Healthcare Bill Discussion
- Thread starter Bacon Boy
- Start date
I know my last post would take up a lot of time to watch through, but I do suggest looking at some of the videos if you are interested (for both topics - monopolies and health care). There are many sad stories about people who need health care and don't have access to it. This is a very serious issue, but it is not an argument that supports government intervention in the system. I have used the stories to support the opposite side. We both know that health care is too expensive, but the real question is why? I think if we look back at history we can see that it is because of government manipulations in the market. There is no longer a doctor to patient relationship and there is no price/quality shopping. This naturally makes price and quality go down. In the example you used- if this was before government propped up the insurance companies, he would be able to receive care without going through another company (insurance company). This kind of relationship between doctor and patient is almost nonexistent today. Waiting lists are also a natural effect- that's just supply and demand.
As far as monopolies go, this is a different topic (and much less discussed in the mainstream) so I don't want to get too carried away on the subject. But like I said above there is no proof that a monopoly has existed or can exist in a free market. You can't assume the company can buy up all of it's competition because even large companies have limits. After the price gets too high, there will be higher demand for the same product at a lower price. When there is high demand for something, other businesses can compete and the increased supply decreases the price. As a consumers we are more likely to buy the cheapest and highest quality product. The company with high prices will have to decrease their prices. Simply buying out all competition isn't possible. How much money can you offer to a company that is more appealing to consumers (and therefore a better company)? How many people can you buy out, the entire world? I know that Keynsian economics doesn't teach this. But my argument is that Keynsian economics is wrong and I think the recent economic collapse is proof of this. Government laws prevent businesses from forming (or at least make it more difficult). That's why they help create monopolies.
As far as monopolies go, this is a different topic (and much less discussed in the mainstream) so I don't want to get too carried away on the subject. But like I said above there is no proof that a monopoly has existed or can exist in a free market. You can't assume the company can buy up all of it's competition because even large companies have limits. After the price gets too high, there will be higher demand for the same product at a lower price. When there is high demand for something, other businesses can compete and the increased supply decreases the price. As a consumers we are more likely to buy the cheapest and highest quality product. The company with high prices will have to decrease their prices. Simply buying out all competition isn't possible. How much money can you offer to a company that is more appealing to consumers (and therefore a better company)? How many people can you buy out, the entire world? I know that Keynsian economics doesn't teach this. But my argument is that Keynsian economics is wrong and I think the recent economic collapse is proof of this. Government laws prevent businesses from forming (or at least make it more difficult). That's why they help create monopolies.
You don't see why people care about staying alive? <_<
Most people did want some kind of reform! In fact many are upset with this one because it hasn't gone far enough, but when you have an entire party who just absolutely refuses to let the other get anything done it is kind of difficult. I can't stand the polls that simply ask whether you agree with the current bill or not because it makes it appear as if most don't want any reform at all, and that is not true. Numbers can fool you, and more importantly many people don't know what to do. The people voting in these polls are the ones extremely polarized about it.Bacon Boy said:
I do love Colbert's semi-recent episode on numbers in polls.
"Do you think this unscientific poll is scientific?" Most said they did, cause that is what is expected of the people who watch Colbert! Same with most polls.
Why else would a party get into office on a platform that was fairly focused on health care... and I really don't see myself changing my mind, nor do I see myself changing the minds of the people I'm actually arguing with. Fact is this country is still polarized and will probably stay that way because different people see different solutions to problems, different problems, and different hurdles in the way at any given time. Then we selectively choose the ones that proved correct from our guesses to prove to ourselves that we know what we are talking about when we don't know jack. There is the country in a nutshell no one really knows what will happen but likes to think they do, and so start taking it as a personal attack when disagreed with. I know I do it too.
All I know is I wanted universal health care to pass, because we are the last industrialized nation that hasn't and are only just above Cuba in rankings. That and I was happy that my Mom can stop worrying about me getting my own health insurance at least until I've got a job that can either pay for it or gives it to me, or until I'm 26. I also know that many countries have universal health care, and it hurt them less than we've been by our current system. / sigh /collapse /I need a scotch.
Cuba has socialized (universal) health care. (see my stossel videos in my other post for more on Cuba too)
(and my above post for the actual issue)
Except for a copy of ET for the Atari.iFly said:
Anyway, I'm glad that some form of healthcare reform was passed. Millions of Americans (including my family, my father is currently unemployed) have been without healthcare for a long time. While I'm not sure that this bill is perfect and is what the country needs, it is a step in the right direction. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out, which is something that's been common in American history.
To whoever said the poll numbers said people didn't want reform, I'm going to agree with Sporge. You have to realize many people want reform (or have no idea what they want) but are unhappy with the current bill. There are many things that the current bill can't do because of Republicans in Congress constantly blocking any sort of reform or anything that would make Obama look good.
Most countries have some form of government regulation today. The US did long before this bill passed as well. Most governments today attempt to control everything- from health care, to food, drugs, speech, water pressure in your house, etc. But I don't think you are going to help your argument with this. Economies all around the world are collapsing and some areas that have been socialized for years are turning to private options. Since government control is everywhere today, we can look at how much it is actually controlling. The economic freedom index rates which economies have the least regulation. http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx As you can see, this list is also a good representation of how prosperous the economies are. My argument is that it's not a coincidence- free markets (liberty in general) result in prosperity. Government regulation results in poverty. We can also look at history. Compare when the price (and lack of quality) in health care began rising to when government began intervening. But this argument is not just about health care. It can be applied to anything. The most recent example in the US is the housing boom and bust. Education is also a good example.Sporge27 said:
Lastly, I want to bring up the portions of the health care system that have DECREASED in price and increased in quality. Something like LAISIK surgery. Why has this part of the system been so successful? There's no government intervention manipulating supply and demand.
I honestly wasn't making a point fact was I actually couldn't think of any.
However I do think government intervention has helped in many areas. Especially involving civil rights, things like women's suffrage. That wouldn't be here without the government going against popular opinion. Many technologies wouldn't be near as advanced it there wasn't an occasional push by the government. I just can't see all the government as evil as some do. There are many things I am absolutely glad to have provided, many things that make sense for large groups of people to help pay for like roads, or the post office. There isn't even a public option in the bill, so yes there is some control involved, but not really even run yet.
However I do think government intervention has helped in many areas. Especially involving civil rights, things like women's suffrage. That wouldn't be here without the government going against popular opinion. Many technologies wouldn't be near as advanced it there wasn't an occasional push by the government. I just can't see all the government as evil as some do. There are many things I am absolutely glad to have provided, many things that make sense for large groups of people to help pay for like roads, or the post office. There isn't even a public option in the bill, so yes there is some control involved, but not really even run yet.
Not everything the government does is evil... most of it is just stupidity from unexperienced power-mongers. And don't forget, it was people like Martin Luther King Jr., not the government that helped a lot with civil rights.Sporge27 said:
Well I believe government's only job is to protect rights but I think they actually do the exact opposite. On civil rights, the book Dredd Scott's Revenge is a good recap on the US government being racist. In some ways they help with rights, but I don't think they help more than hurt. What about when the federal government forced northerns to give black people over to slave owners looking for their escaped slaves? There are many examples like this. Women's suffrage isn't really a good example in my opinion because voting itself is a government function. It was the government that denied women the right to vote in the first place.Sporge27 said:
And I don't think technologies are better off with government intervention. I think they are far worse off because of the extreme pressures they put on businesses. Technology comes from profit motive / business.
I can
Gnome
the poster formerly known as AverageSean
You guys are breaking your own rules again.Jeremy said:Well I believe government's only job is to protect rights but I think they actually do the exact opposite. On civil rights, the book Dredd Scott's Revenge is a good recap on the US government being racist. In some ways they help with rights, but I don't think they help more than hurt. What about when the federal government forced northerns to give black people over to slave owners looking for their escaped slaves? There are many examples like this. Women's suffrage isn't really a good example in my opinion because voting itself is a government function. It was the government that denied women the right to vote in the first place.Sporge27 said:
And I don't think technologies are better off with government intervention. I think they are far worse off because of the extreme pressures they put on businesses. Technology comes from profit motive / business.
I can
?Gnome said:
It's not a rule that you can't debate politics. That rule was deleted like two years ago. It's still a rule that you can't debate religion though. Way too many chances for people to be offended in those debates, I'd rather see it kept in PM.
And I hope people don't get offended in this thread... I don't really like debating politics here because I'd rather look like a neutral admin, but I can't resist lol. There's no reason why we can't all talk about it seriously though.
Really the government has done good things and bad things... but I think the main thing to remember is that it is a tool in the end to maintain order... but order is fairly objective, what to keep in order and such. I've really lost all will to debate by now, just getting really philosophical in my head.
A situation in which 0 government control I cannot see working any better than one with total control. There should be limits to at the very least stop stupid people from doing stupid things. There also should be freedoms. Really a happy medium is required and why there are so many debates about things because different people see this point at different places.
A situation in which 0 government control I cannot see working any better than one with total control. There should be limits to at the very least stop stupid people from doing stupid things. There also should be freedoms. Really a happy medium is required and why there are so many debates about things because different people see this point at different places.
One of my problems with this Bill is that it makes it Mandatory for people to have Health Insurance. The govt is making insurance mandatory by pinning a fine of $2000 dollars if you do not get health insurance. Isn't this Unconstitutional? If people do not want insurance (or can't even afford it!), is forcing people by putting a fine as a punishment to get insurrance going to solve much?
I'm more worried about where all the money is going to come from to fund this...
The Health Care bill might look like a good idea on paper... but with a ONE TRILLION dollar total, if I was a congressman I'd offer to spend the money of the people on something a little wiser; Something that the majority of the public wants, and something that it is not split on.
I wish we all did have free healthcare... but not if it's gonna cost the public an arm and a leg at the same time. The Government hasn't exactly proven that it could do well with our nation's money in the past...
Except for Hamilton.
Go Alex! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton
I'm more worried about where all the money is going to come from to fund this...
That's how much money we don't have! And annually, the United States is only making enough to pay for what it produces. So we make enough money just to get by, while our national debt steadily increases. We don't need to be spending any more money then we have to. The Government has to keep borrowing money from other countries to pay for these kinds of things. We can't keep borrowing money for things that might put us into even more debt.
The Health Care bill might look like a good idea on paper... but with a ONE TRILLION dollar total, if I was a congressman I'd offer to spend the money of the people on something a little wiser; Something that the majority of the public wants, and something that it is not split on.
I wish we all did have free healthcare... but not if it's gonna cost the public an arm and a leg at the same time. The Government hasn't exactly proven that it could do well with our nation's money in the past...
Except for Hamilton.
Go Alex! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton
I've agreed with everything sporge has said, so I'm not going to re-post it. 65% of Americans supported the bill, when it had the public option. They weren't against reform, they were against the very weak bill they passed just now.Sporge27 said:
@Poot- You have a good point. We have a <big><big><big>huge</big></big></big> national debt. That's why I support a certain type of Universal Health Care. It's a single-payer system. In this system, everyone pays the same percent of their income to a fund. This fund is separate from the budget and debt. Since few people are sick at any given time, the healthy pay for the sick, distributing costs so they're inexpensive.
