I would argue it is, which is why American agriculture is effectively a failed industry. It's subsidised by illegal labour and one of the most protectionist economic policies in history.
Advertisement
by The Grim Reaper » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:15 pm
by Lalaki » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:15 pm
Republic of Coldwater wrote:I don't hate America, I want it to improve. I love America, and that is exactly why I am talking about these issues.
by Gauthier » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:17 pm
by Lalaki » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:18 pm
Gauthier wrote:Because the free market is inherently about making profit, and in the health care industry profit is achieved by minimizing the draw of assets by consumers the same as it is with any insurance industry. The less your paying customers draw on your resources to take care of their medical conditions, the more profitable you become. Therefore you try to maximize the number of customers paying premiums while minimizing how much they use your benefits.
by The Scientific States » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:23 pm
by Gauthier » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:23 pm
The Scientific States wrote:Healthcare shouldn't be for profit. There is a major difference between buying commodities and buying healthcare, which is essential to human survival. If healthcare is privatized it would ultimately have a negative effect on the poor as healthcare companies would be able to set prices and the like as they pleased. It's foolish.
by Frisbeeteria » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:24 pm
Gauthier wrote:Therefore you try to maximize the number of customers paying premiums while minimizing how much they use your benefits.
Lalaki wrote:Health care can be paid for with $15k.
by Lalaki » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:25 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:Gauthier wrote:Therefore you try to maximize the number of customers paying premiums while minimizing how much they use your benefits.
As I already stated, but nobody responded to ...
The simplest way to maximize profits is to refuse to provide insurance to high risk patients (like me). By eliminating the top end of the risk pool entirely, the actuarial value of the smaller pool is lower, and they can charge lower premiums and still make lots of money. However ... people like me still require health services, so we'll stiff the hospitals instead of paying a more balanced premium. You're still going to soak up the costs in the form of higher-priced healthcare.Lalaki wrote:Health care can be paid for with $15k.
Until the Affordable Care Act, I couldn't buy health insurance for any price. So no, you can't make a generalization like that.
by Frisbeeteria » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:31 pm
Lalaki wrote:I fully support universal health care, and understand that people in poverty cannot afford health care at all.
by Lalaki » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:32 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:Lalaki wrote:I fully support universal health care, and understand that people in poverty cannot afford health care at all.
Just to be clear, I'm not poor. I could afford to buy insurance if I wanted to, but no non-governmental source would sell it to me.
I have several chronic conditions (think arthritis) that I don't treat, that don't cause me pain, but will never ever go away. If I treated them, costs would be in excess of $50K per year. Since I don't need or want to treat them, my actual costs are around $100/year. Nonetheless, I'm added to a risk pool that's higher than private enterprise will support. So the initial premise of the OP that healthcare is a completely interchangable economic commodity is quite simply false.
by Avenio » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:36 pm
by Gauthier » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:38 pm
Lalaki wrote:Frisbeeteria wrote:Just to be clear, I'm not poor. I could afford to buy insurance if I wanted to, but no non-governmental source would sell it to me.
I have several chronic conditions (think arthritis) that I don't treat, that don't cause me pain, but will never ever go away. If I treated them, costs would be in excess of $50K per year. Since I don't need or want to treat them, my actual costs are around $100/year. Nonetheless, I'm added to a risk pool that's higher than private enterprise will support. So the initial premise of the OP that healthcare is a completely interchangable economic commodity is quite simply false.
I fully agree.
And I think I was wrong earlier. Thanks for the correction. That was my fault.
by Arkiasis » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:44 pm
by Zavea » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:48 pm
Arkiasis wrote: Charities will NOT be able to cover the healthcare needs of the millions who cannot afford it.
by The Grim Reaper » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:52 pm
Avenio wrote:The Grim Reaper wrote:
I would argue it is, which is why American agriculture is effectively a failed industry. It's subsidised by illegal labour and one of the most protectionist economic policies in history.
Well that's the thing, though, isn't it? You can't really say that the healthcare industry is being kept afloat by tariffs on imported medicines or cheap foreign-trained doctors smuggled across the Mexican border, can you? Different situation entirely.
by SaintB » Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:06 pm
Gauthier wrote:Because the free market is inherently about making profit, and in the health care industry profit is achieved by minimizing the draw of assets by consumers the same as it is with any insurance industry. The less your paying customers draw on your resources to take care of their medical conditions, the more profitable you become. Therefore you try to maximize the number of customers paying premiums while minimizing how much they use your benefits.
by SaintB » Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:13 pm
Rebellious Fishermen wrote:SaintB wrote:It might actually lead to a decrease, the fed spends billions subsidizing hospitals whose customers are not paying for emergency room treatment - if emergency treatment was already from a public pool there would be more standards in pricing. If you make basic preventative medicine available to the public as well then you decrease the amount of people needing emergency treatment and could in fact actually save money.
I'm always down for a plan that actually lowers costs while maintaining effectiveness.
by Alyakia » Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:14 pm
Reaganiffic wrote:Too often I hear the arguments from liberals that healthcare is somehow different than buying potatoes or an ipod, that the free market cannot work. I think these arguments are a load of rubbish.
Information asymmetry exists in all markets, you don't know where your potatoes come from or how much pollution making them costs. There are various concentrations in various industries, many of them successfully run by the free market. If you buy a parachute and you choose wrong you still die, but the free market runs the parachute industry with success. So why not free markets?
Could it be that liberals don't want to give the American way a chance before they go around making things more socialist? I sense some bias at work here.
by The Joseon Dynasty » Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:20 pm
Gauthier wrote:Because the free market is inherently about making profit, and in the health care industry profit is achieved by minimizing the draw of assets by consumers the same as it is with any insurance industry. The less your paying customers draw on your resources to take care of their medical conditions, the more profitable you become. Therefore you try to maximize the number of customers paying premiums while minimizing how much they use your benefits.
by 4years » Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:20 pm
Reaganiffic wrote:Pandeeria wrote:
How the fuck did you get that out of what Grim said?
What are you even proposing in this thread?
1. Every argument that can be said for socializing healthcare can be said for any other product. 2. We know that a command economy is bad, 3. therefore arguments for socializing healthcare are wrong. It's that simple, and it's the truth.
by Shilya » Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:58 pm
by Trotskylvania » Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:12 pm
Republic of Coldwater wrote:Lalaki wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... _blog.html
Most countries with universal health care have shorter waiting periods than the United States. Canada happens to be an exception.
How about countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore with true, not phony free market healthcare?
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Republic of Coldwater » Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:04 am
Lalaki wrote:Republic of Coldwater wrote:Food doesn't cost much, HealthCare I already covered and we can move towards vouchers, while housing can also be paid for without aid (cheap housing is perfectly payable with $15k-$20k)
Again, take everything in combination. Food can be a lot for American families, especially if you are trying to maintain a healthy diet.
Health care can be paid for with $15k. Food can. Shelter can. Transpiration can. Schooling can.
But $15k won't pay for all of that in total.
by Republic of Coldwater » Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:05 am
Costa Fierro wrote:Republic of Coldwater wrote:Food doesn't cost much, HealthCare I already covered and we can move towards vouchers, while housing can also be paid for without aid (cheap housing is perfectly payable with $15k-$20k)
Cheap doesn't necessarily mean quality. A house may cost $15,000 but it could be made out of substandard materials, badly maintained and bhave a whole load off issues with it such as poor heat retention or moisture retention.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Great Eddy, Haganham, Jerzylvania, Neo-Hermitius, Tiami, Zandos
Advertisement