Gyroscopic Investing

MediumTex wrote:

Kshartle wrote: They've almost completely destroyed the Health Care system in America and they will ride in as the saviors, you just need to give them complete control. They will do a fantastic job of it I'm sure like the post office, DMV, Amtrack, anything else.

Is that perhaps overstating it a bit?

If I could get treated anywhere in the world for a serious illness, I would want to be treated at a hospital in a large U.S. city.

It is overstating it. They damaged it to where now many people claim there is a healthcare "crisis". Skyrocketing costs now being the problem and unaffordability for millions the result.

Kshartle wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Kshartle wrote: They've almost completely destroyed the Health Care system in America and they will ride in as the saviors, you just need to give them complete control. They will do a fantastic job of it I'm sure like the post office, DMV, Amtrack, anything else.

Is that perhaps overstating it a bit?

If I could get treated anywhere in the world for a serious illness, I would want to be treated at a hospital in a large U.S. city.

It is overstating it. They damaged it to where now many people claim there is a healthcare "crisis". Skyrocketing costs now being the problem and unaffordability for millions the result.

Sure, the government has done its best to mess it up, but every time I go to the doctor I'm always impressed with the quality of the doctors, equipment and care.

Do you agree that U.S. trained physicians as a group are the finest in the world?  How about U.S. hospitals?

MediumTex wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Is that perhaps overstating it a bit?

If I could get treated anywhere in the world for a serious illness, I would want to be treated at a hospital in a large U.S. city.

It is overstating it. They damaged it to where now many people claim there is a healthcare "crisis". Skyrocketing costs now being the problem and unaffordability for millions the result.

Sure, the government has done its best to mess it up, but every time I go to the doctor I'm always impressed with the quality of the doctors, equipment and care.

Do you agree that U.S. trained physicians as a group are the finest in the world?  How about U.S. hospitals?

I haven't experienced any outside of the US like most people I would think. I imagine governments in all countries interfere with the industry though. Perhaps some are more market driven than others.

Peyton Manning went out of the country to get his neck repaired. Now he's a baller with the entire world as an option unlike most of us. I don't know the details though.

MediumTex wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Is that perhaps overstating it a bit?

If I could get treated anywhere in the world for a serious illness, I would want to be treated at a hospital in a large U.S. city.

It is overstating it. They damaged it to where now many people claim there is a healthcare "crisis". Skyrocketing costs now being the problem and unaffordability for millions the result.

Sure, the government has done its best to mess it up, but every time I go to the doctor I'm always impressed with the quality of the doctors, equipment and care.

Do you agree that U.S. trained physicians as a group are the finest in the world?  How about U.S. hospitals?

I think any individual problem is amazingly addressed by our healthcare system (heart surgery, knee surgery, etc)

From what I've seen, in the areas of prevention and coordination of care in a complex scenario (my dad's stroke comes to mind... absolutely the biggest most uncoordinated mess I've ever seen combining emergecy room care, rehab, medication, and his underlying heart/cholesterol problem) are the areas where our system is very ineffective.  When my dad was in China, he had a different emergency, and the doctors there all came into the room together (heart doctor, neurologist) and actually (gasp) had a a real conversation with on another to coordinate the care based on the different moving pieces of what he had going on, and the care was great (according to him).

I think any time a medical proceedure looks more like someone picking out their favorite flavor of ice cream, the US system is going to kick ass.  Once you factor in preventative or coordination of care issues, I bet there are several better systems out there, hands down.

Ad Orientem wrote: Every country in the developed world (excepting the US) has long realized that rationing health care on the basis of ability to pay is immoral. They all have some form of universal health care system. So you are saying that the rest f the world is somehow evil and we, being the only nation that allows people to die because they don't make enough money or their job doesn't pay benefits, are the last bastion of freedom in the world?

\

1. If all you/democrats cared about was poor people having access to health care, then the answer is simple, give everyone under a certain income health care to whatever level you desire, and leave everyone else's heath care alone. 

2.  "rationing health care on the basis of ability to pay is immoral. "

A law which results in people being out of work/converting their jobs to part time is immoral (because of the results) and stupid because this result was predictable.

Benko wrote: A law which results in people being out of work/converting their jobs to part time is immoral (because of the results).

I don't disagree that it's immoral, but it's the means that make it immoral, not the results. If the results can be used to justify the means, all you end up with is people arguing every kind of evil and claiming the ends will justify it. Until we get past the ends justifying the means mentality we won't be able to do away with this nonsense.

Benko wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: Every country in the developed world (excepting the US) has long realized that rationing health care on the basis of ability to pay is immoral. They all have some form of universal health care system. So you are saying that the rest f the world is somehow evil and we, being the only nation that allows people to die because they don't make enough money or their job doesn't pay benefits, are the last bastion of freedom in the world?

\

..."rationing health care on the basis of ability to pay is immoral. "

A law which results in people being out of work/converting their jobs to part time is immoral (because of the results) and stupid because this result was predictable.

I completely agree. Which is why I support (with deep reservations) a single payer system like almost every other country in the civilized world has. Obamacare is a mess. It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

Ad Orientem wrote: It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

What on Earth does it have to do with the free market?

If Starbucks bribed politicians to force us to buy coffee every morning from them would you call that the free market?

What is your definition of the free market? This is crapitalism. Crony capitalism also know as Fascism, just another version of Statism.

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

What on Earth does it have to do with the free market?

If Starbucks bribed politicians to force us to buy coffee every morning from them would you call that the free market?

What is your definition of the free market? This is crapitalism. Crony capitalism also know as Fascism, just another version of Statism.

So why don't we just cut the bull and institute single-payer, and if it doesn't work after 8 year people will hate it and we'll go back to what we have now, or maybe even a more capitalist system.

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

What on Earth does it have to do with the free market?

If Starbucks bribed politicians to force us to buy coffee every morning from them would you call that the free market?

What is your definition of the free market? This is crapitalism. Crony capitalism also know as Fascism, just another version of Statism.

I gather you are also opposed to mandating auto insurance, and you oppose the existence of police departments and fire departments as these are supported by coercive taxation?

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

What on Earth does it have to do with the free market?

If Starbucks bribed politicians to force us to buy coffee every morning from them would you call that the free market?

What is your definition of the free market? This is crapitalism. Crony capitalism also know as Fascism, just another version of Statism.

So why don't we just cut the bull and institute single-payer, and if it doesn't work after 8 year people will hate it and we'll go back to what we have now, or maybe even a more capitalist system.

+1

Ad Orientem wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: What on Earth does it have to do with the free market?

If Starbucks bribed politicians to force us to buy coffee every morning from them would you call that the free market?

What is your definition of the free market? This is crapitalism. Crony capitalism also know as Fascism, just another version of Statism.

So why don't we just cut the bull and institute single-payer, and if it doesn't work after 8 year people will hate it and we'll go back to what we have now, or maybe even a more capitalist system.

+1

Let's remember that this is all a sliding scale.  Nothing is perfectly capitalistic or perfectly communistic/socialist... well maybe N. Korea is the latter but I bet even they pay doctors more than janitors to try to get them to learn medicine.

Ad Orientem wrote: I completely agree. Which is why I support (with deep reservations) a single payer system like almost every other country in the civilized world has. Obamacare is a mess. It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

You didn't answer my first point:

If all you/democrats cared about was poor people having access to health care, then the answer is simple, give everyone under a certain income health care to whatever level you desire, and leave everyone else's heath care alone. "

Because your goal is CONTROL, government control over everything and everyone.  To what extent it does or does not help poor people (or harms everyone) is irrevelant.  If I am wrong, explain why what I suggest is not to your liking?

"why don't we just cut the bull and institute single-payer, and if it doesn't work after 8 year people will hate it and we'll go back to what we have now"

it is not possible to go back once it is instituted, and you know that. 

Ad Orientem wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

What on Earth does it have to do with the free market?

If Starbucks bribed politicians to force us to buy coffee every morning from them would you call that the free market?

What is your definition of the free market? This is crapitalism. Crony capitalism also know as Fascism, just another version of Statism.

I gather you are also opposed to mandating auto insurance, and you oppose the existence of police departments and fire departments as these are supported by coercive taxation?

Yes I completely oppose theft.

Maybe we shouldn't go down this road again.

OK. I will withdraw my last post in the interest of global peace.

My post had more emotion that I intended, but it is a vaid question.

Benko wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: I completely agree. Which is why I support (with deep reservations) a single payer system like almost every other country in the civilized world has. Obamacare is a mess. It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

You didn't answer my first point:

If all you/democrats cared about was poor people having access to health care, then the answer is simple, give everyone under a certain income health care to whatever level you desire, and leave everyone else's heath care alone. "

Because your goal is CONTROL, government control over everything and everyone.  To what extent it does or does not help poor people (or harms everyone) is irrevelant.  If I am wrong, explain why what I suggest is not to your liking?

"why don't we just cut the bull and institute single-payer, and if it doesn't work after 8 year people will hate it and we'll go back to what we have now"

it is not possible to go back once it is instituted, and you know that.

Universal healthcare isn't even all that much about giving healthcare to the financially destitute.  That's what Medicaid is for.  It's about guaranteeing insurability so people don't become financially destitute due to a health event.

This isn't just a charitable thing... it's infrastructural.  The government doesn't build roads and sewer systems for just the poor.  It builds it for everyone.  I don't think it's absolutely ludacris that along with military and police protection, transportation and legal infrastructure, that we have an infrastructural system of health coverage.

However, to try to weave that infrastructure with employment is a mess.  It achieves group ratings, but it's such an annoying mess for employers to manage.

Yep, I just spelled ludicrous "ludacris."  Like the rapper.

MT, ban me, would you?  I am not allowed to have my opinion count anymore.

Thanks Craig.

Let the TROLLING BEGIN!!!

JK.

moda0306 wrote:

Benko wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: I completely agree. Which is why I support (with deep reservations) a single payer system like almost every other country in the civilized world has. Obamacare is a mess. It was an attempt to get everyone insured while bowing to the free market god.

You didn't answer my first point:

If all you/democrats cared about was poor people having access to health care, then the answer is simple, give everyone under a certain income health care to whatever level you desire, and leave everyone else's heath care alone. "

Because your goal is CONTROL, government control over everything and everyone.  To what extent it does or does not help poor people (or harms everyone) is irrevelant.  If I am wrong, explain why what I suggest is not to your liking?

"why don't we just cut the bull and institute single-payer, and if it doesn't work after 8 year people will hate it and we'll go back to what we have now"

it is not possible to go back once it is instituted, and you know that.

Universal healthcare isn't even all that much about giving healthcare to the financially destitute.  That's what Medicaid is for.  It's about guaranteeing insurability so people don't become financially destitute due to a health event.

This isn't just a charitable thing... it's infrastructural.  The government doesn't build roads and sewer systems for just the poor.  It builds it for everyone.  I don't think it's absolutely ludacris that along with military and police protection, transportation and legal infrastructure, that we have an infrastructural system of health coverage.

However, to try to weave that infrastructure with employment is a mess.  It achieves group ratings, but it's such an annoying mess for employers to manage.

Then propose a stop-loss, e.g.,  any health expenses for a family of more than $25,000 in a given year are paid for by the government. The premium for something like that should be 1/100th of the cost of Obamacare.

Note: I don't approve of this either. It's just a practical way to solve the problem that Obamacare was supposed to solve but doesn't solve at all.

Another practical way to solve the problem Obamacare was trying to solve was to federalize the regulation of insurance and destroy all the ridiculous barriers to competition that the states have set up. With one giant nationwide market, I would expect prices to quickly plummet.