NationStates

Sibirsky wrote:

Washington Democrats wrote:We should at least have one that is not logrolled. And it is only logrolled by its absolute opposition from the start.

I don't care how it came into existence. I want to see a source for one.

Which are you asking for? "efficient" in the sense of efficiency, or "efficient" as in it actually works successfully?

Sibirsky wrote:Allowing insurers to compete across state line, tax incentives for the self insured, HSAs, removal of mandates. Evidence is the affordability of other goods and services of good quality that are provided by businesses competing in a free market.

By that same token, I could use the many other State-run institutions as evidence in favour of universal healthcare.

Helertia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Source for an efficient US government program.

Yes, Government programs tend to less efficient then businesses.
And yet, Universal Health programs, when implemented as the USA could, improve health more, and cost less per person, than other systems.

Not a free market system.

Sibirsky wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
So what is the correct approach and what is the evidence supporting your theory?

Allowing insurers to compete across state line, tax incentives for the self insured, HSAs, removal of mandates. Evidence is the affordability of other goods and services of good quality that are provided by businesses competing in a free market.

Yea they would race to the state with the least regulation. Better coverage.

Sibirsky wrote:

Helertia wrote:
Yes, Government programs tend to less efficient then businesses.
And yet, Universal Health programs, when implemented as the USA could, improve health more, and cost less per person, than other systems.

Not a free market system.

Source for a free market system perfoming better than Universal Healthcare systems?

Sibirsky wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
So what is the correct approach and what is the evidence supporting your theory?

Allowing insurers to compete across state line, tax incentives for the self insured, HSAs, removal of mandates. Evidence is the affordability of other goods and services of good quality that are provided by businesses competing in a free market.

Its not so simple. Nothing really stops you from buying insurance across state lines. The problem is long arm statutes will allow the insurance company to be brought to court in the state the insured person is in. So the benefit of shopping across state lines is diminished as insurers are forced to comply with state laws of the resident. A bill from congress might not be able to change this as this is a due process issue.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Yes. It's idiotic. If you switch jobs, or move to another state, you have to switch insurance carriers. Neither one has anything to do with insurance.

And the tax penalty for those that want to buy their own.

Hmmm sounds like a good insurance plan is a good way to attract employees....

That's how they started. Because the love of your life decided to put wage controls on people. And they allowed businesses to deduct the cost of it as an expense. And they did not give the same benefit to individuals.

Washington Democrats wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Yes. It's idiotic. If you switch jobs, or move to another state, you have to switch insurance carriers. Neither one has anything to do with insurance.

And the tax penalty for those that want to buy their own.

So the fault lies with the people that were taken into employer insurance, not with the tricks of the insurance trade?

The government that created the system.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Allowing insurers to compete across state line, tax incentives for the self insured, HSAs, removal of mandates. Evidence is the affordability of other goods and services of good quality that are provided by businesses competing in a free market.

Yea they would race to the state with the least regulation. Better coverage.

if people choose the least regulated insurance regime doesn't that mean the more regulated one can not compete.

North Suran wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Free healthcare does not exist.

Free at the point of service healthcare, on the other hand...

Exists for most Americans

Meryuma wrote:In conservatism and right-libertarianism, the laissez-faire model of health care is seen as being that of a business. Why? A charitable model of health care isn't innately welfare-based: the Red Cross are a non-government medicine provider and they don't see themselves as a business.
Do we need government for free health care?

See, libertarianism (Not using your right-libertarianism here.) is saying that as it is true. You're selling a product to someone else, therefore it is a business. In this case, it's a service. Just look at cars, transport, aircrafts. Also, healthcare can be a charity if it is not selling anything. Like you said: The Red-Cross relies on donations for their funds, not on selling a good or service.

And no, the word 'free' when used for prices is terrible. See, when something is 'free', meaning you don't need to fork out any amount of money, demand for something will skyrocket to infinity. It can be anything: Mulch or the latest medicine, but the result will still be the same.

Wamitoria wrote:

greed and death wrote:Does this include an option to be uninsured and not be fined for it.

No, because it would be used as a loophole to deny coverage.

What coverage? He doesn't want insurance.

greed and death wrote:

Wamitoria wrote:No, because it would be used as a loophole to deny coverage.

How does me managing my own insurance as an individual deny others coverage ?

As for the law the senate bill has plenty of those loop holes to make the mandate irrelevant.

Sweet!

Londim wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Unless your health problem is with your teeth, then you are.

Well, apart from the teeth. We'll let have the private sector have them. Y'know, throw them a bone to keep them happy.

I'd rather not. My father is threatened to be taken to court over a couple dental check up he was late on getting paid.

Although my father is to be blamed for not being able to afford it, It would be alot better off it it was a free service in the first place.

Sibirsky wrote:

Wamitoria wrote:No, because it would be used as a loophole to deny coverage.

What coverage? He doesn't want insurance.

By not getting insurance I will be denied the insurance I do not want apparently .

Fartsniffage wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Allowing insurers to compete across state line, tax incentives for the self insured, HSAs, removal of mandates. Evidence is the affordability of other goods and services of good quality that are provided by businesses competing in a free market.

Don't make me laugh.

Whatever. Go read a book on economics, and how planned economies have learned.

Meryuma wrote:free health care

There's no free anything, and no, we don't need socialized health care. Also, the Red Cross isn't nationalized. There's a difference between charity and socialism.

Sibirsky wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Don't make me laugh.

Whatever. Go read a book on economics, and how planned economies have learned.

for the second time...
Erm, when you say affordable, who do you mean for, and what exactly do you mean by affordable?

Sibirsky wrote:

greed and death wrote:How does me managing my own insurance as an individual deny others coverage ?

As for the law the senate bill has plenty of those loop holes to make the mandate irrelevant.

Sweet!

Not for the individual, just plenty for businesses to deny coverage.
So buying insurance now si sort of like being a lamb lead to the slaughter.

Sibirsky wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Don't make me laugh.

Whatever. Go read a book on economics, and how planned economies have learned.

Also check China and Russia before. Russia was master planning its economy. It had all these magnificant infrastructure. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, too followed the funding for the infrastructure. And the economy was not improved one little bit. The only time that the economy improved was when the tax rates dropped.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Washington Democrats wrote:So the fault lies with the people that were taken into employer insurance, not with the tricks of the insurance trade?

Indeed. Don't you know if you remove all regulations, there wouldn't be any cheating anymore? Delay of claims, denial of claims for vagaue reasons or just outright BS.

tangent: I am having an argument with my freemarket minded insurance company whose "expert" a gynecologist said my allergist used an experimental test that really wasn't needed.

Your insurance provider has nothing to do with the free market and would do anything and everything in their power to avoid it. The reason they can fuck with you is because you are stuck with them. Chances are your employer pays for your insurance with them. Meaning you have no choice. You cannot go and pick another insurer. You still like your group coverage?

Pythria wrote:

Meryuma wrote:free health care

There's no free anything, and no, we don't need socialized health care. Also, the Red Cross isn't nationalized. There's a difference between charity and socialism.

If most of your financial earnings wouldn't have to be put towards your health, and instead everyone put a little into the system to cover everyone, much more progress could be made.

Sibirsky wrote:Whatever. Go read a book on economics, and how planned economies have learned.

The minimum level of service for the maximum charge the market will stand?

I'm not sure I would want healthcare run on those lines.

Helertia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Allowing insurers to compete across state line, tax incentives for the self insured, HSAs, removal of mandates. Evidence is the affordability of other goods and services of good quality that are provided by businesses competing in a free market.

Sorry, quick question - When you say affordable, what and for who exactly do you mean?

For the overwhelming majority of people. Everyone eats, everyone has clothes and shelter. Yes, we do have shelters, section 8 housing, and soup kitchens. There are better ways to provide for the very poor. But more people would be able to afford their own coverage. Ideally catastrophic coverage coupled with HSAs, but I don't see why comprehensive coverage would not be available.

Pythria wrote:

Meryuma wrote:free health care

There's no free anything, and no, we don't need socialized health care. Also, the Red Cross isn't nationalized. There's a difference between charity and socialism.

Yes, as I've explained in another post right here, the Red Cross is a charity, therefore charity =/= business.