Why is health care a business?

[Sibirsky]

Do you have empirical data to back up this assertion? Do we have any "genuine free markets" from which we can draw this conclusion, or is this just typical economics making theoretical claims with no real world applications?

It's the latter. I have slowly begun to confirm my original hypothesis about this particular specimen, Sibirsky: he lives in his own imaginary economic dreamworld where free markets and privatization and commercialization can solve all the world's problems.

It's funny how so many businesses and companies promise how they'll all help you and treat you like you're royalty. Just listen to some of their commercials on the TV. Yet, strangely enough, we still have heaps of problems in our lives.

You know what's strange? Is that your government has failed to solve any problem it has set out to solve. You have the largest, most powerful government, with access to more resources than anyone could have ever imagined. Yet it fails to solve problems. The only thing larger than it's failures is your unconditional love for it.

[Wolffbaden]

Which insurance company will cover all the people with pre-existing conditions that everyone else won't take?

Insurance companies are a business, not a charity. Do you know the definition of insurance? That would be the equivalent of me crashing my car, getting insurance, then trying to make a claim on my car.

Because we both know that car insurance and health insurance are the same thing, and are completely comparable in what they cover. Cars are just like brain tumors/diabetes/arthritis/glaucoma/etc., after all.

[Greed and Death]

IF we are chasing the cheapest aggregate dollar expanding preventive care does not do that.

Skeptical I am.

Well if we are going to throw out this CBO report then we also must throw out the CBO report saying the health care bill cuts the deficit.

[Sungai Pusat]

It's the latter. I have slowly begun to confirm my original hypothesis about this particular specimen, Sibirsky: he lives in his own imaginary economic dreamworld where free markets and privatization and commercialization can solve all the world's problems.

It's funny how so many businesses and companies promise how they'll all help you and treat you like you're royalty. Just listen to some of their commercials on the TV. Yet, strangely enough, we still have heaps of problems in our lives.

You know what's strange? Is that your government has failed to solve any problem it has set out to solve. You have the largest, most powerful government, with access to more resources than anyone could have ever imagined. Yet it fails to solve problems. The only thing larger than it's failures is your unconditional love for it.

Also note that Wolffbaden is saying that Sibirsky thinks that free markets can solve all world's problems. But nothing has shown that Sibirsky said that. It can solve most probems, but not all problems.

[Sibirsky]

We're talking about doctors, not insurance companies.

How do you pick and choose while you're unconcious?

Well, you can't. But you can always choose an insurance plan before you're unconcious. Of course, if you don't buy for one first hand, then hard cheese on you if you become sick and can't pay.

You know in Germany people have choices of doctors. Even when they are unconscious. Those Germans think of everything.

[Sibirsky]

Doctors raise costs because it doesn't diminish demand.

Cut out the asininity and even Sibirsky can identify why health care as a business screws people over.

Stop trolling.

[Sibirsky]

You entirely ignore the fact that in a genuine free market people would leave insurers like that in droves. They would care about that.

Which insurance company will cover all the people with pre-existing conditions that everyone else won't take?

Any of them would of they did not have a steady stream of guaranteed customers.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Skeptical I am.

Well if we are going to throw out this CBO report then we also must throw out the CBO report saying the health care bill cuts the deficit.

Or we could just read the whole report and we'd notice that you misrepresented it.

From the same report:

Of course, just because a preventive service adds to total spending does not mean that it is a bad investment. Experts have concluded that a large fraction of preventive care adds to spending but should be deemed “cost-effective,” meaning that it provides clinical benefits that justify those added costs: Roughly 60 percent of the preventive services examined in the review cited above have additional costs that many in the health care community consider to be reasonable relative to their clinical benefits. Still, providing that preventive care would represent a net use of resources rather than a source of funding for other activities. (About 20 percent of the services reviewed have costs that are large relative to their benefits, and a small fraction actually impair health while adding to costs.)

and

In sum, expanded governmental support for preventive medical care would probably improve people’s health but would not generally reduce total spending on health care. However, government funding for some specific types of preventive care might lower total spending. In its estimates, CBO seeks to capture the likely future effects on the budget on a case-by-case basis.

[Sibirsky]

No. But it's a lot more advantageous to do so. There is no tax penalty for doing so.

So you agree that the market is freer than the single payer countries.

Why isn't the fairy waving her magic wand and making it cheaper and better for all than the single payer countries?

It's not a free market. How hard is that to understand?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Doctors raise costs because it doesn't diminish demand.

Cut out the asininity and even Sibirsky can identify why health care as a business screws people over.

*** Warned for flamebait ***

[Sibirsky]

The liberals want communism, but they don't want to call it communism. The new word for it is being progressive.

Conservatives : Support Unregulated Capitalism;

Liberals : Support Regulated Capitalism;

Both have in common : Capitalism

You're wrong on conservatives. At least the ones in power.

[The Adrian Empire]

Which insurance company will cover all the people with pre-existing conditions that everyone else won't take?

Any of them would of they did not have a steady stream of guaranteed customers.

A business model could be made for it, quite simply, one only needs to pay a higher premium which is fair, if you are a bad driver, hell if your male (how's that for pre-existing condition) you have to pay higher car insurance, same thing if you have a higher likelihood of heart attack, insurance is after all a business in that it hopes to get more money from you then it pays to you, if you don't want to play their game solid investments and savings work just as well.

[Sibirsky]

There's already forms of government insurance, like medicare and medicaid. For people that can't afford it and the elderly.

How about the guy who makes decent money but misses the payment for his insurance?

No one drops you after one missed payment.

[Sibirsky]

The liberals want communism, but they don't want to call it communism. The new word for it is being progressive.

Don't act stupid.

We want a mixed economy. Private sector dealing with what the private sector is good at and public sector dealing with what the public sector is good at.

Except for the fact that you continue to increase the public sector. Keep expanding it, and make Zephie right.

[Sibirsky]

Yeah...I never said that the government actually needs to help businesses. ...

And when things go bad, who do they need to bail them out?

It was GM's decision to have the government bail them out? I know they asked for it. You know what the government could, and should have done? Said no. I want the government to send you to a Cuban hospital so you stop spouting that shit about how great the Cuban healthcare is. It won't happen.

[Sibirsky]

Government regulations made health care costs skyrocket in the U.S.

And reducing them would make it cheap?

Cheaper. Yes.

[Sibirsky]

I'm not sure you understood me or if I understood you. No I think they do not want it, but obama being an anti-capitalist democrat does, or at least socialism. And yes, you can say it, although it doesn't necessarily mean its a valid statement.

WHAT?! HE BAILED OUT THE BANKS. He saved the Capitalist system. No socialist does this.

Hahaha. The bailouts came with strings attached. The banks were also forced to take the money. Socialists love control. That's not saving the capitalist system.

[Wolffbaden]

It's the latter. I have slowly begun to confirm my original hypothesis about this particular specimen, Sibirsky: he lives in his own imaginary economic dreamworld where free markets and privatization and commercialization can solve all the world's problems.

It's funny how so many businesses and companies promise how they'll all help you and treat you like you're royalty. Just listen to some of their commercials on the TV. Yet, strangely enough, we still have heaps of problems in our lives.

You know what's strange? Is that your government has failed to solve any problem it has set out to solve. You have the largest, most powerful government, with access to more resources than anyone could have ever imagined. Yet it fails to solve problems. The only thing larger than it's failures is your unconditional love for it.

It's never solved one problem or accomplished anything important or anything like that? Really now? Well I guess the interstate highway system means absolutely nothing. Public health programs, the GI Bill, consumer protection, anti-discrimination policies (prudently, an end to segregation), workplace protection, clean water and safe food dictations, financial aid programs (including scholarships), all the money it has poured into science and medicine and technology, voting rights for both sexes and all races . . . I guess that all means nothing then...

Are you trying to seriously say that it has never solved a single problem?

Also note that Wolffbaden is saying that Sibirsky thinks that free markets can solve all world's problems. But nothing has shown that Sibirsky said that. It can solve most probems, but not all problems.

You should spend more time following him around. This is a kid who has argued that we should privatize roads, highways, and interstates (among other things):

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=67061

Hell just look at his signature motto:

Free market capitalism, path to prosperity

The rants with him are always the same: government is always bad- does nothing good; free market is always good, capitalism is always good, privatization is always good, businesses are always good. Honestly, it gets as repetitive as a broken record.

[Sibirsky]

Letting people pay for the majority of their care through HSAs (as I have suggested) would lower costs. But, feel free to continue to ignore my arguments in favor of your statist agenda.

Quote where you said that.

Is there something that you are willing to do yourself? You want everyone to pay for your care, you want everyone to provide you sources countless times...

[Sibirsky]

Are you fine with having to switch insurers just because you switched jobs? One has nothing to do with the other, and shouldn't.


It's mandated.

Not exactly. If their employees get on medicaid or get subsidies to buy insurance on their own the company will be taxed. However, if they scare their employees from applying for those benefits they avoid the Tax. Target was already conducting training explaining to the uninsured employees why they should not get those benefits before I quit, where as before the bill was passed they would help their employees get on medicaid.
Yeah for new regulation bringing insurance to the poor.

No one supporting legislation ever considers unintended consequences.

[Greed and Death]

Well if we are going to throw out this CBO report then we also must throw out the CBO report saying the health care bill cuts the deficit.

Or we could just read the whole report and we'd notice that you misrepresented it.

From the same report:

Of course, just because a preventive service adds to total spending does not mean that it is a bad investment. Experts have concluded that a large fraction of preventive care adds to spending but should be deemed “cost-effective,” meaning that it provides clinical benefits that justify those added costs: Roughly 60 percent of the preventive services examined in the review cited above have additional costs that many in the health care community consider to be reasonable relative to their clinical benefits. Still, providing that preventive care would represent a net use of resources rather than a source of funding for other activities. (About 20 percent of the services reviewed have costs that are large relative to their benefits, and a small fraction actually impair health while adding to costs.)

and

In sum, expanded governmental support for preventive medical care would probably improve people’s health but would not generally reduce total spending on health care. However, government funding for some specific types of preventive care might lower total spending. In its estimates, CBO seeks to capture the likely future effects on the budget on a case-by-case basis.

In the first quote it is cost effective in non monetary terms and is outside the terms of the initial conversation.

The bill requires coverage for all preventive care, not just funding for "some specific types of preventive care. "
This was written before the bill was finalized and that was likely included in case filibuster delayed things further and the democrats had to back off the bill some more.

[Bydlostan (Ancient)]

WHAT?! HE BAILED OUT THE BANKS. He saved the Capitalist system. No socialist does this.

Hahaha. The bailouts came with strings attached. The banks were also forced to take the money. Socialists love control. That's not saving the capitalist system.

I think they are also required to pay it back, with interest. Its an investment, really.

[Sibirsky]

Costs would be lower than they are today.

such a wonderful response.
Care to provide some support rather than just making a statement and assuming we'll go along with it?

Common fucking sense. Any product in a free market.

[Sibirsky]

No, WE bailed out the banks. I didn't see Obama footing the bill.

I wasn't aware the President didn't pay taxes.

He does indeed pay taxes. It's his staff that's filled with tax dodgers. And congress.

[Sibirsky]

How is forcing people to pay for health insurance going to fix anything? If everyone on average pays 500 a month for health insurance and they all are forced to pay for it. How does this help at all? Some poorer people will be put onto the system, dragging the payers down with them. All that legislation will do is further hurt productive people.

Trust me, I don't support the curent healthcare reforms and never said that I did.

Single payer nations already pay less per head than the US does on medicare and medicade, we cover every citizen and we rank higher on the healthcare rankings. All I can conclude from that is that Americans are incompetent.

Conclusion. For profit providers coupled with a third party payer system lead to cost inflation. Lack of coverage for a significant portion (due to the cost inflation) brings the overall average down.