do live in the UK London and I have horrible story with the NHS in my whole family. Not just me.

It really sucks compared to other EU countries I have lived in.

Do you even live in England?  The NHS is certainly not a monopoly.  As you say, because the NHS exists and its so efficient, private medicine can't compete for Joe Bloggs' hernia operation.  But if you have money/insurance and have special requirement, most every city has private hospitals who do a fine trade.

Last time I read about this, Obamacare was only mandatory for those up to age 35. That was like 2 years ago though.

We have similar problems here also(mainly with the waiting list). Our problem is an administration problem, because our structure of management is not efficient and it creates many bottlenecks everywhere.

An example? When I got sick with mononucleosis(really sick!), in the hospital waiting room, I talked with another guy. The dude was here, at the hospital to see a doctor, because he needed a doctor to sign a paper for a driver license (for trucks or something). He was refused everywhere(because his case was not urgent), and going at the hospital was the only place he could go without getting send back at home to get his form signed by a doctor.

Quality of service is good though, I can hardly say anything against it. It's only sad that case like the one I said above are somewhat common. Private sector usually is more careful with its administration than public sector.

Clayton Christensen explained the problem well in one of his books. With public health care, if you have the choice between a medicine that cure 80% of the time and cost 10$, or a medicine that cure 99% and cost 1000$, public health care will, by default, use the 1000$ instead of the 10$ one. It's also a political problem, because the "taxpayers" want to be cured and use the 1000$. With only a few administrative tweaks and rules, and with political balls of steels, you could save a couple of thousand dollars simply by using cheap medicine first.

You don't have this problem with private sector, because you pay from your pocket, and they offer you the choice. There's a good chance you'll try the 10$ first.

Overall, whether the governement or the private sector manage this, it's important to define rules and try to stay efficient. Governement control is not necessarily bad, it's only a different form of management. Private sector can also create complete shit and wreck everything, just look at the economic crisis of 2008.


I strongly disagree. Our state has the monopoly of electricity here, and we've been rocking the world with Hydro-Quebec since the 60s. It's a national gem with great reputation through the world, and was a steroid shot in our ass for our social, economic and technological development.

State monopoly can create wonders, but it's probably the hardest thing to do right.

My basic understanding is if you make under 133% of the federal poverty level, which works out to about $15k, you qualify for medicaid. If you make between 133% and 400%, there are a series of price caps on what you will have to pay.



Government gets to define/calculate Poverty Level, CPI, GDP, Actuarial Value, and probably more. I think this will end up another big ponzi, people who need medical care now will see much more benefit than those 40 years down the road after each of these terms have been "adjusted" to make the books look right.

Are there any good infographics on this floating around?

The part that I don't understand and if I understood correctly is that soon, citizens will be fined if they do not have healthcare. If ones do not have healthcare, meaning they cannot afford it, you think fines are gonna be any better by being fined. I'm already suited up to be fined, my credit is fucked as is because of the shit healthcare system they run here, hospital and medical bills past on to credit collection.

I believe the entire thing is a clusterfuck and always been and always will be till this place implodes.

Canadians might have a 3 month wait list for to see a free doctor, least they don't get ignored and suffer like most of the americans do today, like myself including as one that is suffering tremendously as an american today and it's not a cold or life threatening but serious pain 24/7, and I have to deal with it.

The govt is nothing but scumbag *snip*.

Edit:
I seen a documentary by Micheal Moore, showing paris gets complete free healthcare, not only you do not pay for your prescriptions, they pay "you" the change of the paid for prescriptions that France paid for.

You really don't understand ...

NHS is state monopoly on healthcare.

State monopoly on ANYTHING is crappy, including healthcare or money creation.

If NHS did not exist then private healthcare + free market would be much better, cheaper, more effective than crappy taxpayer NHS forced system that is pure FAIL for patients.

Because NHS exists then private can't compete and has to demand 500 GBP for a blood test just to stay in business.

If you really think the NHS is crappy, go private!  Its cheaper to go private here than it is in the US.

This here pretty much says it all: http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

IMO, Obamacare is just another step on a long road into hell. Shouldn't be long now.

Will ruin the healthcare system in the US.

I am in the crappy UK and the NHS system is seriously messed up here.

It is true : you get what you pay for ! Crap doctors, huge waiting lists, can't do a blood test unless it is "needed" etc.

Healthcare managed by government = total POS; the government ruins everything mate !

I feel sorry for you in the US now you are forced to pay into the public healthcare scam ...