RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


bounty44 -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/23/2017 3:28:01 PM)

disagree on what? what is there to disagree on?





MasterDrakk -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/23/2017 6:00:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

marini, it ultimately boils down to, as with most things, essential differences between left and right.

one side believes in the power of the free market to achieve desirable ends, and the other side believes in government. is there really anything more to say than that that somehow changes that formulation?

this bears repeating---every product and service we have and value in life has been made better and less expensive by the free market. why should healthcare be an exception to that rule?

the reason we are in the mess we are presently in is because of government intrusion AND insurance.

Well, historically that is what is called democrat, the power that the free market does not possess. All hysterical,factlewss, imbecilic, demented rightists now, not one iota of credibliity or fact. so, now it is righist nobodies hoping to be something other than dipshits, and not gonna happen, sorry.




MrRodgers -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/23/2017 9:06:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

marini, it ultimately boils down to, as with most things, essential differences between left and right.

one side believes in the power of the free market to achieve desirable ends, and the other side believes in government. is there really anything more to say than that that somehow changes that formulation?

this bears repeating---every product and service we have and value in life has been made better and less expensive by the free market. why should healthcare be an exception to that rule?

the reason we are in the mess we are presently in is because of government intrusion AND insurance.

More truly uninformed bullshit.

Of course it isn't simply a matter of right and left. Would a private defense be right and govt. paid defense...left ?

We have no free market in in the US. In fact, Germany has as many providers and many more times the number of insurance cos. actually competing for business.

The supplier market in the US has an abundance of oligopolies, or duopoly and some monopolies with immorally long term monopolies for drugs. Some services and suppliers will not disclose prices, preventing any shopping for those.

There are as many and often more advancements in services and technologies financed by govt. and many used today developed outside the US.

Let's see...less expensive ? I'll need several sites on that one. MRI's are all over the place. $400 for a foam rubber pad. $10 for alcohol, $3 for an aspirin. $125 ea. for dozens more blood tests than are necessary or not performed at all. $750/day to keep a long term care room and that's just for the room.

The US system is buried in fraud, padding, gouging with double and overcharges.

Our medical industry is for a profit...period. [It] is totally unconcerned with life expectancy, is risk averse and non-competitive.




Marini -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/23/2017 10:23:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

marini, it ultimately boils down to, as with most things, essential differences between left and right.

one side believes in the power of the free market to achieve desirable ends, and the other side believes in government. is there really anything more to say than that that somehow changes that formulation?

this bears repeating---every product and service we have and value in life has been made better and less expensive by the free market. why should healthcare be an exception to that rule?

the reason we are in the mess we are presently in is because of government intrusion AND insurance.

More truly uninformed bullshit.

Of course it isn't simply a matter of right and left. Would a private defense be right and govt. paid defense...left ?

We have no free market in in the US. In fact, Germany has as many providers and many more times the number of insurance cos. actually competing for business.

The supplier market in the US has an abundance of oligopolies, or duopoly and some monopolies with immorally long term monopolies for drugs. Some services and suppliers will not disclose prices, preventing any shopping for those.

There are as many and often more advancements in services and technologies financed by govt. and many used today developed outside the US.

Let's see...less expensive ? I'll need several sites on that one. MRI's are all over the place. $400 for a foam rubber pad. $10 for alcohol, $3 for an aspirin. $125 ea. for dozens more blood tests than are necessary or not performed at all. $750/day to keep a long term care room and that's just for the room.

The US system is buried in fraud, padding, gouging with double and overcharges.

Our medical industry is for a profit...period. [It] is totally unconcerned with life expectancy, is risk averse and non-competitive.



[sm=agree.gif]




bounty44 -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 4:19:29 AM)

I described the tension between left and right perfectly, not the least bit surprisingly, there is nothing you said that contradicts or even legitimately addresses what I said.

oh, and...

quote:

More truly uninformed bullshit.


to borrow from Arnold schwarzenegger, "fuck you asshole"

now, see if you can answer the essential question of, given that overwhelmingly a free market produces a better product at a lower cost, why healthcare would somehow be immune to that principle?





bounty44 -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 5:50:10 AM)

a response to one of your fellow comrades that seems worth repeating:

"some "fool" and the mises institute spouting "childish crap""

[or rather, "uninformed bullshit"]

""To Lower Health Care Costs, Try Freedom""

quote:

As Congress debates the American Health Care Act, its members should remember the benefits in cost and quality generated by the free market. What Americans need is not another complicated insurance scheme, but a return to health care that patients pay for themselves.

For the past several decades, government intervention has pushed Americans to pay for more of their medical expenses with insurance. The result is that medical costs rose 118 percent from 1992 to 2012.

Costs rise under an insurance system because patients have no incentive to price-shop. As Nobel laureate Vernon Smith explains, in our current system, party A (the service provider) tells party B (the customer) what they should buy. Party C (either the government or an insurance company) then pays for it.

This deprives patients of the incentive to price-compare, because they’re not directly paying for the services that party A recommends. But when consumers are encouraged to factor in cost, prices fall.

In fact, this is exactly what has happened in areas of healthcare not dominated by insurance.

LASIK is an elective procedure that’s not covered by insurance; and over the past two decades, quality has risen as prices have fallen. In 1997, a precursor to LASIK surgery that involved the surgeon wielding a knife cost $8,000. In 2012, a safer laser-guided surgery cost only about $3,800. Prices halved in 15 years even as quality rose.

[whaaaaat? normal economic principles at work when people are left to their own devices?? say it isn't so comrade!]

Cosmetic surgery is similarly not often covered by insurance. From 1992 to 2012, cosmetic surgery costs rose only 30 percent. Adjusted for inflation, costs actually fell.

[whaaaaat? normal economic principles at work when people are left to their own devices?? say it isn't so comrade!]

Even traditional surgery is less expensive when patients bypass insurance. In the Wall Street Journal, Jeffrey Singer tells the story of a patient who decreased his out-of-pocket surgical costs from $20,000 to $3,000 by negotiating price with the hospital on his own instead of relying on insurance.

[whaaaaat? normal economic principles at work when people are left to their own devices?? say it isn't so comrade!]

Putting patients in charge of their own healthcare encourages them to be price-conscious. When this happens, service providers have an incentive to compete on price, and competition produces downward price pressure…

[whaaaaat? normal economic principles at work when people are left to their own devices?? say it isn't so comrade!]

The United States health care system is one of the most regulated sectors of the economy, and was so even before Obamacare. This has, predictably, driven up costs. Instead of another complicated insurance scheme, let’s give freedom a try.


https://mises.org/blog/lower-health-care-costs-try-freedom




bounty44 -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 5:52:12 AM)

"some other "fool" at mises spouting "childish crap""

[or "uninformed bullshit"]

quote:

How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," declared philosopher George Santayana.

The U.S. “health care cost crisis” didn’t start until 1965. The government increased demand with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid while restricting the supply of doctors and hospitals. Health care prices responded at twice the rate of inflation (Figure 1). Now, the U.S. is repeating the same mistakes with the unveiling of Obamacare (a.k.a. “Medicare and Medicaid for the middle class”).

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman wrote that medical price inflation since 1965 has been caused by the rising demand for health-care coupled with restricted supply (Friedman 1992). Robert Alford explained the minority view: "The market reformers wish to preserve the control of the individual physician over his practice, over the hospital, and over his fees, and they simply wish to open up the medical schools in order to meet the demand for doctors, to give patients more choice among doctors, clinics, and hospitals, and to make that choice a real one by public subsidies for medical bills" (Alford 1975)…

Since the early 1900s, medical special interests have been lobbying politicians to reduce competition. By the 1980s, the U.S. was restricting the supply of physicians, hospitals, insurance and pharmaceuticals, while subsidizing demand. Since then, the U.S. has been trying to control high costs by moving toward something perhaps best described by the House Budget Committee: “In too many areas of the economy — especially energy, housing, finance, and health care — free enterprise has given way to government control in “partnership” with a few large or politically well-connected companies” (Ryan 2012). The following are past major laws and other policies implemented by the Federal and state governments that have interfered with the health care marketplace (HHS 2013)

•In 1910, the physician oligopoly was started during the Republican administration of William Taft after the American Medical Association lobbied the states to strengthen the regulation of medical licensure and allow their state AMA offices to oversee the closure or merger of nearly half of medical schools and also the reduction of class sizes. The states have been subsidizing the education of the number of doctors recommended by the AMA.

•In 1925, prescription drug monopolies begun after the federal government led by Republican President Calvin Coolidge started allowing the patenting of drugs. (Drug monopolies have also been promoted by government research and development subsidies targeted to favored pharmaceutical companies.)

•In 1945, buyer monopolization begun after the McCarran-Ferguson Act led by the Roosevelt Administration exempted the business of medical insurance from most federal regulation, including antitrust laws. (States have also more recently contributed to the monopolization by requiring health care plans to meet standards for coverage.)

•In 1946, institutional provider monopolization begun after favored hospitals received federal subsidies (matching grants and loans) provided under the Hospital Survey and Construction Act passed during the Truman Administration. (States have also been exempting non-profit hospitals from antitrust laws.)

•In 1951, employers started to become the dominant third-party insurance buyer during the Truman Administration after the Internal Revenue Service declared group premiums tax-deductible.

•In 1965, nationalization was started with a government buyer monopoly after the Johnson Administration led passage of Medicare and Medicaid which provided health insurance for the elderly and poor, respectively.

•In 1972, institutional provider monopolization was strengthened after the Nixon Administration started restricting the supply of hospitals by requiring federal certificate-of-need for the construction of medical facilities.

•In 1974, buyer monopolization was strengthened during the Nixon Administration after the Employee Retirement Income Security Act exempted employee health benefit plans offered by large employers (e.g., HMOs) from state regulations and lawsuits (e.g., brought by people denied coverage).

•In 1984, prescription drug monopolies were strengthened during the Reagan Administration after the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act permitted the extension of patents beyond 20 years. (The government has also allowed pharmaceuticals companies to bribe physicians to prescribe more expensive drugs.)

•In 2003, prescription drug monopolies were strengthened during the Bush Administration after the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act provided subsidies to the elderly for drugs.

•In 2014, nationalization will be strengthened after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“Obamacare”) provided mandates, subsidies and insurance exchanges, and the expansion of Medicaid…

The search for alternative economic systems should include free markets through a closer reexamination of the health care marketplace before 1980 to 1990 to determine whether prices offered by physicians and hospitals were ever set by the laws of supply and demand.

Economist Henry Hazlitt provides the following description:

Prices are fixed through the relationship of supply and demand. ... When people want more of an article, they offer more for it. The price goes up. This increases the profits of those who make the article. Because it is now more profitable to make that article than others, the people already in the business expand their production of it, and more people are attracted to the business. This increased supply then reduces the price…

Since 1965, medical prices have exploded with physician fees (Figure 6). From 1965 through 1993, the price for medical care increased by 699% and physician fees 675% compared to only 359% for all goods and services measured in the Consumer Price Index. Today, medical prices and physician fees continue to grow at about twice the rate of inflation. Hospital prices have increased at almost four times. U.S. health-care spending has increased from 6% of the Gross Domestic Product in 1965 to 18% ($3 trillion) today…

The lack of competition between hospitals and other health care institutions also limited cost control incentives placed on executives. The lack of competition between both medical institutions and the doctors that control most of their spending could explain why hospital costs have been inflating twice as fast as even physician fees. Hospitals are loaded with waste and inefficiency. For example, a hospital stitch costs more than $500 today.

The U.S. health-care market appears to behave according to laws of supply and demand (at least until the 1980s). Assuming government subsidy of the elderly and poor serves the public good, the cause of the “U.S. health care cost crisis” appears to be that government didn’t allow the supply of doctors and hospitals to respond to increased consumer demands. Politicians from both major political parties created a self-fulfilling prophesy by assuming markets couldn’t work in health care.

The obvious solution is to increase the supply of physicians and hospitals to meet demand. Unfortunately, if medical schools doubled their class sizes by next year, it could still take over 20 years to achieve the number of doctors relative to population found in continental Western Europe. Competition could be achieved quicker by relaxing the licensing requirements placed on para-medicals (e.g., nurses), and possibly also foreign educated doctors, to compete with U.S. physicians to the degree to which they are qualified.


https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive






bounty44 -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 5:54:53 AM)

and more "uninformed bullshit" from past posts:

this time from the "fools" [or uniformed bullshitters] at heritage:

childish crap

more childish crap

even more childish crap

still more childish crap

last bit of childish crap

and the uninformed bullshitters at cato:

this fool

that fool

and one more fool





bounty44 -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 5:59:22 AM)

so now again.

the essential difference between left and right when it comes to things is one of the government involvement as opposed to free markets. [uninformed bullshit!]

we're in the mess we're in, in large part, because of an absence of the latter when it comes to healthcare.

but by all means, continue to believe what you like despite all evidence (everything above, you know, the uninformed bullshit) to the contrary. the comrades continuing to do so tells me its less about the outcome (people getting care) and more about the method (government running things).

to reiterate---please explain how practically everything else in life is mutable to market forces, and we ultimately end up with a better product at a better price, and that same principal is inapplicable to health care.

good luck.





DaddySatyr -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 6:41:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

to reiterate---please explain how practically everything else in life is mutable to market forces, and we ultimately end up with a better product at a better price, and that same principal is inapplicable to health care.



I can't really take up that challenge since I tend to agree.

I do think "health care" is different and it bothers me that ever since Ol' Dumbo Ears, "Health Care" and "Health Insurance" have been merged into the same issue. They're not.

What's wrong with Health Care? It started when the Hippocratic Oath was changed. It's not like doctors really followed the original anyway, by that point, but changing the oath gave them license to continue the slide from "practicing a sacred art" to "extorting money from people by promise of better health".

What's wrong with health insurance? Another easy one. Health insurance is offered as a commodity to people who are willing to pay as much as the company can extract from them. It's a legal form of gambling (you're betting the insurance company you'll get sick often enough or gravely enough where what you pay them is an acceptable trade-off for you and they're betting that if enough healthy people can be duped into buying their product, they'll profit, in the end).

Health insurance is administered by lawyers and other scumbags as nothing more than a way to make money off the poor suckers who buy into their lies.

Health insurance became "necessity" around the same time doctors abandoned the Hippocratic Oath and saw an opportunity to make money from the poor luck of the infirm.

It's a pox on all their houses.



Peace,


Michael




BoscoX -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 7:12:01 AM)


If healthcare is a "right" then it follows that to some degree healthcare provides are slaves because they cannot be free agents providing a service on the terms they willingly agree to, so long as bureaucrats control their compensation etc

And the further a system delves into the leftist ideology the more slave-like they (and everyone else) become




bounty44 -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 9:03:27 AM)

and back to the topic at hand, a great irony meter is tipping somewhere:

"Awkward: NBC/MSNBC journos getting bonuses because of GOP tax plan"

quote:

I can’t wait to see how the lib media manage to spin this story as evidence of more cruelty, death, destruction and “Armageddon” the GOP tax plan hath wrought:

quote:

CNBC
✔ @CNBC
JUST IN: Comcast to give $1,000 bonuses to more than 100K "eligible frontline and non-executive employees" & invest $50 billion over the next five years in infrastructure "based on the passage of tax reform". http://cnbc.com
(Disclosure: Comcast is parent co. of CNBC)
5:37 PM - Dec 20, 2017

Brian Stelter
✔ @brianstelter
Journalists at NBC/MSNBC are among the Comcast employees getting $1,000 bonuses "based on the passage of tax reform and the FCC's action on broadband." (http://bit.ly/2BTnOAF ) https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/943819430735372289
7:30 AM - Dec 21, 2017


Maybe some MSNBC reporters will donate their bonuses to the DNC in an effort to cleanse themselves of the irony. According to Democrats, they just got “looted”!


http://michellemalkin.com/2017/12/21/awkward-nbc-msnbc-journos-getting-bonuses-because-of-gop-tax-plan/




servantforuse -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 9:09:33 AM)

Anyone who thinks they aren't paying enough in taxes and don't really want to keep more of their own money, can always send it back to the Feds. Trump could use the extra money to build the wall.




Lucylastic -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 9:18:45 AM)

oh the forum brain trust derp is in full swing, LMFAO
circle jerks for christmas?




sloguy02246 -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 9:28:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh the forum brain trust derp is in full swing, LMFAO
circle jerks for christmas?


Apparently Mr. Rogers hit a nerve at the right moment.





bounty44 -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 9:36:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Anyone who thinks they aren't paying enough in taxes and don't really want to keep more of their own money, can always send it back to the Feds. Trump could use the extra money to build the wall.


was just thinking similarly.

or, the more likely, spend it (that's good right comrades?) or save it, which unless we're talking about "under the mattress" actually means investing it somehow (that's good too right comrades? unless maybe "evil corporations?")

either of which stimulate growth---nahhh, cant have that!




BoscoX -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 9:40:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

and back to the topic at hand, a great irony meter is tipping somewhere:

"Awkward: NBC/MSNBC journos getting bonuses because of GOP tax plan"

quote:

I can’t wait to see how the lib media manage to spin this story as evidence of more cruelty, death, destruction and “Armageddon” the GOP tax plan hath wrought:

quote:

CNBC
✔ @CNBC
JUST IN: Comcast to give $1,000 bonuses to more than 100K "eligible frontline and non-executive employees" & invest $50 billion over the next five years in infrastructure "based on the passage of tax reform". http://cnbc.com
(Disclosure: Comcast is parent co. of CNBC)
5:37 PM - Dec 20, 2017

Brian Stelter
✔ @brianstelter
Journalists at NBC/MSNBC are among the Comcast employees getting $1,000 bonuses "based on the passage of tax reform and the FCC's action on broadband." (http://bit.ly/2BTnOAF ) https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/943819430735372289
7:30 AM - Dec 21, 2017


Maybe some MSNBC reporters will donate their bonuses to the DNC in an effort to cleanse themselves of the irony. According to Democrats, they just got “looted”!


http://michellemalkin.com/2017/12/21/awkward-nbc-msnbc-journos-getting-bonuses-because-of-gop-tax-plan/


Hilarious! [:D]




MasterDrakk -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 10:13:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Anyone who thinks they aren't paying enough in taxes and don't really want to keep more of their own money, can always send it back to the Feds. Trump could use the extra money to build the wall.


was just thinking similarly.

or, the more likely, spend it (that's good right comrades?) or save it, which unless we're talking about "under the mattress" actually means investing it somehow (that's good too right comrades? unless maybe "evil corporations?")

either of which stimulate growth---nahhh, cant have that!

You had a gander at the debt lately? Massive Failure by the fiscally irresponsible, factless, rightist communist conspiracy comrades




BoscoX -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 3:21:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

You had a gander at the debt lately? Massive Failure by the fiscally irresponsible, factless, rightist communist conspiracy comrades


Obama just doubled it [:D]




bounty44 -> RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill (12/24/2017 5:14:16 PM)

hey mnottertroll---there is nothing analogous on the right to "leftist" so "rightist" is pretty elementary school. but keep trying---i suppose it might be a little better than "felchgobble"

and the same with "comrades" and your perpetual misapplying of the "communist" moniker to republicans.

and wait---"conspiracy??"---thats a good one. what happened to all that "putinjizz" stuff you were living on for so many months?

again, im sorry (not really) that you live in an area where trump voters outnumbered Hillary voters by 3:1, but that's no excuse to come here and be stupid. maybe you can get over it and try some cogency?

and isn't it funny how when republicans act like irresponsible democrats (debt? what debt? who cares about the debt?), all of a sudden the comrades become fiscal hawks.




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875