# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Krugman: Obamacare Fails to Fail

## 56ktarget

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/op...fail.html?_r=0




> How many Americans know how health reform is going? For that matter, how many people in the news media are following the positive developments?
> 
> 
> I suspect that the answer to the first question is “Not many,” while the answer to the second is “Possibly even fewer,” for reasons I’ll get to later. And if I’m right, it’s a remarkable thing — an immense policy success is improving the lives of millions of Americans, but it’s largely slipping under the radar.
> 
> 
> How is that possible? Think relentless negativity without accountability. The Affordable Care Act has faced nonstop attacks from partisans and right-wing media, with mainstream news also tending to harp on the act’s troubles. Many of the attacks have involved predictions of disaster, none of which have come true. But absence of disaster doesn’t make a compelling headline, and the people who falsely predicted doom just keep coming back with dire new warnings.
> 
> 
> ...


Thoughts?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Full of fail, more like it.

And no, for disclosure sake, I did not/am not reading a Paul Krugman article.

Here's the guy who thinks war is prosperity. Deficits are good. Dig holes, fill them in, the world will be rich. It's quite frankly retarded.

----------


## 56ktarget

Krugman only believes deficits are "good" during times of economic downturn. How sad that you refuse to read an article that might challenge some of your beliefs.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Krugman only believes deficits are "good" during times of economic downturn. How sad that you refuse to read an article that might challenge some of your beliefs.


I've read enough of Krugman.

He is a buffoon.

War creates prosperity right? What, 3 percent unemployment? Yeah because a large portion was stolen from their family and sent to far away lands to kill, be killed, or tragically ruined.

Matter of fact, I just recently listened to an excellent interview again. Tom Woods Jr. destroying Krugman before it was cool. How about that.

----------


## rp08orbust

It's a lot murkier than Paul Krugman makes out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...-of-uninsured/

----------


## otherone

> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/op...fail.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


Mr. Krugman calls ACA a success for the previously uninsured, and a "hit" on the rich, and wonders why it polls badly.  What he fails to see is the effect it has on the middle class, the self-employed, and small business owners.  Just wait until the employer mandates roll out...

----------


## jmdrake

> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/op...fail.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


It's a propaganda piece without any hard numbers to back it up.  Only a total sap or Obama/Krugman fanboy would pay it any attention.  According to the Washington Post, all of the politicians are throwing around wildly inflated numbers on Obamacare.  And besides, it's failure by design.  Even if it "succeeds" it fails.  The people signing up for it are those who can't afford it and are being subsidized and who are more likely to be sick.  You aren't getting the young, healthy, can afford it crowd signing up that will be needed to carry the poor, sick, old crowd.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-we-dont-know/

Also premiums have gone up, people are losing their insurance, hospitals are laying off people in mass and a host of other problems are materializing.  If anything Obamacare is succeeding in causing failure in the U.S. economy.

----------


## Lucille

Is Paul Krugman Leaving Princeton In Quiet Disgrace? 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Quiet-Disgrace




> Where I come from … we do not fear bullies. We despise them. And we do so because we understand that what motivates their bullying is a deep sense of insecurity. Unfortunately for Krugtron the Invincible, his ultimate nightmare has just become a reality. *By applying the methods of the historian – by quoting and contextualizing his own published words – I believe I have now made him what he richly deserves to be: a figure of fun, whose predictions (and proscriptions) no one should ever again take seriously*.

----------


## Acala

Hahahahaha!  So when a program that uses a combination of massive subsidies on the one hand and fierce penalties enforced by armed agents on the other hand actually gets people to sign up it is a marvelous success?  Setting the bar pretty low aren't we?  Oh, and people who are getting subsidies are not paying alot.  But everyone else is paying more than they did before.  Another great success!

Obamacare is doomed.  Not because nobody signed up (that was just an amusing and unexpected launch problem) and not because the subsidized class will have high premiums.  Those are strawmen.  So why is it doomed?

Healthcare was broken before Obamacare.  It was broken because crony-capitalism from top to bottom had driven costs into the stratosphere.  So Obamacare comes along and instead of solving the problem, it makes it worse with MORE of the same poison.  Obamacare should have been called the cronycapitalist protection act.  All it did was make sure that the cronycapitalist's healthcare scam can hold together for a few more years by forcing more people into the insurance pool.  Health care costs will continue to soar and break the program.  And probably break the economy in the process.

Obamacare fell on its face in the blocks.  It has now sort of picked itself up and is limping around the track and Krugman is declaring victory.  Give it a couple laps . . .

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

I personally have nothing to do with insurance or health care, but now I am required to pay $95 next year.  This will go to administer the system, or to some deadbeat patient who demanded that this law be passed.  In other words, some bum is too lazy to pay his bills, so he conveniently gets people like me to pay his way. 

I pay my own way medically.  I pay the bills of my family.  I even pay the many medical bills of my extended family.  That is not enough though.  There are slobs out there who refuse to pay for their own health care or their family's care.  It's not enough that I look after my own, but now I have to look after them.  Any man endorsing this plan is a pansy of the highest degree.  Man up already.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Hahahahaha!  So when a program that uses a combination of massive subsidies on the one hand and fierce penalties enforced by armed agents on the other hand actually gets people to sign up it is a marvelous success?  Setting the bar pretty low aren't we?  Oh, and people who are getting subsidies are not paying alot.  But everyone else is paying more than they did before.  Another great success!
> 
> Obamacare is doomed.  Not because nobody signed up (that was just an amusing and unexpected launch problem) and not because the subsidized class will have high premiums.  Those are strawmen.  So why is it doomed?
> 
> Healthcare was broken before Obamacare.  It was broken because crony-capitalism from top to bottom had driven costs into the stratosphere.  So Obamacare comes along and instead of solving the problem, it makes it worse with MORE of the same poison.  Obamacare should have been called the cronycapitalist protection act.  All it did was make sure that the cronycapitalist's healthcare scam can hold together for a few more years by forcing more people into the insurance pool.  Health care costs will continue to soar and break the program.  And probably break the economy in the process.
> 
> Obamacare fell on its face in the blocks.  It has now sort of picked itself up and is limping around the track and Krugman is declaring victory.  Give it a couple laps . . .



Exactly right.  Some dip$#@! for a consumer publication says something flowery $#@! and people believe it.

----------


## bunklocoempire

Here's my thoughts:

Can I haz my nobley economix prize for bouncing checks paleeze?

----------


## Bryan

56ktarget,

Again, with all due respect, you are still looking at the issues wrong. The issues isn't a matter if Obamacare is successful or not, it's a matter if there is anything immoral about the law. If Obamacare was wildly successful in providing insurance for millions would it still be a good thing if its success was possible because it took immoral steps to do so? Does the end justify the means?

Obamacare successes are possible because of the immoral theft used to fund it. This immorally needs to stop. Many are fighting Obamacare because they are victims of this immorality and they want it to end.

Do you support immoral actions if it benefits you?

----------


## 56ktarget

Taxes does not equal "theft". If nobody paid taxes, then you would be stealing from the govt the goods and services you have used.

----------


## oyarde

> Taxes does not equal "theft". If nobody paid taxes, then you would be stealing from the govt the goods and services you have used.


How about I only pay for what I agree to use ? I pay  three gasoline taxes , hat covers the road I use , I will write a check ea month to the fire dept , just in case ,I am done , I will keep the rest of my monies a put it where it will be more useful . Sound reasonable ? Does to me.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Taxes does not equal "theft". If nobody paid taxes, then you would be stealing from the govt the goods and services you have used.


Instead, if we didn't pay taxes, maybe the government wouldn't be supplying good and services we don't want.

----------


## oyarde

> Taxes does not equal "theft". If nobody paid taxes, then you would be stealing from the govt the goods and services you have used.


Taxes are theft . Article One , Section Eight is very reasonable . it explains what is not theft .Any Fed tax outside of that is theft .Theft is immoral. Requiring me to participate in the immoral is no different than coming to my house and stealing.  It is in fact probably worse .

----------


## rp08orbust

> Taxes does not equal "theft". If nobody paid taxes, then you would be stealing from the govt the goods and services you have used.


If you don't pay up to the mafia, you are stealing the protection they provide you.

What's the difference?

----------


## oyarde

> Instead, if we didn't pay taxes, maybe the government wouldn't be supplying good and services we don't want.


That is correct , I want only to be left to my own and unmolested by such evil Marxists.

----------


## presence

> Department of Health and Human Services reported that among those  receiving federal subsidies — the great majority of those signing up —  the average net premium was only $82 a month.


82*12 = $984












On the subject of the "fails to fail" healthcare system in the US.... a personal sidenote:


My 4 month old nephew is in the ER for the 3rd time this week.  His APTT just came back at 112, that means his blood doesn't clot.  He has severe hemophilia B just like my son.

He's bleeding, internally into an elbow.  Its causing long term damage every minute that elapses after the bleed began earlier this week.  He was sent home from the ER just now, again, and told to see a hematologist tomorrow... where they'll run more tests and get back to us in a few days.

Fact of the matter is he needs IV clotting factor and has needed it for 4 days now; the dose is very easy to calculate, and the meds easy to adminster, I could do both myself if I wasn't 1000 miles away and a criminal for sharing my son's meds.  My sister inlaw was just able to convince the 4th doctor she's seen in so many days that they should test his APTT.    APTT isn't enough "official" evidence to get him some meds though... the official tests will take a few days to get back.    Fact of the matter though, there is family history of a very specific bleeding disorder on my wife's side.  APTT of 112 is all but absolutely indicative of that.   Nobody with normal blood has 112 APTT.  Not official enough to treat, admit... offer an ice pack... Nope... just sent home bleeding; "could be sprained".    


What has been official enough though... HHS has had enough official evidence to start an inquiry and Cops have contacted my home, my mother inlaws home, and my sister inlaws husbands employer to press us for info on whether or not the child has been beaten.  I went through the same $#@! when my kid was diagnosed.  All the manpower in the world to push the criminal/abusive slant... pass the buck when it comes to compassionate care.


  Still bleeding, elbow bruised swollen and puffy.  An hour into the bleed 4 days ago permanent damage began.

He's seen his primary care, 2 ER doctors, and an Ortho specialist... all of which passed the buck.   I was the one who explained to my sister inlaw that 112 APTT means he's "got it", no one at the hospital would man up to the fact of the matter.

It stops 10 minutes after he gets a dose of meds.

Welcome to USA where healthcare "fails to fail"




If the cops call my home again I'm picking up the phone and putting on my stereo:




> You're suffering 'cause of me, it's divine









> You know what, $#@! you! 
> I'm fed up with you!

----------


## Bryan

> Taxes does not equal "theft". If nobody paid taxes, then you would be stealing from the govt the goods and services you have used.


If someone used fraud to obtain goods and services they did not pay for then it would be stealing. If someone offered you goods and services without you paying then that would be the equivalent of welfare. The issue here is that people don't have a choice if they want these "goods" or "services" since if they do not pay they will be met with deadly force.

How can you morally justify forcing people to pay for Obamacare when they do not want it? This is a very important question.

Thanks.

----------


## 56ktarget

Deadly force? What deadly force? You do not go to jail if you don't buy one of the many private plans set up by obamacare. All that happens is that you pay a small fee ($95 I believe) to offset the risk that you incur on the rest of us if you get sick w/o insurance.

----------


## Bryan

Obamacare is offering free and/or subsidized healthcare by forcing people to pay taxes that they don't want and don't agree with. If they do not pay those taxes and attempt to defend what is morally their own they will be meet with a counter government force that will kill them if needed. Try not paying the IRS and see where that gets you...

So I repeat: How can you morally justify forcing people to pay for Obamacare when they do not want it?

If you want to take the position that we should be obligated to pay the IRS, then i ask on what basis is that moral when it was never agreed to? If you work to produce something and want to keep what you created, how can anyone else morally claim the fruits of your labor? 

Obamacare taxes:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...145413745.html

----------


## 56ktarget

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...-health-care-/

----------


## Bryan

56ktarget, that only attempts to address the issue of not buying insurance and/or paying the fine ("The law does not send people to jail for not paying the fine,"), it does not address the overall issue of the tax structure of how all the free / subsidized healthcare is funded, which comes from other means. Take the first two taxes listed in the yahoo piece, one is a tax of the fruits of your investment labor and the other is a tax on your labor:

A 3.8% surtax on "investment income"
A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes

Are you claiming that there will be no force used to collect these? Do you think these are moral?

Again, my question stands: How can you morally justify forcing people to pay for Obamacare, such as with taking away the fruits of their labor, when they do not want it?

----------


## Acala

> Deadly force? What deadly force? You do not go to jail if you don't buy one of the many private plans set up by obamacare. All that happens is that you pay a small fee ($95 I believe) to offset the risk that you incur on the rest of us if you get sick w/o insurance.


Hahahaha.  And when a mugger sticks a gun in your face he usually doesn't kill you if you give him your wallet.  So it isn't theft or use of deadly force.  They only kill you if you resist being robbed.

----------


## Lucille

> Deadly force? What deadly force? You do not go to jail if you don't buy one of the many private plans set up by obamacare. All that happens is that you pay a small fee ($95 I believe) to offset the risk that you incur on the rest of us if you get sick w/o insurance.


There is so much wrong here, I don't even know where to begin.

"What deadly force," "many private plans," "small fee," "offset the risk that you incur on the rest of us..."  

On second thought, I won't bother, since progs are ineducable and don't even know they're fascists.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> All that happens is that you pay a small fee ($95 I believe) to offset the risk that you incur on the rest of us if you get sick w/o insurance.



Yes, it is $95.  The $95 is the amount incurred on the rest of us for people who don't care of themselves, people who get sick, or people who don't pay their own way.

----------


## 56ktarget

The constitution grants govt the power to levy taxes. I dont see that as somehow being "unmoral".

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The constitution grants govt the power to levy taxes. I dont see that as somehow being "unmoral".


Taking this at face value, what gives the Constitution the power to levy taxes?

----------


## Bryan

> The constitution grants govt the power to levy taxes. I dont see that as somehow being "unmoral".


Are you arguing that if something is legal then it is not unmoral? So if slavery was legal then that would be OK too? The US Constitution did recognize slavery so does your logic extend to that?

IMO, in an outstanding society the laws should aim to be moral. Laws are not guaranteed to be moral. Everything Hitler did was legal too, and I'd guess you don't agree with his action.

So my question stands.... How can you morally justify forcing people to pay for Obamacare, such as with taking away the fruits of their labor, when they do not want it?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

It's tempting to believe all the hearts strings stories the TV likes to present.  You know, like 6 year old Timmy, the boy born with the terrible defect.  They never talk about the people who go to ER who really don't have the pain, but really just want a morphine drip for a good buzz.  They probably don't talk much about the family members who visit and are more interested in a Dilaudid prescription for themselves than their family member.  And don't forget the regular "patients" who come in and are more focused on getting something to eat than the reason for their stated admission.  

We've come a long way to enable everyone.  You have an entire healthcare system and society now catering to such nonsense.  It is not even poor hospital management.  These things are demanded by people, with everybody accommodating them.  Taxes are now demanded to babysit irresponsible people.

----------


## jmdrake

> Taxes does not equal "theft". If nobody paid taxes, then you would be stealing from the govt the goods and services you have used.


What about the goods and services I don't want or use?  What services have I received from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  What service have I received from the "war on drugs"?  How am I served by giving someone else a cell phone?  Here's a crazy idea.  Let me pick and choose the services I want and only pay for them.

----------


## torchbearer

> 56ktarget,
> 
> Again, with all due respect, you are still looking at the issues wrong. The issues isn't a matter if Obamacare is successful or not, it's a matter if there is anything immoral about the law. If Obamacare was wildly successful in providing insurance for millions would it still be a good thing if its success was possible because it took immoral steps to do so? Does the end justify the means?
> 
> Obamacare successes are possible because of the immoral theft used to fund it. This immorally needs to stop. Many are fighting Obamacare because they are victims of this immorality and they want it to end.
> 
> Do you support immoral actions if it benefits you?



56K fails to see we don't disagree with the ends, but with the means.
I want people to be able to afford medical treatment, but how we go about doing that matters.
Do we do that by coercion or by voluntary interactions.
I don't think its moral to threaten someone to extort money from them. And if that is the means to an end... the action is immoral.
There are better ways, moral ways, to help our fellow man.

I want 56Ktarget to address this issue.

----------


## Madison320

> Hahahahaha!  So when a program that uses a combination of massive subsidies on the one hand and fierce penalties enforced by armed agents on the other hand actually gets people to sign up it is a marvelous success?  Setting the bar pretty low aren't we?  Oh, and people who are getting subsidies are not paying alot.  But everyone else is paying more than they did before.  Another great success!
> 
> Obamacare is doomed.  Not because nobody signed up (that was just an amusing and unexpected launch problem) and not because the subsidized class will have high premiums.  Those are strawmen.  So why is it doomed?
> 
> Healthcare was broken before Obamacare.  It was broken because crony-capitalism from top to bottom had driven costs into the stratosphere.  So Obamacare comes along and instead of solving the problem, it makes it worse with MORE of the same poison.  Obamacare should have been called the cronycapitalist protection act.  All it did was make sure that the cronycapitalist's healthcare scam can hold together for a few more years by forcing more people into the insurance pool.  Health care costs will continue to soar and break the program.  And probably break the economy in the process.
> 
> Obamacare fell on its face in the blocks.  It has now sort of picked itself up and is limping around the track and Krugman is declaring victory.  Give it a couple laps . . .


Also Krugman forgot to mention the cost to taxpayers. Medicare costs somewhere around 800 billion a year, what's this going to cost after it gets cranked up?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Also Krugman forgot to mention the cost to taxpayers. Medicare costs somewhere around 800 billion a year, what's this going to cost after it gets cranked up?


What's it matter to Krugman? He likes deficits. He's a fan of inflation. I'm surprised he didn't mention that as a plus.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I want 56Ktarget to address this issue.


People of his ilk don't address anything.  These weaklings always leave it up to someone else; usually government and you.

----------


## 56ktarget

Bryan, I guess we are at somewhat of an impasse. I don't view taxes as immoral. If they are, then every govt in history is fundamentally immoral. And I think we got somewhat sidetracked. Krugman's article only deals in the effectiveness of Obamacare, not its morality.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Bryan, I guess we are at somewhat of an impasse. I don't view taxes as immoral. If they are, t*hen every govt in history is fundamentally immoral.* And I think we got somewhat sidetracked. Krugman's article only deals in the effectiveness of Obamacare, not its morality.


56, with all due respect, they are. Until one is founded on voluntary consent while acting lawfully.

Second, the failures of Obamacare transcend even republican broadcast. It is well known. From the website failure, costing what, some 4 million dollars, to the amount spent on propaganda to entice the laughable amount of people to sign up, to the folks whose information was stolen from the website, to the by and large disregard to the mandate causing them to extend it further, to higher premiums and people losing their primary care physicians. I mean seriously. The entire thing is an abject failure. Demonstrably so. I truly hope you are joking/trolling and if not would encourage you to follow the news a little bit more closely. There are a few books that would help as well.

Both with regards to what socialism is destined for and with regards to the idea that people forming a group suddenly absolves them of culpability for breaking the law.

----------


## Bryan

So if it was decided that you needed to pay 99% of your income in taxes, then you don't have a problem with that? Even if it paid for war or just went to the rich? If people can not pursue their dreams because they had to pay so much in taxes, then you don't have a problem with that? If people can not afford to deal with hard times because they are paying (and had paid) too  much in taxes, then you don't have a problem with that? Or would you suggest another government solution to help them? And how would that be funded? More taxes?

Could you please explain the construct where taking from people against their will is OK? What makes it OK? Remember, that government is nothing more than a group of people and if none of these individuals have the authority to take from others how could they as a group (under the banner of government) suddenly get this right? Is it because they happen to be born in a particular geographic area?

Regarding governments in history being immoral-- if they force people to pay taxes against their will, then yes! They are immoral. It has been a sad state of affairs for most humans...

----------


## Acala

> Bryan, I guess we are at somewhat of an impasse. I don't view taxes as immoral. If they are, then every govt in history is fundamentally immoral. And I think we got somewhat sidetracked. Krugman's article only deals in the effectiveness of Obamacare, not its morality.


It is way too early for the fatal defect in Obamacare to manifest.  But it isn't too early to declare it unconstitutional and immoral.

----------


## Acala

> What about the goods and services I don't want or use?  What services have I received from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  What service have I received from the "war on drugs"?  How am I served by giving someone else a cell phone?  Here's a crazy idea.  Let me pick and choose the services I want and only pay for them.


The rank and file socialists, who actually do generally want "good" for mankind, have no choice but to create tortured interpretations of the obvious violence upon which their policies rest in order to survive the cognitive dissonance of being a "caring person" who demonstrates his caring by sticking a gun in people's faces.  Of course their preference is to avoid the issue entirely, pretend it doesn't exist, and just imagine that money magically appears in government coffers.

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't view taxes as immoral. If they are, then every govt in history is fundamentally immoral.


That is a start.

Every government has been fundamentally immoral.

Once that is understood,, the only question is how to limit it,  to minimize the damage.

----------


## really

Interesting comments on the ACA. It seems to me that wehave never really had a national dialog on who deserves healthcare. Ishealthcare to be accessible only to the wealthy and the 50% of us that get goodinsurance through our employer? What do we do with the rest?

Comments agree that prior to the ACA, "healthcare" in these countrywas a mess. (I understand why many commentators do not agree the ACA is theanswer.)

The facts are that many people do not have insurance or have insurance that hasvery poor coverage. My tax dollars (Harris County, TX) already cover clinics,the county hospital system and subsidies to private hospitals. Additionally,hospitals have been force to charge inflated prices to cover the cost of peoplewho become sick and have no insurance. This is passed on to all of us in higherpremiums. Studies show that the USA pays almost twice per capita on healthcare thanother developed countries and we do not get better results.

Short of having the government step in with some type of plan (ACA orotherwise), what do we do with the uninsured? Do we let them die at thehospital doors, continue paying inflated healthcare costs, or do we find a morerational way of paying for healthcare?

----------


## William Tell

> Interesting comments on the ACA. It seems to me that wehave never really had a national dialog on who deserves healthcare. Ishealthcare to be accessible only to the wealthy and the 50% of us that get goodinsurance through our employer? What do we do with the rest?
> 
> Comments agree that prior to the ACA, "healthcare" in these countrywas a mess. (I understand why many commentators do not agree the ACA is theanswer.)
> 
> The facts are that many people do not have insurance or have insurance that hasvery poor coverage. My tax dollars (Harris County, TX) already cover clinics,the county hospital system and subsidies to private hospitals. Additionally,hospitals have been force to charge inflated prices to cover the cost of peoplewho become sick and have no insurance. This is passed on to all of us in higherpremiums. Studies show that the USA pays almost twice per capita on healthcare thanother developed countries and we do not get better results.
> 
> Short of having the government step in with some type of plan (ACA orotherwise), what do we do with the uninsured? Do we let them die at thehospital doors, continue paying inflated healthcare costs, or do we find a morerational way of paying for healthcare?


Historically, doctors had there own practices. And they would treat people as needed, and collect their pay when possible. Doctors like Ron Paul would treat people for free some times. We should get government entirely out of healthcare, and education, and almost everything.

----------


## Acala

> Interesting comments on the ACA. It seems to me that wehave never really had a national dialog on who deserves healthcare. Ishealthcare to be accessible only to the wealthy and the 50% of us that get goodinsurance through our employer? What do we do with the rest?
> 
> Comments agree that prior to the ACA, "healthcare" in these countrywas a mess. (I understand why many commentators do not agree the ACA is theanswer.)
> 
> The facts are that many people do not have insurance or have insurance that hasvery poor coverage. My tax dollars (Harris County, TX) already cover clinics,the county hospital system and subsidies to private hospitals. Additionally,hospitals have been force to charge inflated prices to cover the cost of peoplewho become sick and have no insurance. This is passed on to all of us in higherpremiums. Studies show that the USA pays almost twice per capita on healthcare thanother developed countries and we do not get better results.
> 
> Short of having the government step in with some type of plan (ACA orotherwise), what do we do with the uninsured? Do we let them die at thehospital doors, continue paying inflated healthcare costs, or do we find a morerational way of paying for healthcare?


Back up the horses there just a minute.  You have jumped to a conclusion that the problem has something to do with lack of insurance and that is not correct.  Healthcare in the USA is a mess, we agree.  But what exactly is wrong with it?  Answer: it is too expensive.  The problem is not lack of insurance, the problem is that the service is so expensive most people can't afford it out of pocket.  Having identified the problem - health care costs too much - the next step is to analyze the problem.  So why is healthcare too costly?  

It is econ 101.  Prices in a market emerge from the interplay of supply and demand.  All other things being equal, if supply is pinched, prices go up and if demand is stimulated, prices go up.  Government intervention in health care, over the last fifty years especially, has both dramatically crimped the supply AND stimulated demand.  As a consequence, prices have gone through the roof.

On the supply side, government crimps the supply by strictly limiting who can provide health care services and what services can be provided.  Health care is the mostly highly regulated industry in the country.  Government intervenes at every level in every conceivable way.  It is impossible to provide almost any kind of health care without government permission.  You can't build a hospital, market a drug, prescribe therapy, give advice, sell a device, lay a hand on a person, or do much of anything else without compliance with elaborate licensing requirements.  This vast regulatory burden is designed to restrict competition and supply to help crony-capitalists make profits.  And it works very well.  

On the other hand, government gooses demand for health care with a wide variety of subsidies, both direct through massive programs like medicare, and indirect through incentives and penalties on employers to coerce them into insuring employees.  When people have their healthcare paid for, not only do they use more of it, but they don't shop for lower prices and this means profit for crony-capitalists and higher prices for consumers.

So government, on behalf of the crony-capitalists in the health care industry, has both crimped the supply and goosed the demand.  The result is prices that have spiraled out of the reach of almost anyone.  That is the essence of the problem - crony-capitalism has driven prices into low earth orbit.

Now comes Obamacare.  And what does it do?  More regulation to restrict supply and dramatically more subsidy.  The essence of the program is to force more money into the system to keep the crony-capitalism going.  And prices will contiue to climb until the system collapses.

So what is the answer?  Get government out of healthcare at every level in every way forever.

----------


## Original_Intent

> If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.


 - Joseph Goebbels

----------


## 56ktarget

^govt is always bad seems like a good lie.

----------


## Acala

> ^govt is always bad seems like a good lie.


Government by consent of the governed might be good.

----------


## erowe1

Krugman is such an idiot.

----------


## 56ktarget

Nice argument, of course you win.

----------


## erowe1

> Nice argument, of course you win.


Look at his logic.

Obamacare is improving the lives millions of people. And the proof is: that more people have health insurance now.

So when people are forced to buy health insurance that they wouldn't choose to buy if it were up to them, that improves their lives? Since when is Krugman a better judge of what peoples' lives should be like than those people themselves?

----------


## Acala

> ^govt is always bad seems like a good lie.


You know, socialist/progressive doctrine deserves better than the hit and run snark you devote to it here.  I think it is based on bad economics and a misunderstanding of the morality of charity, but some pretty smart people have made a pretty good defense of it anyway.  You should be ashamed for not even trying.

----------


## erowe1

> If they are, then every govt in history is fundamentally immoral.


Not every government, but every state.

But do you dispute that every state in history was fundamentally immoral?

----------


## oyarde

> The constitution grants govt the power to levy taxes. I dont see that as somehow being "unmoral".


It also defines exactly what those may be for , all others are not only immoral ,  and illegal , they are further , the filth of theft. Anyone who supports them is a filthy , dirty , immoral $#@!er.

----------


## acptulsa

> So what is the answer?  Get government out of healthcare at every level in every way forever.


Very nice job, except for one thing--you missed the most obvious and egregious thing of all.

Medicare demanded _mountains_ of paperwork.  Mountains of it.  Doctors had to raise prices on Medicare services just to pay the clerical staff they needed to handle it.  Initially, they were allowed to charge extra for Medicare stuff.

Now they are not.  Now someone who requires not one half page of paperwork--the proverbial cash customer--must be charged for three hours of paper shuffling.  By federal law.  Just to make Medicare look less onerous and silly than it is.  Even though it's still very obvious that it's onerous and silly.

There's no good reason for that federal law.  But that federal law exists nonetheless.  The insurance companies love it.  If you don't hate it, you're either an insurance company or an idiot.




> Nice argument, of course you win.


A whole thread full of convincing arguments, and you seize on an observation and denigrate it because it isn't a good enough argument.

That doesn't even constitute a good straw man, man.  Pitiful.

----------


## Working Poor

> It's a propaganda piece without any hard numbers to back it up.  Only a total sap or Obama/Krugman fanboy would pay it any attention.  According to the Washington Post, all of the politicians are throwing around wildly inflated numbers on Obamacare.  And besides, it's failure by design.  Even if it "succeeds" it fails.  The people signing up for it are those who can't afford it and are being subsidized and who are more likely to be sick.  You aren't getting the young, healthy, can afford it crowd signing up that will be needed to carry the poor, sick, old crowd.  
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-we-dont-know/
> 
> Also premiums have gone up, people are losing their insurance, hospitals are laying off people in mass and a host of other problems are materializing.  If anything Obamacare is succeeding in causing failure in the U.S. economy.


I would like to quote you at another site if you don't mind. Thanks for posting.

----------


## Acala

> The insurance companies love it.  If you don't hate it, you're either an insurance company or an idiot.


I'm not so sure.  The insurance companies are squeezed between rising health care costs and resistance to raising premiums.  For political reasons, insurance became the focus of health care "reform" even though it is generally just passing costs through from providers to consumers.  Ultimately, they are going to get killed because health care costs will continue to increase but there will be political pressure to control premiums.  The ultimate doom of Obamacare will likely be signaled by insurance companies bailing out of the business.  Insurance execs aren't stupid.  I doubt they have missed this.  But part of the problem with the corporate business structure is a short-term focus.  So they are going along with it as long as they can make this quarter's numbers look good.  But that will end and I think they know it.  They just don't care.  It will be someone else's problem.

----------


## really

Thanks for clearing that up for me. However, I was actually tryingto have a discussion to find out if people think the poor are entitled to goodhealthcare or if it should be reserved to the 50% of us that have good employerprovided insurance. And..assuming that the uninsured should not be turned awayat the hospital door ...... how it should their bills be paid for?

But if you prefer, let’s discuss the high cost of healthcare. Everyone agreesthat it is crazy high and getting more expensive by the day.  I think that I read somewhere that healthcarerepresents almost a quarter of GDP.  (I’mnot sure of that number.)

While I agree that regulation increases cost of healthcare; there are alsocosts related to unqualified doctors, tainted medicines and poor medical procedures.  Some regulation is unfortunately necessary.

The argument that people should shop for medical procedures on their own andthereby reduce costs is an old one that I would have expected to die off bynow. Anyone who has been in for any kind of surgery will know that the doctorswill not give you an estimate similar to your mechanic. You will get a number but that will have no relation to what you will pay (I doubt that anyonewould go for the lowest bidder anyway.) After surgery you get a bill statingwhat your insurance company did not pay and what you owe. (These will come fromnot just your surgeon but for anastasia, the hospital and also every consulting doctor thatwalks through your door or looked at your chart.) I have had to make repeatedrequests for detailed billing. (Not that I am qualified to know what is alegitimate expense and what is bogus.) In short, it is impossible to shop for medicalprocedures and after surgery bills are crazy.

The real reason medical expenses are on the rise has more to do with 1) strongindustry lobbies and 2) medical progress that provides new and expensive proceduresto extend life.

That said; there are ways to lower costs by negotiation with doctors, pharmaceuticalcompanies and hospitals. This is not something an individual can do but perhapssomething that insurance companies or (dare I say it) the government can do.  You correctly point out that all cost controlmeasures were beaten out of the ADA so that will not be much help.

----------


## erowe1

> Interesting comments on the ACA. It seems to me that we have never really had a national dialog on who deserves healthcare.


Nobody simply deserves health care just by virtue of their existence.

That is the objective and undeniable truth. Having a national dialog about that doesn't seem like a good idea, if you mean to suggest a process where the majority of the people decide that they have the authority to create their own morality and impose it on the rest of us without our consent, and where the law they come up with could actually contradict the true law, the undeniable objective truth that I wrote above.

----------


## Acala

> Thanks for clearing that up for me. However, I was actually tryingto have a discussion to find out if people think the poor are entitled to goodhealthcare or if it should be reserved to the 50% of us that have good employerprovided insurance. And..assuming that the uninsured should not be turned awayat the hospital door ...... how it should their bills be paid for?
> 
> But if you prefer, let’s discuss the high cost of healthcare. Everyone agreesthat it is crazy high and getting more expensive by the day.  I think that I read somewhere that healthcarerepresents almost a quarter of GDP.  (I’mnot sure of that number.)
> 
> While I agree that regulation increases cost of healthcare; there are alsocosts related to unqualified doctors, tainted medicines and poor medical procedures.  Some regulation is unfortunately necessary.
> 
> The argument that people should shop for medical procedures on their own andthereby reduce costs is an old one that I would have expected to die off bynow. Anyone who has been in for any kind of surgery will know that the doctorswill not give you an estimate similar to your mechanic. You will get a number but that will have no relation to what you will pay (I doubt that anyonewould go for the lowest bidder anyway.) After surgery you get a bill statingwhat your insurance company did not pay and what you owe. (These will come fromnot just your surgeon but for anastasia, the hospital and also every consulting doctor thatwalks through your door or looked at your chart.) I have had to make repeatedrequests for detailed billing. (Not that I am qualified to know what is alegitimate expense and what is bogus.) In short, it is impossible to shop for medicalprocedures and after surgery bills are crazy.
> 
> The real reason medical expenses are on the rise has more to do with 1) strongindustry lobbies and 2) medical progress that provides new and expensive proceduresto extend life.
> ...


Is anyone "entitled" to good food?  Good housing?  Good clothing?  These things are as important as healthcare.  Why do you stop there?  Shouldn't people be entitled to anything they want?  Shouldn't they be able to use the violence of the state to take what they want from those who have it?  If they can use the violence of the state to take health care, why not everything else they want?  Where do you draw the line and why?

The fact that negotiating for complicated health procedures under the current system is difficult says nothing at all about negotiating for such a procedure in a free market.  The problems you point to are a result of government regulation. I would say that having lasers sculpt your eyeballs is right up there with most major surgery in terms of complexity, yet people not only seem to be able to negotiate lasix procedures on their own (since it is rarely covered by insurance) but the result has been a steady DROP in the price of the procedure.  The cost of health care covered by insurance and government subsidy goes up while the cost of equally sophisticated healthcare not covered by insurance goes down.    

Your statement that some regulation is necessary is unsupported.  The private sector is quite capable of sorting out the qualifications of doctors.  Certainly the government system is marginal at best, allowing many crappy doctors in and keeping many skilled healers out.  As for tainted drugs and bad procedures (which occur notwithstanding the staggering burden of regulation now in place) the tort system is perfectly capable of responding with compensation.

All government regulation is based on the idea that people are either on the one hand too ignorant and incompetent or on the other hand too predatory and corrupt to be left to manage their own affairs.  However, nobody has yet explained how government regulatory agencies will be able to employ people that do not suffer from these same problems.  Perhaps you can, but I doubt it.

----------


## really

[QUOTIs anyone "entitled" to good food?  Good housing?  Good clothing?  These things are as important as healthcare.  Why do you stop there?  Shouldn't people be entitled to anything they want?  Shouldn't they be able to use the violence of the state to take what they want from those who have it?  If they can use the violence of the state to take health care, why not everything else they want?  Where do you draw the line and why?

The fact that negotiating for complicated health procedures under the current system is difficult says nothing at all about negotiating for such a procedure in a free market.  The problems you point to are a result of government regulation. I would say that having lasers sculpt your eyeballs is right up there with most major surgery in terms of complexity, yet people not only seem to be able to negotiate lasix procedures on their own (since it is rarely covered by insurance) but the result has been a steady DROP in the price of the procedure.  The cost of health care covered by insurance and government subsidy goes up while the cost of equally sophisticated healthcare not covered by insurance goes down.    

Your statement that some regulation is necessary is unsupported.  The private sector is quite capable of sorting out the qualifications of doctors.  Certainly the government system is marginal at best, allowing many crappy doctors in and keeping many skilled healers out.  As for tainted drugs and bad procedures (which occur notwithstanding the staggering burden of regulation now in place) the tort system is perfectly capable of responding with compensation.

All government regulation is based on the idea that people are either on the one hand too ignorant and incompetent or on the other hand too predatory and corrupt to be left to manage their own affairs.  However, nobody has yet explained how government regulatory agencies will be able to employ people that do not suffer from these same problems.  Perhaps you can, but I doubt it.E][/QUOTE]

I have no I idea if the poor deserve food, housing,medical care or not. That is the discussion.
In terms of the uninsured we have not really made up ourmind. We have not had a discussion about what to do with those withoutinsurance. Hospitals are not allowed to turn away emergency patients without insurance.In Texas where some 32% of the population has no insurance (http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=5517)my real estate tax dollars pay for clinics and the county hospital district. Myinsurance is inflated to cover the cost of the uninsured.

Either we should 1) make everyone get insurance or 2) turn those that do nothave insurance away at the hospital door. (I doubt that anyone wants to see uninsured people die at the hospital door.) We do neither and the result is thecrazy and expensive system we have always had. What we have had is not cost effective. (The ACA may not be either but it is delusional to think what we hadprior was working.)
Your statement that the market system is fully capable ofregulating doctors tainted drugs and medical procedures is also unsupported aswe have never had a fully unregulated free market.  You can speculate all day how wonderful itwould be but can not support the premise. 
As far as negotiating for your own best price for medicalcare;  I wish you the best of luck.  We are all pulling for you big guy.

----------


## really

> Is anyone "entitled" to good food?  Good housing?  Good clothing?  These things are as important as healthcare.  Why do you stop there?  Shouldn't people be entitled to anything they want?  Shouldn't they be able to use the violence of the state to take what they want from those who have it?  If they can use the violence of the state to take health care, why not everything else they want?  Where do you draw the line and why?
> 
> The fact that negotiating for complicated health procedures under the current system is difficult says nothing at all about negotiating for such a procedure in a free market.  The problems you point to are a result of government regulation. I would say that having lasers sculpt your eyeballs is right up there with most major surgery in terms of complexity, yet people not only seem to be able to negotiate lasix procedures on their own (since it is rarely covered by insurance) but the result has been a steady DROP in the price of the procedure.  The cost of health care covered by insurance and government subsidy goes up while the cost of equally sophisticated healthcare not covered by insurance goes down.    
> 
> Your statement that some regulation is necessary is unsupported.  The private sector is quite capable of sorting out the qualifications of doctors.  Certainly the government system is marginal at best, allowing many crappy doctors in and keeping many skilled healers out.  As for tainted drugs and bad procedures (which occur notwithstanding the staggering burden of regulation now in place) the tort system is perfectly capable of responding with compensation.
> 
> All government regulation is based on the idea that people are either on the one hand too ignorant and incompetent or on the other hand too predatory and corrupt to be left to manage their own affairs.  However, nobody has yet explained how government regulatory agencies will be able to employ people that do not suffer from these same problems.  Perhaps you can, but I doubt it.
> 			
> 		
> ...




I have no I idea if the poor deserve food, housing,medical care or not. That is the discussion.
In terms of the uninsured we have not really made up our minds. We have not had a discussion about what to do with those withoutinsurance. Hospitals are not allowed to turn away emergency patients without insurance.In Texas where some 32% of the population has no insurance (http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=5517)my real estate tax dollars pay for clinics and the county hospital district. Myinsurance is inflated to cover the cost of the uninsured.

Either we should 1) make everyone get insurance or 2) turn those that do nothave insurance away at the hospital door. (I doubt that anyone wants to see uninsured people die at the hospital door.) We do neither and the result is the crazy and expensive system we have always had. What we have had is not cost effective. (The ACA may not be either but it is delusional to think what we hadprior was working.)

Your statement that the market system is fully capable of regulating doctors tainted drugs and medical procedures is also unsupported as we have never had a fully unregulated free market.  You can speculate all day how wonderful it would be, but can not support the premise. 

As far as negotiating for your own best price for medical care;  I wish you the best of luck.  We are all pulling for you big guy.

----------


## acptulsa

> Your statement that the market system is fully capable ofregulating doctors tainted drugs and medical procedures is also unsupported aswe have never had a fully unregulated free market.  You can speculate all day how wonderful itwould be but can not support the premise.


No?  Have we never heard of Underwriters' Laboratories?  You see ads on your television every day from class action lawyers offering to help you sue the pharmaceutical cartel over the truly dangerous crap that always makes its way past the FDA If you don't, you never turn your television on), but when was the last time you heard of thousands of houses burning down because of faulty appliances?  It doesn't happen, and the reason is because government is corruptible to its core, always has been, is now more than ever before, while the U.L. has nothing to do with government.

As for 'never a free market', you must think the world started turning when you were born.  There have been doctors since before recorded history, and the poor have managed to secure their services, too.

If you want due diligence, history has proven over and over that government is the last place you should look for it.  What fairy tale have you been reading?

Oh, and the less you play with fonts, sizes and colors the easier your posts are to read because (among other things) you're less likely to screw up the quote balloons.  But, you know, if style is more important to you than results, that's fine.  So long as you're not shoving corrupt government agencies with high style but crappy results down _our_ throats...

----------


## erowe1

> I have no I idea if the poor deserve food, housing,medical care or not. That is the discussion.


Why do you have no idea? It seems obvious to me that no one has an automatic right to any of those things. What would it take to convince you one way or the other?

----------


## erowe1

> Either we should 1) make everyone get insurance or 2) turn those that do nothave insurance away at the hospital door.


I don't see why those are the only two options. Why should the state tell hospitals and their patients what kind of agreements they are and aren't allowed to make with one another?

----------


## Acala

> I have no I idea if the poor deserve food, housing,medical care or not. That is the discussion.
> In terms of the uninsured we have not really made up our minds. We have not had a discussion about what to do with those withoutinsurance. Hospitals are not allowed to turn away emergency patients without insurance.In Texas where some 32% of the population has no insurance (http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=5517)my real estate tax dollars pay for clinics and the county hospital district. Myinsurance is inflated to cover the cost of the uninsured.
> 
> Either we should 1) make everyone get insurance or 2) turn those that do nothave insurance away at the hospital door. (I doubt that anyone wants to see uninsured people die at the hospital door.) We do neither and the result is the crazy and expensive system we have always had. What we have had is not cost effective. (The ACA may not be either but it is delusional to think what we hadprior was working.)
> 
> Your statement that the market system is fully capable of regulating doctors tainted drugs and medical procedures is also unsupported as we have never had a fully unregulated free market.  You can speculate all day how wonderful it would be, but can not support the premise. 
> 
> As far as negotiating for your own best price for medical care;  I wish you the best of luck.  We are all pulling for you big guy.


Most people on this forum try to apply a set of consistent principles to social and economic problems.  They don't just parrot the media or say what feels good.  So if you are going to take the position that it is okay to use violence to make people provide you with healthcare, then you need to explain why and also explain why healthcare is any different than any other needs.

You insist on a false dichotomy of using violence to make everyone buy health insurance or deny them healthcare.  You Know, health insurance was virtually unknown fifty years ago in this country?  Yet people were not dying in the streets.  So maybe there are other possibilities than the two the media has chosen for you?

----------


## acptulsa

> So maybe there are other possibilities than the two the media has chosen for you?


Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned _not_ to repeat the _good_ parts.

But we really need to be asking really some questions, too--how can he or she advocate for the devil otherwise?  Oh, really--once everyone has it and is supporting the hypochondriacs to the benefit of the medical industrial complex and at the expense of poor working taxpayers, how long until I'm force-medicated?  Will I have to endure liver trouble, dizziness, an inability to drive, disorientation, random bleeding, the loss of billions of brain cells, halitosis and death even if I think none of that is better than the hangnail that Big Pharma's latest Wonder Poison is designed to prevent?  Will I still be at liberty to decide that for myself?

The history of the world over the last fifty plus years suggests I won't...

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Myinsurance is inflated to cover the cost of the uninsured.
> 
> Either we should 1) make everyone get insurance or 2) turn those that do nothave insurance away at the hospital door. (I doubt that anyone wants to see uninsured people die at the hospital door.)


The people showing up at emergency are the people with all kinds of devices stuck up their rectum.  I pointed out in the other post that they are also homeless people looking to bunk for the night.  They are people who come in looking for something to eat.  They are family members of the patient making drama so they can get prescriptions for themselves.  They are people who have run out of street dope and money, so they come in the hospital to get some more.  My wife works in a medical facility and sees this daily.  

Your insurance is inflated to cover these costs that everybody has accommodated.  Your insurance is also inflated because doctors are ordering multiple tests to make more cash.  And no, it does not have anything to do with liability because the same exact test is duplicated.  If you have insurance, then the tests are done.  If you don't have insurance, then you're edged out the door.  A law that gets you in the hospital doors stops there, at least in a de facto way.  If you think the uninsured are getting the same attention as the insured, then think again. 

Your drama about people dying at the hospital door is tee vee human interest story nonsense.  A lot of these people are half dead from degenerative diseases, not acute diseases.  They are admitted not really to be saved because they're on their last legs.  They come in and get a bed.  A crapload of tests are done.  They die a week later.     


..

----------


## really

I agree that there are more than the two options I proposed i.e.; "Either we should 1) make everyone get insurance or 2) turn those that do not have insurance away at the hospital door".....

This was intentionally hyperbolic. We have always taken a third approach over the past 50 years.  But I think that it is also unfair to lump hard working fathers and mothers making minimum wage with criminals and drugusers.

The fact is that in (Texas at least) large numbers of hard working people work jobs that do not have emloyer provided insurance. These people often make the decision between buying food and paying the rent and taking care of a chronic illness.  My point was and still is that these people will become more ill than they would if they had access to medical care and maintenance drugs.

When these people show up at the hospital, we as a society must decide if we will treat them or not. Emergency rooms are the most expensive place to treat people. Out of compassion, we have passed laws to require hospitals to provideat least minimal care. Since most hospitals are businesses these costs need to be passed on to someone.

Additionally, there are the "young invincibles" that are under 35 years, that have no kids and feel no need to buy insurance because they are sure they will never get ill.  When they do get ill someone will pay.

For the last 50 years we have had one of the most expensive medical systems in the developed world.  Since there have been many suggestions of other issues that contribute to the high cost of medical care, can I assume that this is an issue not worth discussing?

----------


## Acala

> I agree that there are more than the two options I proposed i.e.; "Either we should 1) make everyone get insurance or 2) turn those that do not have insurance away at the hospital door".....
> 
> This was intentionally hyperbolic. We have always taken a third approach over the past 50 years.  But I think that it is also unfair to lump hard working fathers and mothers making minimum wage with criminals and drugusers.
> 
> The fact is that in (Texas at least) large numbers of hard working people work jobs that do not have emloyer provided insurance. These people often make the decision between buying food and paying the rent and taking care of a chronic illness.  My point was and still is that these people will become more ill than they would if they had access to medical care and maintenance drugs.
> 
> When these people show up at the hospital, we as a society must decide if we will treat them or not. Emergency rooms are the most expensive place to treat people. Out of compassion, we have passed laws to require hospitals to provideat least minimal care. Since most hospitals are businesses these costs need to be passed on to someone.
> 
> Additionally, there are the "young invincibles" that are under 35 years, that have no kids and feel no need to buy insurance because they are sure they will never get ill.  When they do get ill someone will pay.
> ...


It (meaning problems with health care) is an issue worth discussing, but you are not discussing it.  You have come to the table with some narrowing assumptions that you do not seem willing to question.  

You assume that health care is inevitably more expensive than the average person can afford.  That has not been the case historically and need not be the case now.  Healthcare is expensive because government has both strictly impinged on the supply and generously subsidized the demand (in part with inflated money).  Talking about healthcare without talking about the fundamental problem of high cost is a waste of time.    

You assume that universal insurance is somehow a solution to the problem of healthcare.  It is not.  It is at best a temporary measure and will ultimately make matters worse.  Insurance does not magically create wealth to use for healthcare.  Someone still must pay the cost of health care even when it is covered by insurance.  Universal insurance does nothing to control costs.  In fact, it increases costs because it increases demand for optional services.  Healthcare costs in this country are unsustainable.  Universal insurance will move those costs around, but will not make them sustainable.  Obamacare has not fixed a broken system, it has merely postponed the inevitable demise.

You seem to be under the impression that passing laws can be an act of compassion.  It isn't.  If I pull out my wallet and spend my money to help a person in need, that might be compassion.  If instead I pull out a gun (government force) and make a third person take out their wallet and use their money to help a person in need, that is not compassion.  That is theft.  You continue to ignore the moral problem with using the violence of the state to achieve an ersatz compassion.  Compassion is a do it yourself proposition.  It is lazy and disingenuous to think it compassionate to force other people to do the heavy lifting while you bask in self-rightiousness behind your government gun.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Out of compassion, we have passed laws to require hospitals to provideat least minimal care.


I think we're actually less compassionate.  If people were really compassionate, then they'd take care of their family members.  Instead, they either conveniently foist them upon society, or, the laws that you speak of enable them to discard their weak and elderly members.  

I have a neighbor who recently put her 90+ year old mother in a home.  Now, the daughter tries to get us to visit the 90+ year old mother.  I would visit the mother when she was right across the street, partly because it was an easy trip and she was a neighbor.  The daughter views her mother as an inconvenience, but somehow her mother is worthy enough for ME to visit.  Well, isn't that peachy.

There are, of course, exceptions to this.  I also understand how the industrial society created this phenomenon.  We also, however, have made very conscious decisions to do this.  It has become far too easy for people to throwaway their useless members on everyone else. 

People also have kids and don't want to take care of them.  It's everybody else's responsibility but theirs.  This used to just go for orphans and people who needed help.  Now, a large contingent of society has demanded that everyone else accommodate their selfishness and laziness.  They take the easy part of having kids, but don't want the responsibility.

Same with the kids' treatment of their elderly parents.  They are--they tell me--just too busy, so everybody else should take care of their parents.  I take care of my own, but now I'm supposed to take care of others because they don't feel like or they're just "too busy."  They then come up with phony nonsensical paradigms like "It takes a village."  Yeah, I guess it does take a village to fill the gaps of your slothfulness and self-indulgence.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> But I think that it is also unfair to lump hard working fathers and mothers making minimum wage with criminals and drugusers.
> 
> The fact is that in (Texas at least) large numbers of hard working people work jobs that do not have emloyer provided insurance. These people often make the decision between buying food and paying the rent and taking care of a chronic illness.





> You have come to the table with some narrowing assumptions that you do not seem willing to question.


I agree with Acala about the assumptions that some are making.  Not sure if the following covers what he is saying, but people are so gullible when listening to these tee-vee news stories about the people choosing between premiums versus putting food on the table.  Baloney!  Their choice is between premiums and 5 cartons of cigarettes per month.  Their choice is buying a bells-and-whistles cell phone versus paying premiums.

There are also the sensational news stories that create the false dichotomy between the hard working patient versus the criminal/drug addict patient.  The news conveniently forgets about the large percentage who just come in because they want attention.  You massage their shoulders for five seconds, and they don't want you to stop because they act like a family member or their kids haven't touched them in ten years.  They come in because their stomach hurts and they have diarrhea because they wouldn't stop shoveling in kool aid and pizza over the weekend.  They lay around in the hospital bed and demand food and cleanup, like the hospital staff is some kind of maid service.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

By the way, there are lots of people in the hospital who are not demanding or not there for frivolous reasons.  Many have insurance, and the hospital takes advantage of that.  They'll still end up owing what the uninsured patients owes, but they get more "care" because they're insured.

----------

