Ok, Republicans. We give up!!!

[Cainad (dec.)]

Also, people like my uncle who oppose government-run healthcare are also the sort of people who won't pay for their own disabled sister's health insurance despite having a net worth of over a million dollars.

i know that your not saying that since your uncle is a rich asshole and he opposes gov run healthcare, that all (or even most!) of those that oppose gov run healthcare are rich assholes like your uncle?...
so what are you getting at there?

That if there were a lot of wealthy people who were generous enough to pay for the healthcare of the less-rich, they would.

They don't. Unless you've got a plan to make the wealthy a whole hell of a lot more charitable than they are now, people giving out of the goodness of their hearts isn't going to fix the problem.

[Cainad (dec.)]

The healthcare situation, I think, is one that betrays the inherent flaws in the 'capitalistic' society. The claim is that the market will provide... yet, we didn't see the market provide here... Any time in the past 20 years the Market could have come up with a solution and pushed for legislation to cover it... Healthcare Co-Ops on a per city basis, Basic healthcarre packages that covered emergencies and only necessary stuff... but instead 'the market' was focused on profit, to the point that the health care industry looked for ways NOT to pay for healthcare, in order to have more profit.

Right.  this has me curious.  if there is a market there (and there certainly is) for better coverage, then why hasn't it emerged?  Although i am ignorant of the answer, i would be willing to wager that it is because of legislative interference bought by the crappy existing system....  That isn't capitalism.  that is fascism.
am i incorrect in my wager?

I would say so. Because in order for an insurance company to maximize their profits (as any competently-run for-profit business does), they have to find as many reasons as possible to not pay out. The only government interference involved is that these companies can hire lawyers to argue that they shouldn't have to pay out for less than the cost of paying out.

I guess my views on the matter are that if a citizenry of a country are healthy and educated, that I'll be living in a more tolerant, more interesting, less violent society.

I'll gladly pay taxes to make that happen.

i savagely prefer the onus of responsibility to rest on the individual, knowing full well that, given human nature, society as a whole will be less tolerant, and more violent.  (i would argue the 'interesting' point)

Having loads and loads of people who spend their entire lives struggling to keep themselves and their families alive is only 'interesting' insofar as it provides a backdrop for a dramatic narrative about making the situation better.

[LMNO]

And you get movies like The Rainmaker.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The healthcare situation, I think, is one that betrays the inherent flaws in the 'capitalistic' society. The claim is that the market will provide... yet, we didn't see the market provide here... Any time in the past 20 years the Market could have come up with a solution and pushed for legislation to cover it... Healthcare Co-Ops on a per city basis, Basic healthcarre packages that covered emergencies and only necessary stuff... but instead 'the market' was focused on profit, to the point that the health care industry looked for ways NOT to pay for healthcare, in order to have more profit.

Right.  this has me curious.  if there is a market there (and there certainly is) for better coverage, then why hasn't it emerged?  Although i am ignorant of the answer, i would be willing to wager that it is because of legislative interference bought by the crappy existing system....  That isn't capitalism.  that is fascism.
am i incorrect in my wager?

Yes, because Insurance is a bad game for profit... and the market runs on profit. People WILL get sick and in today's society, Sick = Lots and Lots of Money. The only way you MAKE money in the insurance game is to:

1) Insure healthy people who aren't likely to get sick a lot.
2) Don't isnure people who Are likely to get sick (pre-existing condition etc).
3) Try not to pay out too much when someone DOES get sick.

A corporation has enough people that they can balance sick vs healthy to a profit, though even then (and I speak from personal experience) the Insurance company will work very hard to pay as little as possible and you'll find (even with the good insurance I have here) that suddenly "that's not covered" gets added to "this is your deductable" and thousands of dollars still leave your pocket.

Insuring a Co-Op of random citizens is likely to have more 'less healthy' people, than a corporation. Thus it would be much less profitable.

In the end, I think health care is simply an area where profit shouldn't be the driving factor. If profit isn't the driving factor... then it doesn't get served by the Market, as it exists in todays society.

I don't think you're being evil or selfish, hell, I know where you're coming from... I don't trust the government to do anything. However, the existing system is broken, very, very broken. The existing system is corrupt, Cigna and their cronies have engaged in all sorts of nasty practices and thats towards the people that HAVE insurance. Let alone the poor sods that have none. If the government were trying to force a single healthcare system for everyone, I would see that as a harsh solution, but an optional system for people that need it seems entirely reasonable to me.

And in the end, if abortion, birth control pills and/or end of life consults aren't covered, thats still better than nothing.

[LMNO]

The healthcare situation, I think, is one that betrays the inherent flaws in the 'capitalistic' society. The claim is that the market will provide... yet, we didn't see the market provide here... Any time in the past 20 years the Market could have come up with a solution and pushed for legislation to cover it... Healthcare Co-Ops on a per city basis, Basic healthcarre packages that covered emergencies and only necessary stuff... but instead 'the market' was focused on profit, to the point that the health care industry looked for ways NOT to pay for healthcare, in order to have more profit.

Right.  this has me curious.  if there is a market there (and there certainly is) for better coverage, then why hasn't it emerged?  Although i am ignorant of the answer, i would be willing to wager that it is because of legislative interference bought by the crappy existing system....  That isn't capitalism.  that is fascism.
am i incorrect in my wager?

Or is it?  

"Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor."

Nothing in that definition says that the owners can't game the system to provide themselves a stronger foothold in the market to make more money.  In fact, the best position for a capitalist company to be in is a monopoly.  So, the health care industry does what it can to make itself a monopoly and get away with it.  The current situation is completely in line with Capitalist ideas.

[LMNO]

The government is probably one of the worst entities to try to manage a huge system like healthcare, but its got to be better than Cigna, United and the rest of the blood sucking assholes out there promoting the Slave Free Market

My father worked for the federal government.  As such, he got the federal healthcare program.  That's the one that all federal employees get, the janitor and the senator.

Well, turns out he got cancer.  Sucks, yeah?

Well, the government run program worked perfectly.  He was able to go to Sloan-Kettering, go through treatment, have a bone marrow stem cell transplant (that was actually really cool.  They took some of his (clean)marrow, then nuked the fuck out of him, destroying all the existing bone marrow, then injected the bone marrow cells back into his blood stream, which worked their way back into the bone and grew new bone marrow). 

The total cost of treatment was probably close to a million dollars, without health insurance.  But with the fed program, they didn't even have to mortgage their house.

He's now in the back yard, at 68, chopping down trees.  Literally. 

I'd like to thank all the taxpayers in the US for saving my father's life.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The government is probably one of the worst entities to try to manage a huge system like healthcare, but its got to be better than Cigna, United and the rest of the blood sucking assholes out there promoting the Slave Free Market

My father worked for the federal government.  As such, he got the federal healthcare program.  That's the one that all federal employees get, the janitor and the senator.

Well, turns out he got cancer.  Sucks, yeah?

Well, the government run program worked perfectly.  He was able to go to Sloan-Kettering, go through treatment, have a bone marrow stem cell transplant (that was actually really cool.  They took some of his (clean)marrow, then nuked the fuck out of him, destroying all the existing bone marrow, then injected the bone marrow cells back into his blood stream, which worked their way back into the bone and grew new bone marrow). 

The total cost of treatment was probably close to a million dollars, without health insurance.  But with the fed program, they didn't even have to mortgage their house.

He's now in the back yard, at 68, chopping down trees.  Literally. 

I'd like to thank all the taxpayers in the US for saving my father's life.

[PopeTom]

I'd like to thank all the taxpayers in the US for saving my father's life.

You're welcome, now could you send him over to clean out my gutters?

[Sir Squid Diddimus]

The government is probably one of the worst entities to try to manage a huge system like healthcare, but its got to be better than Cigna, United and the rest of the blood sucking assholes out there promoting the Slave Free Market

My father worked for the federal government.  As such, he got the federal healthcare program.  That's the one that all federal employees get, the janitor and the senator.

Well, turns out he got cancer.  Sucks, yeah?

Well, the government run program worked perfectly.  He was able to go to Sloan-Kettering, go through treatment, have a bone marrow stem cell transplant (that was actually really cool.  They took some of his (clean)marrow, then nuked the fuck out of him, destroying all the existing bone marrow, then injected the bone marrow cells back into his blood stream, which worked their way back into the bone and grew new bone marrow). 

The total cost of treatment was probably close to a million dollars, without health insurance.  But with the fed program, they didn't even have to mortgage their house.

He's now in the back yard, at 68, chopping down trees.  Literally. 

I'd like to thank all the taxpayers in the US for saving my father's life.

I like these stories. Where the people live.

[Kai]

I'm gonna come right out and say that I'm a dirty fucking socialist hippy bastard who thinks everyone in my community deserves adequate health care whether they can afford it or not and I am more than willing to front part of that bill via my taxes, knowing that I'll benefit when everyone benefits from good health and education, and that anyone who disagrees with me can go live like a hermit somewhere becoming of the selfish narcissistic antisocial bastards that they are. Or fucking kill me.

[singer]

-that last sentence.  are you saying the hospitals will charge a different rate to those that have insurance than those that don't? 

That's almost exactly what they do now. They do not "charge" a different rate... but they accept a different amount for payment.

Look at any  insurance company "explanation of benefits" document that comes to the insured after a medical bill has been submitted for payment.  The bill will have a column for Billed Amount, and another column for "Allowed amount" (that's what the insurance company is willing to pay), and another column for "Deductible amount, and a final column for "Amount you owe".

The Insurance company has already negotiated an agreement to accept the lesser figure on the difference between "Billed amount" and "Allowed amount" with the provider... and they have already established the "Deductible Amount" with you per coverage contract.  Assuming your medical need was on the 126 page of "covered procedures" the insurance company provided you along with your handy 26 digit group coverage insurance card there will be no difference between the last two columns....

However.... if you are uninsured, you get a bill from the hospital... with the "billed Amount".  They have no negotiated agreement with you, private payer citizen... so you get charged an entirely different (and greater... sometimes MUCH greater)... amount than the Third Party payer citizen.

This particular practice is a big part of what "broke" the system to begin with.

[Cain]

There are things such as non-market goods.  Even capitalist philosophers like Hayek are willing to admit this.  They might argue over what constitutes a non-market good, but in theory, they acknowledge its existence, as a proposition.

Personally, I think any argument based on charity is wishful thinking, because the sort of community which lends itself to charity doesn't really exist anymore.  In classical Athens, if you got robbed, then your neighbours would help you fight off the robber, or even replace items they stole, out of generosity, as well as a sense of community and honour.  That sort of culture exists only very rarely in a hyper-individualised, industrial society.  Some would even argue it is necessary to destroy that sort of altruistic society in order to build a modern capitalist system (the meeting point of Karl Polyani, Ayn Rand and Karl Marx). 

Also, there are likely economic arguments for universal health care.  How many hours are lost each year to bad health in the USA, due to people not being able to afford care?  If the tax burden is mostly placed on individual payments, and not coporate tax, how much more would companies have in their budgets, to put towards job creation and industry expansion?  And so on and so forth.

And of course, there is the moral argument.  Namely that any society which thinks people should be left to suffer and possibly die due to lack of money, isn't really much of a society at all.

Combine the points, and I feel that is a fairly solid argument for some form of universal healthcare, be it the French system, which could probably be adapted to America with minimal problems, or the more radical British form, with the NHS.

[Elder Iptuous]

That's almost exactly what they do now. They do not "charge" a different rate... but they accept a different amount for payment.
...
However.... if you are uninsured, you get a bill from the hospital... with the "billed Amount".  They have no negotiated agreement with you, private payer citizen... so you get charged an entirely different (and greater... sometimes MUCH greater)... amount than the Third Party payer citizen.
...
This particular practice is a big part of what "broke" the system to begin with.

That, obviously, needs to be addressed.  So, what i'm hearing, is that the costs are rising overall because of uninsured patients not paying at all.  yet they charge a higher rate to the uninsured than they do to the insurance companies because there is no negotiated price point before hand.  it can be assumed that the procedure done at the insured price point is still profitable to some amount, otherwise, they would not do it at all.  So why wouldn't they accept an 'allowed amount' from the uninsured (that is still profitable to some level), rather than receive nothing at all?  i asked this question to someone pushing for the reform, and got no coherent reply....

...
Personally, I think any argument based on charity is wishful thinking, because the sort of community which lends itself to charity doesn't really exist anymore.  In classical Athens, if you got robbed, then your neighbours would help you fight off the robber, or even replace items they stole, out of generosity, as well as a sense of community and honour.  That sort of culture exists only very rarely in a hyper-individualised, industrial society.

I didn't realize how lucky i was to live among family and friends of this sort.  perhaps the problem is a cultural deficiency, rather than a legislative one?

Also, there are likely economic arguments for universal health care.  How many hours are lost each year to bad health in the USA, due to people not being able to afford care?  If the tax burden is mostly placed on individual payments, and not coporate tax, how much more would companies have in their budgets, to put towards job creation and industry expansion?  And so on and so forth.

And for those of us willing to sacrifice some efficiency at the altar of liberty?

And of course, there is the moral argument.  Namely that any society which thinks people should be left to suffer and possibly die due to lack of money, isn't really much of a society at all.

I would argue that the society that must be legislatively coerced to do the right thing isn't really much of a society at all. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

That's almost exactly what they do now. They do not "charge" a different rate... but they accept a different amount for payment.
...
However.... if you are uninsured, you get a bill from the hospital... with the "billed Amount".  They have no negotiated agreement with you, private payer citizen... so you get charged an entirely different (and greater... sometimes MUCH greater)... amount than the Third Party payer citizen.
...
This particular practice is a big part of what "broke" the system to begin with.

That, obviously, needs to be addressed.  So, what i'm hearing, is that the costs are rising overall because of uninsured patients not paying at all.  yet they charge a higher rate to the uninsured than they do to the insurance companies because there is no negotiated price point before hand.  it can be assumed that the procedure done at the insured price point is still profitable to some amount, otherwise, they would not do it at all.  So why wouldn't they accept an 'allowed amount' from the uninsured (that is still profitable to some level), rather than receive nothing at all?  i asked this question to someone pushing for the reform, and got no coherent reply....

Dunno, but I watched Sjaantze go through bankruptcy because of Medical bills that the hospital had no inclination to lower to a payable amount. In fact, since she lived in the same house as me... they said she didn't qualify for any help at all. Why? Because that's the system I guess. She tried several times to work out some kind of payments, but in the end had to declare bankruptcy.

...
Personally, I think any argument based on charity is wishful thinking, because the sort of community which lends itself to charity doesn't really exist anymore.  In classical Athens, if you got robbed, then your neighbours would help you fight off the robber, or even replace items they stole, out of generosity, as well as a sense of community and honour.  That sort of culture exists only very rarely in a hyper-individualised, industrial society.

I didn't realize how lucky i was to live among family and friends of this sort.  perhaps the problem is a cultural deficiency, rather than a legislative one?

I don't think anyone is claiming its a legislative deficiency, it seems to be a cultural deficiency that is being addressed through legislation... cause changing culture is not exactly something the Fed can do... at least with the legislation they can help the huge numbers of people that desperately need it.

Also, there are likely economic arguments for universal health care.  How many hours are lost each year to bad health in the USA, due to people not being able to afford care?  If the tax burden is mostly placed on individual payments, and not coporate tax, how much more would companies have in their budgets, to put towards job creation and industry expansion?  And so on and so forth.

And for those of us willing to sacrifice some efficiency at the altar of liberty?

The alter of liberty? What sort of liberty is risked here? The liberty to die with huge bills? The liberty to choose between paying your bills, eating and buying the medicine you need to live?

I love liberty, but that seems like bullshit to me.

And of course, there is the moral argument.  Namely that any society which thinks people should be left to suffer and possibly die due to lack of money, isn't really much of a society at all.

I would argue that the society that must be legislatively coerced to do the right thing isn't really much of a society at all. 

Welcome to America... are you new here?

[Triple Zero]

Did you just call him a "liberian"? 

i did that cause TBH i never remember which one is libertarian and which is liberal and I didnt want to make that part of the discussion so I did it extra-wrong on purpose