• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Whole Foods and Obamacare


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#1 Connor MacLeod

  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 20 August 2009 - 12:03 AM


Where are the hippies going buy their arugula now?

http://blogs.telegra...at-whole-foods/

I'm coming a bit late to this, but what a hoot: America's - and Britain's - smuggest supermarket, Whole Foods, is facing a boycott by its liberal customers because its CEO, John Mackey, criticised Obamacare in The Wall Street Journal. ABC news carries this quote:

Christine Taylor, a 34-year-old New Jersey shopper, vowed never to step foot in another Whole Foods again.

"I will no longer be shopping at Whole Foods," Taylor told ABCNews.com. "I think a CEO should take care that if he speaks about politics, that his beliefs reflect at least the majority of his clients."

Speaking personally, I feel liberated by Mackey's stance. I quite like the food that liberal-lefties stuff themselves with (a friend of mine in San Francisco coined the phrase "activist butt" to describe the results). Now I can pop down to Whole Foods in Kensington High Street to buy wholemeal muffins knowing that, with every bite, I'm helping to undermine Obama's presidency. Mmm…



#2 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 20 August 2009 - 02:40 AM

I found this, unsigned, on the internet.....

Finally someone has a clue...

"I truly believe that all this is really not just about healthcare reform in this nation. I can smell this enemy like a quick drive past a garbage dump. Its an old familar stench from a familar foe. This is all about trying to make Obama a one-term president. The GOP just needed to find the right vulnerability to try their attack. One that is sure to backfire in their faces. It is the usual attacks by the same media people who carry the underlying voices from the party who has pandered and catered to the special interest groups for decades with their sleaze ball lobbyists’. People who have perhaps tarnished our political terrain permanently.


As the healthcare reform debate rages, the main issue is getting lost on too many people. There are proposals in the House and Senate so why don’t you go and read them and try and understand them instead of parroting Republican media stooges?


People always say, ‘prove your sources’. I will show you two very big one’s, that each and every one of you should know and it should be used as a microcosm of what the HC industry is as well as the corporate drug business is at present with their lobbyist ties into the government- especially the ones who were in power the past 8 years before President Obama.


Fact No. 1:

One of the leading obstructionists to HC reform is Rick Scott. Scott was chief executive officer of the Columbia/Hospital Corporation of America in 1997, was forced to resign after the hospital chain was investigated for fraud in which millions of dollars was milked from the government. In a plea bargain agreement, the company paid $1.7 billion to settle the charges, but Scott himself was not charged with any crime and served no time. Scott started CPR in March 2009, funding the group with $5 million of his own money to "promote free-market health care reform solutions" and to lobby against President Obama's proposal for a government-run health care option program. (CPR) Creative Response Concepts, is a conservative public relations firm known for its 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' campaign during the 2004 presidential campaign, handles CPR's messaging. "Squeeze" is running nationally on CNN and Fox News, and is part of a $1.4 million buy that began July 15th. "Squeeze" is the latest in a series of ads from Conservatives for Patients' Rights, a multimillion dollar, non-profit lobbying group founded and funded by none other than the former corrupt and scandal-ridden hospital executive, Rick Scott himself.


Fact No. 2:

In 2007, the Republican Executive Branch binded Medicare to the government. This means they no longer allowed Medicare to negotiate for best price without government oversight. They regulated all price concerns and little old grandma; living on a fixed income was stiffed by the GOP. A half-trillion dollar profits in drug sales- the highest profit margin ever. In 2007 the GOP sided with the drug companies over the most vulnerable of Americans. Once again, they took the side of the special interest lobbyists. Those people were the sick, old, poor and dying living, those living on fixed incomes and people dependent on medicine and/or machinery to stay alive. They were forced to pay much more do so. A hundred dollars a month for people living on fixed incomes is vital. What is happening in another aspect is that large retail chains like Walmart, Walgreen and Target have the buying power to buy drugs very cheaply because of the size of their own corporations. They severely undercut our government price to the aging public now which fully illustrates the total, sellout greed that took place at the top. Couple that with drugs being sold out of our country for much cheaper pricing, was just another slap in the face at the marginalized. Once again that was another case of Republicans catering to the special interests. Two years ago it was the Drug Corporations and right now it is the healthcare industry.


Of course guys like Scott want to see the monopoly continue, replete with corruption where guys like him get to make all the money and ration out your care and your medicine with budgetary concerns and skimping on your care.. These are the types of people who are lobbying against the President. These are the people who are whisper “socialism” in people’s ears who stand in front of masses of people and deceive and misrepresent. These are the people you support in favor of the everyday ordinary American citizen. It is special interests you are standing up for and not the people of this nation. In other words you support the Drug Co. and HC lobbyists who offer campaign contributions to those who want to be in this circle of SWINDLECARE- and see that it continues. You side with the Republican sellouts that have private investments in companies like Pfizer and Oxford. These are the words of the exact people who are feeding the media with utter, chaotic nonsense in other words, complete nonsense and non-truth that we as a nation are bordering on “socialism” by implementing a universal system. By not supporting the President’s reform, you are saying you support the Healthcare Sales Businesses and the Drug Corporate Czar’s over the 48 million uncovered Americans and Americans who do have healthcare are part of a system that is RANKED 37th OVERALL. America’s life expectancy rating is even worse, at a 45th standing. So we are not even getting any real value for what we pay for and have now under the current SWINDLECARE coverage system in America.


America from all sides of the political spectrum owes it to themselves and their country to see that a very highly Americanized Healthcare Reform takes place in this country, with a public option included. That is the only way to defeat special interests and their lobbyist friends in America. The sleazy vermin who hang around our politicians with graft.


Reform must be with the PUBLIC OPTION PLAN. Otherwise it is no reform at all. By having the public option, will force competing privatized companies to lower their costs to more competitive pricing. This will drive down the annual increases they impose on businesses and on
people on all sides who are victimized by it. Incentivizing doctors with bonus money for healing will force a more proactive approach to wellness. This will remove the middle obstacle, which is having $20 an hour clerks making decisions with doctors. Most of the HC employee decisions are based upon the corporation making profit in some way. They cut corners and skimp and always push the cheapest solution to your problem, opposed to the highest level of quality. These HC Corporations are actually are the ones who are rationing out healthcare- and a very poor standard at that I might add.


The guys on the other side who claim to be the true patriots are actually the enemies of America. Look at all 4 proposals we have in right now before you shoot your mouth off to the likes of “death panel”. A rumor from the most irresponsible politician since Joe McCarthy, Sarah Palin. Her stupidity surpasses only that of George W. Bush-THE VERY WORST PRESIDENT THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER KNOWN.


So keep shouting socialism and wonder who and why these people are telling you this. But I know that you people won’t. You will be watching Bill O’Reilly and supporting Glenn Beck. But know this, that I, along with many are calling you out as obstructionists, bullies and supporters of the wrong people. When the correct reform passes you will be embarrassed by your stupidity that you only repeated the words of idiot parrots and of the shills that control them."





Wish I knew who wrote this so I could credit it properly.

But simply put, Conner, you claim to be an immortalist, yet you oppose the very necessary step of universal healthcare which will be required to ensure that every human will be able to receive the needed treatments to become immortal.

Very very confusing. But then I suppose you can't see reality past your rabid hatred of a single man.

#3 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 August 2009 - 03:16 AM

I don't think Connor rabidly hates anyone, but I'm disappointed that if we're going to start talking about healthcare, he couldn't start above the level of political nose-tweaking. The unsigned thing from the net has a lot of things right, as well as a few wrong, but goes overboard with political invective.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 20 August 2009 - 03:30 AM

I don't think Connor rabidly hates anyone, but I'm disappointed that if we're going to start talking about healthcare, he couldn't start above the level of political nose-tweaking. The unsigned thing from the net has a lot of things right, as well as a few wrong, but goes overboard with political invective.


Yeah, that's why I wish I could credit it. Still, it has a lot more rational and reasoning behind it than "I'm supporting the complete collapse of government" nose thumbing that prompted it.

As for Connor's appearance of hate, I've yet to read a post of his on political topics that failed to blame EVERYTHING on Obama. It would be refreshing to actually have an intelligent conversation about politics without having yet another cardboard cutout conservative repeating the same lines used by every other cardboard cutout conservative. A little originality would be nice occassionally you know?

#5 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 20 August 2009 - 05:21 AM

But simply put, Conner, you claim to be an immortalist, yet you oppose the very necessary step of universal healthcare which will be required to ensure that every human will be able to receive the needed treatments to become immortal.


I am not an immortalist, I just happen to be immortal.

#6 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 20 August 2009 - 05:25 AM

I don't think Connor rabidly hates anyone...


Thanks niner.

#7 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 20 August 2009 - 08:24 AM

yet you oppose the very necessary step of universal healthcare which will be required to ensure that every human will be able to receive the needed treatments to become immortal.


I oppose universal healthcare, too, and I'm an immortalist.

In fact, I think a mandatory, tax-funded universal healthcare is incompatible with significant life extension. If we are going to live forever, it will happen through voluntary action in the free marketplace, not through coercion.

http://libertarianna...g/b/bibhome.htm

#8 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 20 August 2009 - 09:19 AM

yet you oppose the very necessary step of universal healthcare which will be required to ensure that every human will be able to receive the needed treatments to become immortal.


I oppose universal healthcare, too, and I'm an immortalist.

In fact, I think a mandatory, tax-funded universal healthcare is incompatible with significant life extension. If we are going to live forever, it will happen through voluntary action in the free marketplace, not through coercion.

http://libertarianna...g/b/bibhome.htm


Sorry. I simply find that to be unrealistic and overly optimistic to assume that healthcare based on what the market can bear will ever place enough emphasis on making sure EVERYONE benefits regardless of wealth.

#9 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:36 AM

In fact, I think a mandatory, tax-funded universal healthcare is incompatible with significant life extension. If we are going to live forever, it will happen through voluntary action in the free marketplace, not through coercion.

I just don't see how this can be justified. Every nation on earth is to some degree socialist. They almost universally tax their citizens to do things that benefit society at large, and engage in various other socialist programs. Yet, science and technology continue to advance. In fact, the least social nations, with the weakest (or failed) central governments, seem to be the least likely sources of technological advance. All the advanced nations in the world employ social strategies; scientific and technological development don't seem to be hindered. No one in Congress is proposing mandatory, tax-funded universal heathcare anyway, so that's a strawman. It was made abundantly clear in the 20th century that communism does not lead to the best outcomes, but to say that we therefore must go to the other extreme would be an unsophisticated argument.

#10 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:48 AM

Sorry. I simply find that to be unrealistic and overly optimistic to assume that healthcare based on what the market can bear will ever place enough emphasis on making sure EVERYONE benefits regardless of wealth.


Why should EVERYONE benefit? Everyone doesn't benefit from a lot of things in this world.

If you're of the opinion that those who deserve healthcare should get it, then government healthcare is out of the question.

If you're of the opinion that maximizing utility is the way to go, then government healthcare is out of the question.

#11 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:53 AM

And it was made abundantly clear by 20th century economists (such as Mises) that socialism does not lead to the best outcomes either.

But, if you advocate coercion over voluntary transactions, that's your decision.

#12 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 20 August 2009 - 11:47 AM

And it was made abundantly clear by 20th century economists (such as Mises) that socialism does not lead to the best outcomes either.

But, if you advocate coercion over voluntary transactions, that's your decision.


My how quickly you discounted people who need medical care but cannot afford it. I suppose they don't really count as human because they are poor?

The system we have now is the Free market driven healthcare system you say will solve everything. It's not working now, what makes you think it ever will? 50 million uninsured and rising? And you just wrote them all off. Wow.

We are the sole nation among the high tech civilized nation without a universal healthcare system. They have all successfully run healthcare sytems for many years.

The following is a quote from a novella by Marshall Brain

"I know what you are saying. I try not to think about it. But it's not that unusual. Over the course of history, billions of people have lived this way. Think back to when you were living in suburbia. Your parents had a 3,000 square foot house and the pool at the turn of the century. You were living it up. Unfortunately, at that moment in history, there were billions of people around the world living in poverty -- they were living off a dollar or two per day. Meanwhile, your family had 300 dollars a day. Did you do anything about it? Billions and Billions of people living in third-world countries, squatting together in the dirt, crapping in ditches. They would walk down by the river just like we are doing right now and say to each other, 'There must be a way out.' They could see that they were lost -- totally wasted human potential trapped in a terrible situation. Their kids and their kids' kids forever would live like this because there was absolutely no way out. Did anyone stop to help them? Did you stop to help them? No. You were too busy splashing in the pool. Those billions of people lived and died in incredible poverty and no one cared."

http://www.marshallb....com/manna4.htm

And thats the attitude I see from too many people.

#13 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 20 August 2009 - 02:36 PM

I just don't see how this can be justified. Every nation on earth is to some degree socialist. They almost universally tax their citizens to do things that benefit society at large, and engage in various other socialist programs. Yet, science and technology continue to advance. In fact, the least social nations, with the weakest (or failed) central governments, seem to be the least likely sources of technological advance. All the advanced nations in the world employ social strategies; scientific and technological development don't seem to be hindered.

It looks like socialism is parasitical on nations, and only the stronger nations can tolerate much it in any case. India is a good example of what happens if you let socialism and bureaucracy run wild.

No one in Congress is proposing mandatory, tax-funded universal heathcare anyway, so that's a strawman. It was made abundantly clear in the 20th century that communism does not lead to the best outcomes, but to say that we therefore must go to the other extreme would be an unsophisticated argument.


Are you sure about that ? Or is this just one of the first steps meant to lead us inevitably towards that goal ?



#14 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 20 August 2009 - 02:49 PM

My how quickly you discounted people who need medical care but cannot afford it. I suppose they don't really count as human because they are poor?

The system we have now is the Free market driven healthcare system you say will solve everything. It's not working now, what makes you think it ever will? 50 million uninsured and rising? And you just wrote them all off. Wow.

The system we have now is certainly not a free market system. It's halfway between free market and government healthcare.

We are the sole nation among the high tech civilized nation without a universal healthcare system. They have all successfully run healthcare sytems for many years.

The following is a quote from a novella by Marshall Brain

"I know what you are saying. I try not to think about it. But it's not that unusual. Over the course of history, billions of people have lived this way. Think back to when you were living in suburbia. Your parents had a 3,000 square foot house and the pool at the turn of the century. You were living it up. Unfortunately, at that moment in history, there were billions of people around the world living in poverty -- they were living off a dollar or two per day. Meanwhile, your family had 300 dollars a day. Did you do anything about it? Billions and Billions of people living in third-world countries, squatting together in the dirt, crapping in ditches. They would walk down by the river just like we are doing right now and say to each other, 'There must be a way out.' They could see that they were lost -- totally wasted human potential trapped in a terrible situation. Their kids and their kids' kids forever would live like this because there was absolutely no way out. Did anyone stop to help them? Did you stop to help them? No. You were too busy splashing in the pool. Those billions of people lived and died in incredible poverty and no one cared."


The reason why those countries are poor is simple: Culture.
Unfortunately, there's no simple way to fix the problem.
Giving them money is of limited use.

#15 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 August 2009 - 03:10 PM

Why should EVERYONE benefit? Everyone doesn't benefit from a lot of things in this world.

That's a value judgment. I can understand that you don't place a high value on the well-being of strangers, in the abstract, but I bet if you were walking down the street and you met a stranger who was lying in the road injured, you would help them, because you're human.

If you're of the opinion that those who deserve healthcare should get it, then government healthcare is out of the question.

If you're of the opinion that maximizing utility is the way to go, then government healthcare is out of the question.

This doesn't make sense. government healthcare is already in use in the majority of advanced nations, and it doesn't seem to be preventing anyone who "deserves" healthcare from getting it. (I'm not sure how we decide who deserves it, assuming there are people who don't deserve it.) It might occasionally prevent people from getting healthcare that they don't really need. I'm sure there are even cases where the wrong decision was made and someone was harmed, but you have to compare it to our current system where an insurance company can drop you after six months because you get sick, even though you paid premiums for years, and then all the other insurance companies can tell you to take a hike because you have a "pre-existing condition". As for maximizing utility, again, that statement doesn't make sense to me. Unless you discount the well-being of everyone who isn't well-served by the present system, I just don't understand your logic...

#16 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 20 August 2009 - 05:09 PM

From the non-aggression principle it follows that unless a contract is made, no one owes anyone anything. You may or may not subscribe to NAP. That is not my decision.

If you do subscribe to NAP, then it follows that if I meet an injured stranger, it is my decision whether I'm going to help or not. Personally, I would choose to help, but I would not consider myself able to make that same decision for others. I have no right to force someone else to help that stranger.

In theory, government healthcare provides healthcare to all those who need it. In practice, it's terribly inefficient, and as a result, people die. Whether it's waiting in queues for a transplant, or doctors who get paid the same no matter how well they do their job, the government always produces inferior services compared to the free market.

If you are a utilitarian (i.e. you seek for the best possible treatment for the largest possible percentage of people), then government services are a poor choice.

If you are not a utilitarian, and are of the opinion that those who are willing to work for their insurance deserve treatment and those who are either lazy or don't want to pay do not deserve treatment, then government services are a poor choice.

Either way, government services are a poor choice. This does not only apply to healthcare, it applies to everything.

#17 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 20 August 2009 - 05:32 PM

If you are not a utilitarian, and are of the opinion that those who are willing to work for their insurance deserve treatment and those who are either lazy or don't want to pay do not deserve treatment, then government services are a poor choice.


Hummm. Yes. Spoken like someone who has everything THEY need. But what about those like me who had a good paying job, until I had the gall to decide to have my appendix burst, who immediately following couldn't be seen out the door quickly enough, and was told eight times, just so that I understood it properly, that my insurance was cancelled the second I walked out the door.

That was SONY. That big, benevolent, we love our workers, corporation.

Nice to know you feel entitled to your privileges, and feel entitled to judge me unworthy of deserving healthcare because I work 84 hours a week yet cannot afford healthcare because I work a minimum wage job that just goes to pay for my rent. There's no money left over for insurance. So since I can't afford healthcare DESPITE how much I work for it, and have been TURNED DOWN for coverage by the government, I suppose I just have to suck it up and accept that I'm going to die eventually from inadequate healthcare, because people like you decided I didn't deserve to live forever.

What a wonderful attitude of "I have mine, who cares about everybody else."

Are there lazy people out there? Yeah. But I'm not one of them. But by your logic my failure to be able to afford healthcare is my own fault, solely because I can't make enough to afford it because I took the only job I could find after 6 months of looking as my bank account vanished.

But hey, I get it, I'm just worthless wasted biomass compared to you.

#18 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 20 August 2009 - 06:39 PM

I bet if you were walking down the street and you met a stranger who was lying in the road injured, you would help them, because you're human.


Absolutely. But if that same injured person was pointing a gun at someone, and saying "help me or else" That someone would very likely help them until the first possible moment they could get away, and they would be completely ethically justified in getting away at the first opportunity including if that opportunity came at the cost of kicking the injured man with the gun in the face.

Slavery is not ok. Those that attempt to enslave productive people around them are fools. Being forced to work for the benefit of others is the definition of slavery.

The problem with healthcare is that there haven't been market forces operating in it for decades. Insurance should never be for expected things, only for unexpected things. This is a problem with our culture.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 20 August 2009 - 06:57 PM.


#19 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 20 August 2009 - 06:44 PM

But hey, I get it, I'm just worthless wasted biomass compared to you.


No, he neither said nor hinted at anything remotely like that. However you seem to be of the opinion that if you are down on your luck it is ok to force other people at gun point to give you their stuff.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 20 August 2009 - 06:45 PM.


#20 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 20 August 2009 - 06:50 PM

despite the recent trend to try to associate immortalism with socialism, immortalism has been very often in the past associated with libertarianism. This intuitively makes sense so long as it remains likely that governments will likely not support immortalist efforts as the majority of the population remains in a deathist trance.

The major saving grace to most socialists is that they don't realize they are pointing guns at those around them.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 20 August 2009 - 06:52 PM.


#21 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 August 2009 - 07:02 PM

The problem with healthcare is that there haven't been market forces operating in it for decades. Insurance should never be for expected things, only for unexpected things. This is a problem with our culture.

This is an extremely good point. We need a system where the costs are transparent and some semblance of market forces could work. What we do now is just absurd.

#22 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 20 August 2009 - 07:06 PM

We need a system where the costs are transparent and some semblance of market forces could work.


though i can think of some possible ways to do this. I can't think of anything that could work in the political reality of today. Any ideas?

#23 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 August 2009 - 07:42 PM

We need a system where the costs are transparent and some semblance of market forces could work.

though i can think of some possible ways to do this. I can't think of anything that could work in the political reality of today. Any ideas?

My insurance company charges fairly brutal co-pays on drugs; a significant percentage of the real cost. That gets my attention. Obama demagogued the idea of taxing employer-provided insurance when McCain proposed it. Now he has a political problem that will inhibit doing it, but it should be done. People who buy their own insurance have to pay taxes on that money. Making it taxable would expose the true cost to the consumers. Some sort of a Medical Savings Account is a possibility that might motivate people to make intelligent decisions, particularly if they got to keep some money if they didn't use it. A little reward could have a big effect.

#24 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 20 August 2009 - 07:56 PM

We need a system where the costs are transparent and some semblance of market forces could work.

though i can think of some possible ways to do this. I can't think of anything that could work in the political reality of today. Any ideas?

My insurance company charges fairly brutal co-pays on drugs; a significant percentage of the real cost. That gets my attention. Obama demagogued the idea of taxing employer-provided insurance when McCain proposed it. Now he has a political problem that will inhibit doing it, but it should be done. People who buy their own insurance have to pay taxes on that money. Making it taxable would expose the true cost to the consumers. Some sort of a Medical Savings Account is a possibility that might motivate people to make intelligent decisions, particularly if they got to keep some money if they didn't use it. A little reward could have a big effect.


I agree with your post in it's entirety, however I remain skeptical that anything like it will happen.

And though I think we should have huge deductibles for medical care insurance, current high deductable cautostrophic medical insurance plans mostly seem to be pure evil (you get put in a group and pay a low rate at first, but as some people in the group get sick the rate goes up, then all the non sick people drop out and join another group and only sick people pay for other sick people resulting in premiums just as high as though they had no insurance).

Medical insurance should be more like car insurance (ie you don't get insurance to fill up your tank).

But yes, I remain skeptical. Luckily for me half the people I know are doctors ;).

#25 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 August 2009 - 03:49 AM

We need a system where the costs are transparent and some semblance of market forces could work.

though i can think of some possible ways to do this. I can't think of anything that could work in the political reality of today. Any ideas?

My insurance company charges fairly brutal co-pays on drugs; a significant percentage of the real cost. That gets my attention. Obama demagogued the idea of taxing employer-provided insurance when McCain proposed it. Now he has a political problem that will inhibit doing it, but it should be done. People who buy their own insurance have to pay taxes on that money. Making it taxable would expose the true cost to the consumers. Some sort of a Medical Savings Account is a possibility that might motivate people to make intelligent decisions, particularly if they got to keep some money if they didn't use it. A little reward could have a big effect.


I agree with your post in it's entirety, however I remain skeptical that anything like it will happen.

And though I think we should have huge deductibles for medical care insurance, current high deductable cautostrophic medical insurance plans mostly seem to be pure evil (you get put in a group and pay a low rate at first, but as some people in the group get sick the rate goes up, then all the non sick people drop out and join another group and only sick people pay for other sick people resulting in premiums just as high as though they had no insurance).

Medical insurance should be more like car insurance (ie you don't get insurance to fill up your tank).

But yes, I remain skeptical. Luckily for me half the people I know are doctors ;) .


Would it be too evil to base medical insurance on credit score? Doing so would not discriminate against people with bad genetics, but would discriminate against irresponsible people (because it's possible to have a high credit score, but not a lot of money as long as payments are made on time). My issues with universal health care are the following:

1. I don't want to pay for treatment of chain smokers and others whose health problems are mostly a result of bad life choices.
2. I don't mind subsidizing people who are just simply genetically unlucky.
3. No rationing or lower quality of care as a result of universal health care. The quality of care that I could receive through a universal health care system should be equal to or better than the quality of care I could now receive.

#26 cathological

  • Guest
  • 112 posts
  • -29

Posted 23 August 2009 - 07:47 AM

No one in Congress is proposing mandatory, tax-funded universal heathcare anyway, so that's a strawman.


They are however basically proposing mandatory healthcare, and pulling the strings so they'll be the cheapest option. People that say "the claims that people will be forced into paying for government health care plans are absurd allegations" always choose their words carefully. Yeah, you don't have to pay for government healthcare, but if you opt out of healthcare they'll take your money anyways. Sounds awesome! where do I sign!

Edited by cathological, 23 August 2009 - 07:50 AM.


#27 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 23 August 2009 - 06:20 PM

Hmm there seems to be a whole lot of misinformation about all this american health care reform business, I suppose mostly because most can tell the current system does';t work (unless your evil or a moron) but no one knows how to fix it. Obama health care plan IMO goes nowhere near far enough, it's not UHC, it's an insurance scheme, and we all know how well that works...

The NHS costs vastly less then the American system, we have considerably less infant mortality rates, better care and we live longer, sure the Americans eat badly but so do we Brits and we drink stupid amounts also!

The irony is of course there is a lot of creeping privatisation with the NHS. The administration of the NHS is all run by private companies, and since that has happened the burcrascy has increased by 15%! Private companies don't stream line things, they create more profit for a few and claim this to be effiency. In a public service this is irrelevant as its well about providing a service.

Private companies create the illusion of being better when the facts often paint a different picture. The psycharmical industry is a classic example. They spend twice on marketing what they do on research and development and much of the so called research and development is in fact re branding old drugs. The american government spends far more on the research, then the pharm companies come along use this and then create patented drugs from our tax funded research, which many can;t afford...

I see no argument against universal health care, many make no sense or are in the interest of the few not the majority. I find it strange this argument even exists in a group that advocates longer life for all, and is quick to correct people when they say only the rich would have it!

Libratarism has never worked, just look every time it's been tried, it's created extreme poverty and extreme rich for a few.

The Soviet Union also btw wasn't socialist, communist or whatever. Stalinism is very different to Marxism. Stalinism has much more in common with state capitalism.

Edited by captainbeefheart, 23 August 2009 - 06:22 PM.


#28 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 23 August 2009 - 07:04 PM

Libratarism has never worked, just look every time it's been tried, it's created extreme poverty and extreme rich for a few.

The Soviet Union also btw wasn't socialist, communist or whatever. Stalinism is very different to Marxism. Stalinism has much more in common with state capitalism.


Not these tired arguments again...

#29 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 23 August 2009 - 07:25 PM

we have considerably less infant mortality rates


comparing US infant mortality rates with those in europe is without much meaning based on the differences in standards for reporting what a "live birth" is (a "live birth" has to meet more criteria throughout Europe than in the US to count)

#30 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 24 August 2009 - 10:16 AM

Libratarism has never worked, just look every time it's been tried, it's created extreme poverty and extreme rich for a few.

The Soviet Union also btw wasn't socialist, communist or whatever. Stalinism is very different to Marxism. Stalinism has much more in common with state capitalism.


Not these tired arguments again...


It's an old argument, but it doesn't make it any less true. I can explain it to you if it would help?

In Marxism we call each development in society an epoch. We start off with the cave men, then we move to tribalism, then to feudalism, then to capitalism, then the industrial revolution and finally a workers state (whatever you want to call that). If you google it you'll find an explanation for each step.

Russia at the time of their revolution was in the transition from a feudal society to a capitalist society, very backwards compared to other nations like Germany, Britain, France, America, etc.

The problem was that the revolutions in the rest of Europe failed, in Germany (where it would have been key) you had the right (Hitler) fighting the Communists. Then you had a lot of people in the middle (Liberals) who first sided with the Communists and then suddenly sided with Hitler and fascism took hold, and all the communists were sent off to the camps promptly followed by the jews.

Now for socialism, Communism whatever, to work it has to be international, you can't have a lone communist state, which is what any Marxist would agree upon before Russia and after. So as Russia became isolated it descended into a nationalist nightmare. Stalin (who btw did not take part in the revolution) thought this was good, he believed in 'socialism within one state', which is the opposite of Marxism. Socialism within one state isn't sustainable so he had to crush all decent, anyone that spoke out were murdered during the October trials, and then afterwards with his secret police and what not. This was top down whereas for a workers revolution to work it must come from the masses and be ruled by the masses (bottom up).

So Russia is nothing like what any Marxist would call a workers state, it's the opposite, it's state capitalism where you have a free market of sorts while the government like now pretends it's a dermcascy but really only has the elities interests at heart. In our case the Corporations and the political classes, in russias case the so called central committee at the time. When the soviet union fell the exact same people then took up all the key positions in the private sector, nothing really changed. You can argue that it still wouldn't work national or international (I disagree of course) but not that Russia ever did or became what Marxists talk about as Communism, Socialism, a workers paradise, etc.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users