quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As I have written repeatedly, the ACA is simply a mandate for everybody to purchase health care insurance, thus including the young and healthy that would not otherwise purchase it. This is a proviso that becomes then a catering to the for-profit health care market and results in a windfall to the biggest firms that are able to spread the risk among the most policy holders. (all insurance is merely a transfer of risk)
Many millions simply cannot afford to purchase this insurance, healthy or not. So govt. steps in, not to guarantee insurance anymore than to guarantee a profit as a direct result of subsidizing what would otherwise be...un-affordable premiums. The major effects of which are then no different then if there was no mandate and only those who can afford healthcare would be held to the mandate. The subsidy is merely a dominant requirement to justify the complete mandate and to provide those profits.
The act is misnamed no differently than all of the job growth and economic growth named tax cuts that resulted in the worse 8 year (2 term) job creation period on record from fiscal 2001 to 2009.
The overall debate of a mandated collective health insurance regime otherwise known as govt. run single payer system, is rendered and propagandized as something alien to the alleged preference of that illusory free market benefit when govt. will not even insure...there is a free market complete with full competition. This even in the knowledge that for the country as a whole (and economy) such a regime is more cost effective but from a resulting lower return in profits.
This debate is deliberately held separate to the obvious and rather expensive illusory benefits of our collective social contributions to say, defense, banking and agric. which we are told is necessary for the protection of the economy, the country and the unpredictability of agriculture without the fallaciousness of it being more cost effective which of course because...it is not and quite deliberately so.
The ACA thus is not health care reform at all. It is the 'Health Care Market Mandate and Subsidized Windfall Profit Act.' What could possibly be better than government not only forcing you to buy [my] service but even subsidizing anyone's inability to pay my high profit-prices ?
Call it right or left for whatever politically partisan motivations you may have. (same mandate offered by the repubs in 92/93) I call it very, very profitable which is the only reason we are here. Gotta love free market capitalism. [sic]

I truly believe the only way single-payer is going to happen here, and costs go down, is if government actually ends up owning the providers, too (like the NHS in the UK). Current hospitals won't accept the reduced reimbursements needed to bring our costs in line with other gov't-run health care systems. They'll opt out of accepting government insurance instead and only accept cash or private insurance. Talk about a clusterfuck, if that were to happen.

I truly do think government is going to have to take the whole damn thing over, including being the employer of the workforce., for this to work here. And, I still don't think there is Constitutional authority for government to do that. There would need to be a Constitutional Amendment for that. And, as crazy as it might sound, I'd support the Amendment.

quote:

Nancy Pelosi

But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/nancy_pelosi.html#b0BVBJugdIBVEpPO.99

quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls
Although price controls are sometimes used by governments, economists usually agree that price controls don't accomplish what they are intended to do and are generally to be avoided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://news.yahoo.com/mumia-abu-jamal-testify-hearing-medical-care-061411384.html

Government controlled healthcare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
...
I truly do think government is going to have to take the whole damn thing over, including being the employer of the workforce., for this to work here. And, I still don't think there is Constitutional authority for government to do that. There would need to be a Constitutional Amendment for that. And, as crazy as it might sound, I'd support the Amendment.

Your signature mentions your support for a "limited government", how does the government taking over healthcare fit into that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As I have written repeatedly, the ACA is simply a mandate for everybody to purchase health care insurance, thus including the young and healthy that would not otherwise purchase it. This is a proviso that becomes then a catering to the for-profit health care market and results in a windfall to the biggest firms that are able to spread the risk among the most policy holders. (all insurance is merely a transfer of risk)
Many millions simply cannot afford to purchase this insurance, healthy or not. So govt. steps in, not to guarantee insurance anymore than to guarantee a profit as a direct result of subsidizing what would otherwise be...un-affordable premiums. The major effects of which are then no different then if there was no mandate and only those who can afford healthcare would be held to the mandate. The subsidy is merely a dominant requirement to justify the complete mandate and to provide those profits.
The act is misnamed no differently than all of the job growth and economic growth named tax cuts that resulted in the worse 8 year (2 term) job creation period on record from fiscal 2001 to 2009.
The overall debate of a mandated collective health insurance regime otherwise known as govt. run single payer system, is rendered and propagandized as something alien to the alleged preference of that illusory free market benefit when govt. will not even insure...there is a free market complete with full competition. This even in the knowledge that for the country as a whole (and economy) such a regime is more cost effective but from a resulting lower return in profits.
This debate is deliberately held separate to the obvious and rather expensive illusory benefits of our collective social contributions to say, defense, banking and agric. which we are told is necessary for the protection of the economy, the country and the unpredictability of agriculture without the fallaciousness of it being more cost effective which of course because...it is not and quite deliberately so.
The ACA thus is not health care reform at all. It is the 'Health Care Market Mandate and Subsidized Windfall Profit Act.' What could possibly be better than government not only forcing you to buy [my] service but even subsidizing anyone's inability to pay my high profit-prices ?
Call it right or left for whatever politically partisan motivations you may have. (same mandate offered by the repubs in 92/93) I call it very, very profitable which is the only reason we are here. Gotta love free market capitalism. [sic]

I truly believe the only way single-payer is going to happen here, and costs go down, is if government actually ends up owning the providers, too (like the NHS in the UK). Current hospitals won't accept the reduced reimbursements needed to bring our costs in line with other gov't-run health care systems. They'll opt out of accepting government insurance instead and only accept cash or private insurance. Talk about a clusterfuck, if that were to happen.
I truly do think government is going to have to take the whole damn thing over, including being the employer of the workforce., for this to work here. And, I still don't think there is Constitutional authority for government to do that. There would need to be a Constitutional Amendment for that. And, as crazy as it might sound, I'd support the Amendment.

Just like to add a small point here:
The government do not own the NHS; the people own it.

quote:

The English NHS is controlled by the UK government through the Department of Health (DH), which takes political responsibility for the service. Resource allocation and oversight was delegated to NHS England, an arms-length body, by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. NHS England commissions primary care services (including GPs) and some specialist services, and allocates funding to 211[18] geographically-based Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGS) across England. The CCGs commission most services in their areas, including hospital and community-based healthcare.[19]

quote:

Overview of organisations and their role

The Secretary of State for Health

The Secretary of State has overall responsibility for the work of the Department of Health (DH). DH provides strategic leadership for public health, the NHS and social care in England.

The Department of Health

The Department of Health (DH) is responsible for strategic leadership and funding for both health and social care in England. The DH is a ministerial department, supported by 23 agencies and public bodies. For detailed information, visit the DH website.

NHS England

NHS England is an independent body, at arm’s length to the government. It's main role is to improve health outcomes for people in England. It:

• provides national leadership for improving outcomes and driving up the quality of care
  
• oversees the operation of clinical commissioning groups (CCGs)
  
• allocates resources to CCGs
  
• commissions primary care and specialist services

quote:

Of course were you to abandon your voice then the government will own it, that much is obvious.
And, in that circumstance they can take it in whatever direction they so desire.
But, one thing that is a cast iron fact is that in the United States you are encouraged to visit the doctor or the hospital no matter the seriousness of the ailment, absolutely anything is within bounds because as long as you are there you are being charged; whereas in England you are encouraged to not turn up with no more than a common cold because it is public funds footing the bill and there is only so much of public funds to go around.

quote:

I think generally that business is a better bet in running most things, even though I have been in business long enough to know that the theoretical invisible hand is absolute nonsense and there are a boat load of sycophants and politicians in business that make it inefficient in its own way. It ain't no meritocracy.
But, health is one area that really should not be ran by business and the United States is a very good example of why that is the case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Wherever it happened, it was threatened.
Whatever Obama wanted to do, it got vetoed by the GoP.

The Obama plan sounded good. Even plausible.
By the time the GoP finished re-writing it, it was trash of the biggest order.
It got turned from 'something for everyone and affordable' plan into 'everyone must BUY a better, more expensive healthcare plan and if you don't we'll fine you' plan.

From what we heard over here, it was a case of their way or no way.
He got well and truly railroaded with no options - not if he wanted to get something on the table.

ETA: If Obama had stuck to his guns, you wouldn't have anything at all because the GoP blocked everything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As I have written repeatedly, the ACA is simply a mandate for everybody to purchase health care insurance, thus including the young and healthy that would not otherwise purchase it. This is a proviso that becomes then a catering to the for-profit health care market and results in a windfall to the biggest firms that are able to spread the risk among the most policy holders. (all insurance is merely a transfer of risk)
Many millions simply cannot afford to purchase this insurance, healthy or not. So govt. steps in, not to guarantee insurance anymore than to guarantee a profit as a direct result of subsidizing what would otherwise be...un-affordable premiums. The major effects of which are then no different then if there was no mandate and only those who can afford healthcare would be held to the mandate. The subsidy is merely a dominant requirement to justify the complete mandate and to provide those profits.
The act is misnamed no differently than all of the job growth and economic growth named tax cuts that resulted in the worse 8 year (2 term) job creation period on record from fiscal 2001 to 2009.
The overall debate of a mandated collective health insurance regime otherwise known as govt. run single payer system, is rendered and propagandized as something alien to the alleged preference of that illusory free market benefit when govt. will not even insure...there is a free market complete with full competition. This even in the knowledge that for the country as a whole (and economy) such a regime is more cost effective but from a resulting lower return in profits.
This debate is deliberately held separate to the obvious and rather expensive illusory benefits of our collective social contributions to say, defense, banking and agric. which we are told is necessary for the protection of the economy, the country and the unpredictability of agriculture without the fallaciousness of it being more cost effective which of course because...it is not and quite deliberately so.
The ACA thus is not health care reform at all. It is the 'Health Care Market Mandate and Subsidized Windfall Profit Act.' What could possibly be better than government not only forcing you to buy [my] service but even subsidizing anyone's inability to pay my high profit-prices ?
Call it right or left for whatever politically partisan motivations you may have. (same mandate offered by the repubs in 92/93) I call it very, very profitable which is the only reason we are here. Gotta love free market capitalism. [sic]

I truly believe the only way single-payer is going to happen here, and costs go down, is if government actually ends up owning the providers, too (like the NHS in the UK). Current hospitals won't accept the reduced reimbursements needed to bring our costs in line with other gov't-run health care systems. They'll opt out of accepting government insurance instead and only accept cash or private insurance. Talk about a clusterfuck, if that were to happen.
I truly do think government is going to have to take the whole damn thing over, including being the employer of the workforce., for this to work here. And, I still don't think there is Constitutional authority for government to do that. There would need to be a Constitutional Amendment for that. And, as crazy as it might sound, I'd support the Amendment.

Well [it] will never happen here because of the financial/political power of the profiteers. But you are wrong, govt. doen't have to own the providers. Look at Germany's multi-layered, multi-payer system. There are 3 forms of competing providers, private for-profit, non-profit and govt. providers.
Then there are about 130 competing insurance cos. competing for your business even though it is mostly the govt. paying them. They compete on what they will provide, how fast and how skillful. Depending upon who you read, between 10-12% opt out and have private insurance.
So it's possible to have a market-based for profit health insurance regime where through payroll deduction and some pay on the edges in a govt. mandated system that is much more cost-effective than the US system without govt. ownership of the means of provision. (production)
Govt. insures and provides for defense, banking and agric. without owning those market producers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://news.yahoo.com/mumia-abu-jamal-testify-hearing-medical-care-061411384.html

Government controlled healthcare.

Nope. Healthcare controlled by profiteering insurance companies.
The government don't control the healthcare, the insurance companies do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

here is more or less the essential question almost every one either dances around or completely ignores.

if a handful of people want to get together and willingly participate in cost sharing, either themselves, or through the market in some way, I see that as being free.

if the government steps in and forces its citizens to do so, then some freedom is lost.

to me, the collectivists need to give those who oppose them a convincing philosophical argument as to how this is moral.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As I have written repeatedly, the ACA is simply a mandate for everybody to purchase health care insurance, thus including the young and healthy that would not otherwise purchase it. This is a proviso that becomes then a catering to the for-profit health care market and results in a windfall to the biggest firms that are able to spread the risk among the most policy holders. (all insurance is merely a transfer of risk)
Many millions simply cannot afford to purchase this insurance, healthy or not. So govt. steps in, not to guarantee insurance anymore than to guarantee a profit as a direct result of subsidizing what would otherwise be...un-affordable premiums. The major effects of which are then no different then if there was no mandate and only those who can afford healthcare would be held to the mandate. The subsidy is merely a dominant requirement to justify the complete mandate and to provide those profits.
The act is misnamed no differently than all of the job growth and economic growth named tax cuts that resulted in the worse 8 year (2 term) job creation period on record from fiscal 2001 to 2009.
The overall debate of a mandated collective health insurance regime otherwise known as govt. run single payer system, is rendered and propagandized as something alien to the alleged preference of that illusory free market benefit when govt. will not even insure...there is a free market complete with full competition. This even in the knowledge that for the country as a whole (and economy) such a regime is more cost effective but from a resulting lower return in profits.
This debate is deliberately held separate to the obvious and rather expensive illusory benefits of our collective social contributions to say, defense, banking and agric. which we are told is necessary for the protection of the economy, the country and the unpredictability of agriculture without the fallaciousness of it being more cost effective which of course because...it is not and quite deliberately so.
The ACA thus is not health care reform at all. It is the 'Health Care Market Mandate and Subsidized Windfall Profit Act.' What could possibly be better than government not only forcing you to buy [my] service but even subsidizing anyone's inability to pay my high profit-prices ?
Call it right or left for whatever politically partisan motivations you may have. (same mandate offered by the repubs in 92/93) I call it very, very profitable which is the only reason we are here. Gotta love free market capitalism. [sic]

I truly believe the only way single-payer is going to happen here, and costs go down, is if government actually ends up owning the providers, too (like the NHS in the UK). Current hospitals won't accept the reduced reimbursements needed to bring our costs in line with other gov't-run health care systems. They'll opt out of accepting government insurance instead and only accept cash or private insurance. Talk about a clusterfuck, if that were to happen.
I truly do think government is going to have to take the whole damn thing over, including being the employer of the workforce., for this to work here. And, I still don't think there is Constitutional authority for government to do that. There would need to be a Constitutional Amendment for that. And, as crazy as it might sound, I'd support the Amendment.

Well [it] will never happen here because of the financial/political power of the profiteers. But you are wrong, govt. doen't have to own the providers. Look at Germany's multi-layered, multi-payer system. There are 3 forms of competing providers, private for-profit, non-profit and govt. providers.
Then there are about 130 competing insurance cos. competing for your business even though it is mostly the govt. paying them. They compete on what they will provide, how fast and how skillful. Depending upon who you read, between 10-12% opt out and have private insurance.
So it's possible to have a market-based for profit health insurance regime where through payroll deduction and some pay on the edges in a govt. mandated system that is much more cost-effective than the US system without govt. ownership of the means of provision. (production)
Govt. insures and provides for defense, banking and agric. without owning those market producers.

Agriculture is fucked up. Price supports lead to some farmers being paid to NOT farm land (anecdote: I used to call on a farmer in a former job. He had hundreds of acres, but also took care of his neighbor's small acreage (30-40 acres, if memory serves) as it was right next to his own. His neighbor would let him plant and then they shared the revenue from the crop. Some years, his neighbor would not let his land be farmed because he was getting paid by the Feds to not plant that year.) Because of all sorts of price floors and guarantees, the Federal government spends an incredible amount of money where it shouldn't be. Yes, food prices would rise, but then, we'd actually have a more free market for food.

Banking? The Federal Reserve runs the banking industry. The FDIC might insure funds in banks (up to a cap), but the government isn't insuring or providing for banking.

Defense is an authority granted the Federal Government by the Constitution, so it's quite a bit different. I know we can't prove or refute this, but how much would stuff cost if the Federal Government took over the making of the equipment for defense?