Why can't free markets provide healthcare?

[Murkwood]

In the US, she is far-left.

No. She's probably more left of center than most Americans, but far left for the US would be Sanders.

She's more to the left than average Leftists.

[Atlanticatia]

Vermont is currently in the process of developing their own single payer system. If it works, give it a few years, and if people like it, it could spread through America. Maybe in 5-10 years time, we'll be passing single payer.
I also think that if Vermont gets theirs set up, states like Massachusetts, California, etc may enact it, too. I think that getting single payer at a national level will take a grassroots movement, and policy among the states.
We can sort of see how this happens with Obama pushing for paid parental leave; and a few states - California, RI, NJ, have it.

Remember.. Romneycare did, in a way, lead to Obamacare.

[Death Metal]

Vermont is currently in the process of developing their own single payer system. If it works, give it a few years, and if people like it, it could spread through America. Maybe in 5-10 years time, we'll be passing single payer.
I also think that if Vermont gets theirs set up, states like Massachusetts, California, etc may enact it, too. I think that getting single payer at a national level will take a grassroots movement, and policy among the states.
We can sort of see how this happens with Obama pushing for paid parental leave; and a few states - California, RI, NJ, have it.

Remember.. Romneycare did, in a way, lead to Obamacare.

Stop being a conspiracy theorist

Seriously though, good for Vermont. Must be nice to be a state not run by a medicare embezzler.

[Kelinfort]

No. She's probably more left of center than most Americans, but far left for the US would be Sanders.

She's more to the left than average Leftists.

No. Please, leftism is based around socialism and Warren accepts Capitalism. Your claim is baseless and coloured by partisan view.

[Murkwood]

She's more to the left than average Leftists.

No. Please, leftism is based around socialism and Warren accepts Capitalism. Your claim is baseless and coloured by partisan view.

I'm referring to Leftists in the US.

[Geilinor]

No. Please, leftism is based around socialism and Warren accepts Capitalism. Your claim is baseless and coloured by partisan view.

I'm referring to Leftists in the US.

Then you mean liberals, not leftists.

[Calimera II]

I'm referring to Leftists in the US.

Then you mean liberals, not leftists.

Liberals =/= Leftist, it doesn't have the same meaning in lots of countries.

[Othelos]

No. You do know what far left means, right?

In the US, she is far-left.

no not really. she's not that different from many democrats.

[Jocabia]

No. Please, leftism is based around socialism and Warren accepts Capitalism. Your claim is baseless and coloured by partisan view.

I'm referring to Leftists in the US.

One, you're arguing on an international forum, so using the term that incorrectly sounds ignorant. Two, the left exists in the US, it's just not that powerful. And the fact that you recognize just demonstrates how the suggestions being made by you and many Republicans that Democrats are radical leftists is a blatant and knowing lie. The Democrats took the center when the right radicalized and became what it is today. That's why Democrats passed a healthcare bill written almost entirely by Republicans.

[Salandriagado]

Who said anything about state controlled economies? Market failures are any situation where the free market leads to an outcome that is not pareto efficient. So we're talking about things like externalities such as pollution, barriers to entry which prevent competitors from entering the market amd others.

The last economic collapse was not due to governments intervening too much in the market, if anything it was because the government didn't regulate the market enough. Banks are lending too much? Increase the reserve ratio, problem solved.

I've seen a lot of people talk about fractional reserve banking as an issue, but I've never been shown what exactly the issue with it is. So if you would tell me what your gripe is with it then that would be great. Also, banks, not central banks, are the reason that fractional reserve banking is a thing.

Pollution, I don't understand how that does anything.

Externalities: roughly, where part or all of the cost of a decision lands on someone other than the person making that decision. Pretty much ignored by free markets. Pollution is one.

Secondly, if there is a free market, the barrier of entry will naturally be very low, with little or no regulation, which makes it incredibly easy for people to start their own business.

Really? So CPU fabricators are cheap now?

The last economic collapse was due to the central bank and their artificial reduction of interest rates, which naturally results in people buying more and more houses, thinking that it would be a good investment, therefore resulting in malinvestment, and the housing bubble from 04-07.

Whereas proper regulation would have fixed it.

However, the lowering of interest rates had another issue, when people were rampantly buying houses, companies rushed to build more houses to meet the consumer demands, but it wasn't possible to afford all of those houses, therefore resulting in unwanted production and less spending when people were satisfied as they have all malinvested in all of those houses, and with the lack of spending, the housing sector begins to crash, therefore making loans unsustainable and resulting in mass foreclosure, all because of the central bank.

And here we have a very clear example of the free market failing to be efficient.

[Kravanica]

That's great, but screaming "B-b-but the GOP!" isn't much of a response. I find it hilarious that when I point out Obama's pure and utter hypocrisy liberals like you spin right around and start attacking the GOP.

This law was passed when the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress so you lot really don't have much of a case.

Cowardly attempt to deflect the criticism with a straw version of my response? Check.
Failure to address the point? Check.
Flaming? Check.
Ignoring the fact that despite the majority the GOP still managed to logjam and force significant changes to the AHCA? Check

Congratulations, you've proven yourself unable to defend your argument.

>Cowardly? Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a propaganda spreading coward. Almost forgot I was debating with Death Metal. And I wasn't strawmanning. I was taking your argument to its conclusion. The conclusion that despite being a law championed and passed by Democrats any flaws in it are somehow the fault of Republicans.
>Pretty sure I addressed it pretty well.
>Flaming? Hehe. Oh the delicious hypocrisy.
>List these significant changes and back them up with reliable and non-biased sourcing.

You are always a charmer.

[Kravanica]

The Japanese system is the best compromise for America. Here's why:

-Hospitals are private, but non profit
-Physicians negotiate the price of each procedure with the government for each fiscal year, cutting down on cost.
-Private insurance still exists, but it coexists with government insurance for the poor and needy; about a 70-30 split.
-Government reimburses people for 70% of all expenses.

Go take a look at the amount Japan spends per capita on healthcare versus the United States.

Has the Japanese system been successful?

[Kravanica]

It does suck, but we can debate that elsewhere. The point I'm trying to make here is that Obama spoke out against an individual mandate for healthcare. Then he ended up including one in Obamacare and somehow the liberals here are trying to blame that on Republicans.

It's the world's worst Democrat backpedal.

"The Liberals".

The Democrats are a big tent party, you know.

I was referring more or less to liberals on NSG.

[Kravanica]

That's great, but screaming "B-b-but the GOP!" isn't much of a response. I find it hilarious that when I point out Obama's pure and utter hypocrisy liberals like you spin right around and start attacking the GOP.

This law was passed when the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress so you lot really don't have much of a case.

Your marks:
0/10 for general douchebaggery
-1/10 for the whole conspiracy theorist general propaganda claim
0/10 for such uncouth debating skills

Except, you know, they did borrow off a similar plan endorsed by the GOP in 1993....now let's see if this sounds familiar...

Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island was the point man. The bill he introduced, Health Equity and Access Reform Today, (yes, that spells HEART) had a list of 20 co-sponsors that was a who’s who of Republican leadership. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R- Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were two Democratic co-sponsors.

Among other features, the Chafee bill included:

An individual mandate;

Creation of purchasing pools;

Standardized benefits;

Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;

A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

Only thing missing is the expansion of Medicaid. Raving mad liberals all these gentlemen were.

That's great. But does nothing to refute my points.

[Kravanica]

That's great, but screaming "B-b-but the GOP!" isn't much of a response. I find it hilarious that when I point out Obama's pure and utter hypocrisy liberals like you spin right around and start attacking the GOP.

This law was passed when the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress so you lot really don't have much of a case.

Your marks:
0/10 for general douchebaggery
-1/10 for the whole conspiracy theorist general propaganda claim
0/10 for such uncouth debating skills

The filibuster. Learn how it worked, then come back to us. But since I doubt you will, here's the short version: To get the bill past the Senate, Harry Reid needed 60 votes. At no point did the Democrats have more than 58 Senators, plus two independents - one of whom (Lieberman) stated that he would filibuster any bill more progressive than the one that passed.

Because the GOP campaigned against (and filibustered en masse) essentially the same bill they had proposed as an alternative to HillaryCare in the 1990s (not to mention the same one lauded and praised by Romney right up until the Democrats looked like they'd support it), that locked down any hope of support from that side of the aisle. Which meant that Reid needed every single Democratic and independent Senator to break the filibuster.

Also, it's a bit hard to claim "Conspiracy theory LOL" when Republicans spent the time between Election Day '08 and Inauguration Day plotting how to derail the Obama Administration. Not just "get as much of their stuff through as they could", which would have been entirely appropriate (they, too, were elected, after all), but "Make sure that the Obama Admin achieves absolutely nothing". Including stuff that they themselves championed until that time.

That's all well and good. I know now the filibuster worked. Again, this does nothing to refute my points. You're not exactly proving how Obama's hypocrisy is the fault of the ebul Rethuglicans.

Also, I wasn't claiming that Republicans attempting to derail Obamacare was a conspiracy theory. Death Metal, in his usual fashion somehow accused me of spreading propaganda by quoting Obama.

I mocked this claim because it sounded like conspiracy theorist nonsense really.

[Kravanica]

Then you mean liberals, not leftists.

Liberals =/= Leftist, it doesn't have the same meaning in lots of countries.

Republicans are the American Right. We can all agree on this, correct?

Okay, good.

Democrats are to the left of the American Right. Therefore, they are the American Left.

This is not a difficult concept.

[Kelinfort]

The Japanese system is the best compromise for America. Here's why:

-Hospitals are private, but non profit
-Physicians negotiate the price of each procedure with the government for each fiscal year, cutting down on cost.
-Private insurance still exists, but it coexists with government insurance for the poor and needy; about a 70-30 split.
-Government reimburses people for 70% of all expenses.

Go take a look at the amount Japan spends per capita on healthcare versus the United States.

Has the Japanese system been successful?

With an 80+ life expectancy, $3,000 per capita vs $8,000 we spend in the US, and near universal satisfaction, I think the results speak for themselves.

[Norstal]

The filibuster. Learn how it worked, then come back to us. But since I doubt you will, here's the short version: To get the bill past the Senate, Harry Reid needed 60 votes. At no point did the Democrats have more than 58 Senators, plus two independents - one of whom (Lieberman) stated that he would filibuster any bill more progressive than the one that passed.

Because the GOP campaigned against (and filibustered en masse) essentially the same bill they had proposed as an alternative to HillaryCare in the 1990s (not to mention the same one lauded and praised by Romney right up until the Democrats looked like they'd support it), that locked down any hope of support from that side of the aisle. Which meant that Reid needed every single Democratic and independent Senator to break the filibuster.

Also, it's a bit hard to claim "Conspiracy theory LOL" when Republicans spent the time between Election Day '08 and Inauguration Day plotting how to derail the Obama Administration. Not just "get as much of their stuff through as they could", which would have been entirely appropriate (they, too, were elected, after all), but "Make sure that the Obama Admin achieves absolutely nothing". Including stuff that they themselves championed until that time.

That's all well and good. I know now the filibuster worked. Again, this does nothing to refute my points. You're not exactly proving how Obama's hypocrisy is the fault of the ebul Rethuglicans.

Also, I wasn't claiming that Republicans attempting to derail Obamacare was a conspiracy theory. Death Metal, in his usual fashion somehow accused me of spreading propaganda by quoting Obama.

I mocked this claim because it sounded like conspiracy theorist nonsense really.

If the filibuster worked then you're admitting the Democrats don't have control of both houses.

[Ostroeuropa]

They can, just not to everyone to an acceptable degree.


Public health is something we have to fight for together.
If the poor all get viruses or STD's or some shit because they can't afford healthcare, that really fucks things up for all of society. Even those who can afford it.

So at the absolute very least, viruses, bacteria, and vaccinations (Contagions basically) have to be publically dealt with.

It's like crime in that respect. We have to pay our taxes to fight a problem common to all of us. We all need protection from crime.
We all need protection from viruses.
If my neighbor doesnt have that protection, it's a problem for ME too, because it will have knock on effects and undermines MY protection too.

As for more individual health problems, like broken bones or cancer or something, the more cases of stuff there is, the more research gets done.

Advancement in treatment of disease can go faster.
It directly benefits a billionaire that millions of poor people got free cancer care when it's his turn to get cancer.
He isn't one of the first ones getting treated. Lots have gone before him, and now we know how to do this shit properly.
And you can't just "Buy" a sudden cure to a disease, no matter how rich you are.
It takes test studies and such. Years of research. And the more test subjects, the better your chances.

Death is our common enemy as mankind. We must fight it together. Because it's coming for each of us eventually.

[Kravanica]

Also, this.

[Kelinfort]

Also, this.

Taking out Medicaid expansion and they're basically the same

[Renewed Dissonance]

I think these arguments are a load of rubbish.

They are rubbish if one is willing to accept that in a market distribution scheme, people should be allowed to die because they cannot afford to pay for service. Or, to put it another way, in a market scheme, the effective rights and liberties of the individual are contingent upon membership in a specific economic class.

I think I can make a pretty strong argument that failure to provide basic free healthcare is actually anti-individualist, that a "pure market" scheme that requires membership in a specific group (the wealthy, or at least, the economically secure) is actually a collectivist horror.

But I'm an individualist (more specifically, of the left market anarchist variety, but even then with not insignificant caveats), so I would tend to think so.

So why not free markets?

Because holding the individual hostage to a for-profit price in order to exercise their effective individual rights is morally perverse.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Pollution, I don't understand how that does anything. Secondly, if there is a free market, the barrier of entry will naturally be very low, with little or no regulation, which makes it incredibly easy for people to start their own business.

The last economic collapse was due to the central bank and their artificial reduction of interest rates, which naturally results in people buying more and more houses, thinking that it would be a good investment, therefore resulting in malinvestment, and the housing bubble from 04-07. However, the lowering of interest rates had another issue, when people were rampantly buying houses, companies rushed to build more houses to meet the consumer demands, but it wasn't possible to afford all of those houses, therefore resulting in unwanted production and less spending when people were satisfied as they have all malinvested in all of those houses, and with the lack of spending, the housing sector begins to crash, therefore making loans unsustainable and resulting in mass foreclosure, all because of the central bank.

Look up externalities, I'm not bothered to explain it for the eightieth time on this forum. Barriers to entry exist without government and it is plain wrong to say that they will be low without government intervention. How would the free market deal with collusion, for example?

Another theory that I have seen that I have seen no evidence to backup. Take the EU, where the ECB had higher interest rates when the economy was growing and lower rates in tough times to stimulate the economy, which is good economic practice. Again I ask what is the issue with fractional reserve banking?

Without a government regulating, the only barrier is cash, other than that there is no barrier, whereas with a government you might need to fill out paperwork, comply with this regulation and that regulation, effectively raising the barrier to entry, along with needing the necessary capital to start a business. Collusion, on paper can raise the barriers to entry, however, within free markets such as Hong Kong, or Gilded Age America, I haven't seen any successful example of collusion, as government subsidies and suppressing consumer concerns are the only ways to sustain successful collusion.

For externalities, I don't understand how they harm barriers to entry, they just cause an unintended effect like pollution, and to stop that, we need to strengthen property rights, which as a result allows people to sue for pollution damages. Keep in mind that consumers can protest and urge companies to lower pollution in a free market.

For the EU, it is a perfect example of the business cycle I posted (the Austrian Business Cycle Theory), in which the central bank temporarily stimulates the economy via lower interest rates, resulting in malinvestment and thus resulting in increased production for the thing people are investing in (in the US's case houses). However, people have a limit, and when they are done, there is all that unwanted production, and because they finished spending their cash, they have stopped spending, resulting in stagnation, and the economy crashes, resulting in a recession, and then it repeats again and again and again.

EDIT: For fractional reserve banking, it simply causes the business cycle above, as it is simply inflationary, as if one does the math for it, the central bank prints a certain amount, but creates a false sense of wealth, artificially decreasing interest rates and causing the business cycle.

[New Chalcedon]

No. You do know what far left means, right?

In the US, she is far-left.

In today's USA, Ronald Reagan would be described as far-left. The term's been so overused, so hackneyed, so distorted with the USA's constant slide Rightward, that it simply holds no validity anymore. Today's "far-leftists" in American politics were yesterday's mainstream progressives, and last week's conservatives.

See: Elizabeth Warren, who was a registered Republican through to 1995.

[New Chalcedon]

No. She's probably more left of center than most Americans, but far left for the US would be Sanders.

She's more to the left than average Leftists.

[Citation needed].

Elizabeth Warren is significantly to the left of most Congresspeople, yes. But Congress as a whole is far, far to the right of American public opinion on just about every economic issue out there - see, for instance, Social Security, which a majority of Americans want to protect by, if necessary, raising Social Security taxes:



Yet, that's the one change to Social Security that neither the Obama Administration, nor the GOP House has proposed nor even seriously discussed. The GOP instead wants to privatize Social Security (either all at once or by increments, depending on who's listening), while Obama tried to meet them halfway by putting CPI-C (aka "Grandma eats catfood") on the table.

And Social Security is just one issue on which Congress is woefully out of touch with the people and far to their right. Medicare, corporate taxation policy, trade agreements - you name it, Congresspeople may say the right words around election time, but they only ever follow through to move it further Right.