USA wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured : reddit.com

	Advanced Search

Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.


	USA wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured : reddit.com An older article but still relevant- maybe even more relevant now that health care may go public. We would probably save money after single payer health care reform.


	I don't think a single payer system is being considered at this point. The Obama plan is more like what Massachusetts has done which is to mandate health insurance and to provide subsidies for those who don't get it through an employer. Still, extra enrollment for existing companies would reduce overhead via economies of scale.


	Imagine how much more it would waste WITHOUT a profit motive?


	RTFA


	Did and countered with a point. Imagine how much more it would waste without a profit motive.


	You didn't counter with a point. You countered with an accusation that had you read the article you'd have seen addressed.


	You cant disprove a negative.


	Ya you are too.


	Another good point- syke


	Whoa, we just jumped in a time machine. Right back to 1990.... NOT


	Why would there be increased waste without a profit motive?


	Because people still work for money. The only difference is the with a profit motive they have a reason to cut costs. Without it, they have no reason to cut costs.


	That is a theory and practice proves it inapplicable in this instance.


	You also gotta remember that they don't cover old people's transplants or alcoholic's livers under UH


	They cut costs by failing to cover people, not by reducing the paper clutter. The paper clutter exists because they have so many loopholes. While the cost of waste in bureaucratic red tape is high, it isn't as high as the cost it would incur were they to have to pay the hyperinflated medical costs we have due to the for-profit medical system.


	For reference, please see [ almost every other first world industrialized nation's not-for-profit healthcare systems. ] It turns out, we're the most expensive, per capita, by more than double. While, at the same time, we're the only one who fails to cover more than 40 MILLION working citizens.


	It doesn't fail to cover that many citizens who work.


	Study: 86.7 million Americans uninsured over last two years - CNN.com One out of three Americans under 65 were without health insurance at some point during 2007 ... Four out of five of the uninsured were in working families. ... http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/04/uninsured.epidemic.obama/ More than 20 MILLION of these are working adults: http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/000679/39/


	It fails many who are covered by finding loop holes to get out of paying for treatments..


	That is true. I hope congress figures out a way to dos omething about it without socializing it completely.


	I work, but alas I'm diabetic, also 99% of my health care needs are due to being diabetic (type I, I'm not fat, quite healthy otherwise actually)... Insurance coverage requires two years before it'll cover my pre-existing. When I changed jobs apparently I couldn't transfer my insurance, EVEN though it was the same provider (bc/bs) so I was back to the 2 yr wait, after a year and a half of paying into the other. It's BS. Don't tell me about those who are and aren't insured unless you have intimate knowledge of the subject, because chances are, you're wrong. Yes I have insurance, but it does nothing for me. If I receive trauma (car wreck, fall down stairs, whatever) because of hypoglycemia which is related to my diabetes, it is a complication of diabetes and THUS also not covered. Fuck the insurance companies, my otherwise pristine credit is totally wrecked by medical costs.


	Stories like yours abound.


	What about people with pre-existing conditions? Or who get laid off? If they can't afford COBRA and have to go more than 60 days without coverage they may find it extremely hard to obtain coverage again.


	Your argument is not really an argument. A profit motive isn't always a good thing. It depends on what the end goal of the system is. So I'll grant you that the system is currently very efficient at taking peoples money. Administration in the insurance companies is probably quite efficient, in the interest of maximizing profit and minimizing expenditure for that corporation. It isn't very efficient at providing care. That is because the profit motive has made the end-goal of the entire system to generate money, not health care. Health care is now a byproduct. And that, of course, is the problem, as anyone clear-thinking should be able to realize. So if what you want is a system that efficiently takes the maximum amount of money out of the hands of the American citizens, the current one is great. If you want a system that provides good quality health care to the greatest number of people with some inefficiency introduced by bureucracy (but still far far less expensive than the current money-grubbing system), single-payer is needed.


	Please refer to Bill Clinton's policies for a shitload of those costs.


	He was derailed by Republicans.


	Wait, now: that's commie talk pardner.


	Ahh, a bit misleading—the extra money can only help the people who don't have insurance now. Still, good to know, even if I want guaranteed health insurance for everyone. (Under the assumption of the article, someone who HAS insurance can drop it and get government-sponsored insurance.)


	And I suppose the Reddit answer to solving this problem is to turn the entire thing into a bureaucracy? I.e. Nationalized Healthcare.


	Try reading the article. In it you'll see proof that private insurance is more bureaucratic than public health care.


	Why do you think nationalised healthcare would be more bureaucratic, even with the entire insurance mess removed?


	Nationalized Healthcare is a Bureaucracy. I'm not saying it would become bureaucratic, I'm saying it actually IS a Bureaucracy. As in a NOUN, not an ADJECTIVE. If it walks like a duck.... The intentions of Nationalizing Healthcare are all fine and dandy, I would not argue against the idea of making sure everyone can get health care. I'm merely going by historic example of how things work in America -- I don't want my healthcare to work the way my tax code works, my DMV works, my system to fix the roads, etc.... Do you?


	So if your point wasn't that nationalising it would make it more bureaucratic, what was it? Oh, and I live in a country with nationalised healthcare, and it works just fine thank you. It baffles me that you think even a poorly run nationalised healthcare system would be worse than what you have now.


	How many MRI machines do you have in your country?


	True, and this just the way the health care bureaucrats want it. If they didn't take the money, it would be wasted on health care for poor people.


	This statement is just fundamentally wrong. They dont take into account the bureaucracy needed to fund those uninsured people... Logic, FAIL.


	It is not a statement. It is the headline to an article which implements facts to support it.


	Yes, someone's logic is indeed failing... They DO take into account the additional bureaucracy. It just pales in comparison to the wasteful bureaucracy that exists. This is basic math. If 250 million people can trim their costs from $6,000 to $5,000, you will have $250 billion in savings. At the new $5,000 cost, that would cover another 50 million people.


	And the bureaucracy's mission is to minimize the care given to the insured.


	Well, they're not going to remain obscenely profitable by providing a lot of health care, now, are they?


	Can you see a problem with not having any system to regulate what, and how much physicians charge for? Whether it's government universal health care or private health care insurance, they both have to be managed to control costs, and prevent fraud, and in practice, they both are managed.


	Health care in the US is a great example of corporate interests distorting the debate to prevent the implementation of policy that would be against their interests. Never mind that it is obviously contrary to the public interest to continue your horrible system of care, you still get people (apparently in dead earnest) arguing against reform on ideological grounds. Amazing.


	You still get people (apparently in dead earnest) arguing against reform on ideological grounds. Those would be the libertarians.


	If you think the US federal government can do a good job, I wouldn't exactly call you guys realists. Edit: Downvotes, eh? It seems like the pushers here for federal government healthcare don't like discourse, they would rather just see dissenters get hidden, turned into foot notes. Zeig Heil. If you guys were actually confident about your ideas, then you wouldn't need to compensate by downvoting me.


	That has been a republican buzz line for quite some time.


	Then you should have an answer for it :-D. Edit: "Answer" is a synonym for response in this usage. Don't hide the fact that you might be wrong by being a grammar smart ass.


	I usually only answer things when I see question marks. I would much prefer a government run system because studies show it works better more ways. This you'd have found had you read the article.


	What? Discussion? What many here seem to forget is that this will affect everyone, not just you. When it comes to my health care you're damn fucking right I want discussion about many different types of solutions. Edit: example of issues people aren't discussing. In 2005 Pennsylvania has just about as many MRI machines as all of Canada. Discuss. Here's a tip: you don't know what will work best. Trying to turn this into a political party dispute is stupid and says quite a bit about those who do so whatever their party affiliation.


	Pennsylvania has too many MRI machines, clearly.


	Well yeah. Republicans are wrong on many many things, but this isn't exactly one of them.


	O is for omniscient I guess. If republicans were not involved perhaps those programs would run better.


	Well, perhaps what you ought to be fighting for, is freedom in medicine, instead of more restrictions enforced at gunpoint. How to make those socialistic medicine programs more honest? Make them opt-in, and let the people who want to opt-out NOT pay the tax that would be apportioned for these programs, and let them keep the money for themselves, instead of forcibly taking that money from them. Surely you do not oppose letting people where to spend their own money for health purposes, do you?


	It would be nice if, for once, you addressed the arguments I wrote, instead of trying to deflect with something vaguely related to what I said. Having said that, I am still waiting for a response to what I said and I don't see why the conversation must go in the direction that you want while leaving the objections I raised unaddressed by you. Cheers.


	Can they really do worse tan 1/6 of all people not insured and 75% of all bankruptcies stemming from medical bills?


	We pay 100 dollars for a bag of laundry in Iraq. You want the people who brought you that to bring you heatlhcare? Just because one choice is ludicrous doesn't mean the other is automatically a good choice.


	[citation needed]


	Http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/whistleblower_hearings_denied.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5333896 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/17/eveningnews/main636644.shtml http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_7_38/ai_113682761/ I might have well had just said google it yourself, its easy to find.


	Private contractors are a bitch aren't they? They are akin to the health insurance companies when it comes to the cost that the government has to pay for simple services.


	We pay that due to privatization of the military.


	Um, Medicare already does a better job.


	So single-payer health care is proven to work just about everywhere in the world, and the current US system is an absolute nightmare where (last I heard) 30 million people can't afford health care AT ALL and organisations that were originally set up to charitably serve the third world with free healthcare now do a lot of their work in the USA taking care of the uninsured... ... And your argument against single-payer is that "the US federal government doesn't do a good job". Considering that the current system is one where the insurance companies suck out billions and billions of money out of the system and call that "profit", there is a LOT of leeway for the US federal government to be inefficient before they become nearly as bad as things are now with a single-payer system! Anyway, the solution isn't to keep a nasty, cynical and money-grubbing solution like the current one if the "US federal government" isn't doing a good job, the solution is to find a way to fix said "US federal government" if it doesn't work efficiently enough...


	Libertarians are very much in favor of reforming the US healthcare system, just not in the way you would like. The only people I know who actively oppose any reform are all hardcore Republican conservatives.


	Their idea of "reform" is further privatization & deregulation. Considering there isn't a single functioning privatized healthcare system that provides care to all citizens, it's a dead-end idea. Libertarian ideology is the fig-leaf of intellectual cover Republicans use to justify pro-corporate policies.


	I'm normally partial towards libertarian arguments, but healthcare is an exception. There's a free market for, say, iPhones because Apple prices the phone at $299, and if you don't like that, you don't buy it. Demand is relatively elastic. But for ethical reasons, most of us (I hope) aren't comfortable saying to a sick person, "You can't afford heart surgery? Oh well, guess you're screwed." For a free market to work, people need to be able to reject the product they're being offered. Since rejecting necessary medical treatment is something people shouldn't have to do, it seems like people need to come to grips with the fact that healthcare is a very different market than most others.


	Your argument ignores that people can save or otherwise get insured before disaster strikes. Of course, the less governments leave for you to save, the less likely you are to save, and the more self-fulfilling your prophecy becomes. But, OK, if it's so unethical to deny someone a heart surgery, why don't you pay for them to the extent of your possibilities? Of course, it's because you don't really believe what you say - it's somebody else that has to pay for your noble intentions. And, of course again, if denying heart surgery to someone that can't pay for it is so evil, surely you agree that denying food to someone that can't pay for it is also evil. So why don't I see socialists decrying that food ought to be socialized RIGHT NOW? Hear that? It is the roaring thunder of logical inconsistency, carrying the huge boulders and trunks of hypocrisy. Edit: as expected, I am seeing the steady stream of downvotes from people who would rather ignore the man behind the curtain.


	I'm not sure, but I think you're incorrectly assuming that I support single-payer healthcare. I do support the idea that we should make sure everyone is insured, and if that requires a tax increase, so be it. (Of course, it might not require a tax increase if we didn't do things like kick the DoD $500 billion a year, but that's another discussion.) Anyway, back to what we're talking about. Demand for insurance is much less elastic than demand for, again, iPhones, and the inefficiencies that we're all used to when dealing with insurance companies are a symptom of that. Companies that don't have to worry about people ditching their product end up producing crappy products. Healthcare in the US, especially considering what we spend on it, is far too frequently a crappy product. I would pay for someone else's heart surgery (via, say, a tax increase), and I do believe that denying food to someone who can't afford it is evil. Fortunately, no one really starves to death in the US because we have mechanisms in place to feed people who can't feed themselves. Sure, for lack of funds some people end up eating unhealthy food, but I'd say that's about as far as society's critical obligation goes. I didn't see the inconsistencies you're talking about, but I feel I've probably cleared them up, yes?


	I'm not sure, but I think you're incorrectly assuming that I support single-payer healthcare. I do support the idea that we should make sure everyone is insured, and if that requires a tax increase, so be it. OK, so why not tax the people who don't have an insurance plan? That's still evil but less so. And while I agree with you that demand for health insurance is quite inelastic, I don't see why an economic argument has any validity when discussing a matter which is, at heart, about taking people's money against their will. Morals before efficiency. This is, you'll note, not a matter of ideology but a matter of practical moral consequences -- when a group of people forcibly takes money from another group of people without their consent, calling that "evil" or "corrupt" is not ideology at all but merely common sense. IOW: your economic argument might very well persuade me, and I can certainly see the merits in it, but that's about as far as you can go without crossing moral lines. The minute you join ranks with people who wish to use coercion to mandate your opinion, you are no longer persuading or acting morally -- you're just being a bully and a tyrant, regardless of how strongly "for my own good" you claim to be acting. And I still don't see you addressing the question that, if denying food to poor people is more evil than denying health care to them, then why don't I see calls for socializing food across the board?


	OK, so why not tax the people who don't have an insurance plan? That's still evil but less so. If you can afford do get health insurance and fail to do so, society has no obligation to bail you out. If you can't afford it, society should help you get it. When you talk about taking people's money against their will, are you talking about taxes? If so, I'm afraid that we're starting from different foundations — I believe that the government is obligated to provide certain services, especially for those who can't afford critical goods/services, and the money to do that needs to come from somewhere. I'm fine with taxes being the source of that money. I think you don't see calls to socialize food because people who are extremely poor already have access to food. And it must be said that the private/non-profit sector is key here and has really stepped up. If people were starving to death in the US, you probably would see calls to socialize food.


	So, what you are saying in practice about governments and societies, when we take it down to the level of you-and-me (which is the level of analysis that matters to me ) is this: a group of people have the exclusive moral right to force another group of peaceful people to relinquish their property -- quite literally at gunpoint, should individuals in the second group refuse -- to pay for these things that you deem noble. My mind boggles at the suggestion that it is moral to attack a peaceful man to accomplish whatever purpose, however noble you try to make it sound. Cuz, you know, it all sounds very uplifting and noble till someone discovers that you are conveniently omitting the fact that what you propose necessitates the fundamental threat of violence to work. It's all shits and giggles until someone pulls out a gun. If I am mistaken, would you care to describe what is it exactly that you are proposing at the level of human action instead of at an abstract level?


	Morals before efficiency. We’re talking about efficiency at keeping people alive and healthy, which is a moral issue. a group of people forcibly takes money from another group of people without their consent Okay, tax analogy time! Let’s say I rent an apartment on a month-to-month lease. It costs $1000 a month. I think it’s worth it, although I have plenty of complaints about the plumbing, wall paper, et cetera. Now my landlord says the rent is going to go up to $1100 next month, but it will include utilities, which it didn’t before. I would rather pay my own utilities. If I stay in the apartment paying $1000 a month and the landlord has me evicted, is that “evil” or “corrupt”? I’m not getting robbed. I’m occupying someone’s property without their permission. My country has conditions for citizenship and residency, and, while I strongly object to some of them of them, they’re net worth it for me. Because I always have the option of renouncing my citizenship and leaving, I’m not being coerced. I think this is a pretty typical perspective on taxes among non-libertarians, and I hope it’s useful. why don't I see calls for socializing food Well, food stamps have been around since the Great Society. And food donations are actually pretty common, because food comes in donatable portions; People are apparently more confortable giving a starving person a $2 can of beans than a sick person $2 toward a $20,000 operation (or rehab treatment, or complicated birth, or …).


	We’re talking about efficiency at keeping people alive and healthy, which is a moral issue. No, it's not. I have UPB , a rational framework to ascertain and validate moral theories, backing my statement. What do you have to back yours, The Gut or a similarly inconsistent framework? Okay, tax analogy time! Let’s say I rent an apartment on a month-to-month lease. Oooh, terrible analogy. You can surely produce the lease with your landlord upon request, thereby confirming that you have a lease and that it has expired, don't you? Now, can you show me the contract I signed with my government stating the terms of my supposed lease? Can you produce a witness or preferably two, quoting me in any statement where I have promised the government a fee for their services? No? Then no, honey, there is no contractual obligation on my part to pay for anything that the government does. So no. Your claims, your burden of proof. It hasn't been satisfied by this analogy -- notwithstanding the fact that analogy is no substitute for rational argument. My country has conditions for citizenship and residency, and, while I strongly object to some of them of them, they’re net worth it for me. Excellent for you. I do not agree to these conditions, and I recognize no authority in you to enforce them on me. We are at an impasse, and since I am not engaging in the initiation of physical force against you, hardly can you presume that violence against me is morally justified. IOW: if at this point of the discussion, without a legitimate and voluntary promise on my part, your default response is "well, fuck you, we are coming in with the guns to get your money and to punish you for not paying what we say you ought to pay", then you can't really claim your arguments are rational and well-founded, because what they really are, is an apology for violence in the name of your cause. If you're defending the practices of robbery and coercion against me, at least have the decency to admit it, that way I can abandon this discussion satisfied and with everybody else knowing what you really are advocating.


	I'm too lazy to upvote all your replies here, but thanks for saving me the trouble of saying all this.


	Thank you. I wish you did upvote me a bit more, since I've been drowned in downvotes and burning karma like mad, and maybe others can get at least more exposure to the ideas about freedom that sorely need exposure in this world of coercion-as-virtue that we live in. But I thank you heartily for your comment nonetheless.


	Kareems has been extremely polite with you, so I feel I should point out that one who uses strawmen and tangential "what-about" questions to the extent you did should not say something like: Hear that? It is the roaring thunder of logical inconsistency, carrying the huge boulders and trunks of hypocrisy. Unless you are referring to your own, as well.


	I don't feel I have been impolite or flippant. It's just that one cannot claim to be logically consistent if one chooses to apply a freedom methodology to some topics, but not to others. If one does that, one is not really a libertarian since one does not believe in freedom as a value first and foremost. Thus one cannot claim to be a libertarian. And I'd be hard-pressed to find strawmen in my arguments. I asked two very valid questions, and they never got answers.


	I'd agree, and go one further to say that infrastructure in general , including health, should not be privatized. I live in California, and am still dealing with the effects of power companies adjusting supply to fit demand.


	Amartya Sen crystallized this argument in "Development as Freedom." Freedom is the presence of many available options from which you can choose at your own will, but so many libertarians seem to define it only as the absence of restrictions from a single source (government), even though there are many other things that can reduce your freedom and against which government can actually protect, like unethical fellow citizens, disease, and poor education. You're not truly free if you pay no taxes but can't get a job because you don't have a high-school education or are bedridden with a disease you can't afford to treat.


	Wow- that's the best I've ever heard that concept framed. Thank you.


	If you just make the government bigger, that your hated corporations will get smaller. WAKE UP In technical terms, the redditor above would be known as an idealogue. Dreadful, polarizing creatures of pure spite, skilled at removing both sense and reason from any political discussion.


	Woosh


	Whoosh yourself, moron. Your trust of for profit companies to put your health before their bottom line is as fucktarded as your mindless support of the Republican traitors.


	If you want to discuss, alright, but if you came here to insult, don't waste our time and an hero yourself.


	One sentence qualifies him as an ideologue? What about the other facts he contributed? Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were intentionally ignoring them to protect your ideology .


	I don't think treating people like idiots is the right way to make them adopt your position.


	I don't want people to adopt my position. I want them to adopt the truth. I am not important in that respect. And they are idiots, because only an idiot would keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.


	Of course. but did you understand my point?


	Yes, I understand your point. But if they won't accept the truth because of how it is served to them, I don't want them on my side because they will make people like me look bad. I only want those who care about the truth.


	They will make people like me look bad. people like you already look bad. You seem like a very frustrated and touchy guy. And they are idiots, because only an idiot would keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. I've seen your messages. You keep doing the same thing over and over again without much results. Do you expect to get a different result here?


	People like you already look bad. You seem like a very frustrated and touchy guy. ... I've seen your messages. You keep doing the same thing over and over again without much results. Do you expect to get a different result here? What are you talking about? What makes you think that my goal is to convince people? Besides, I have had many productive exchanges here on Reddit. You are just assuming that I am not producing any results. My number one goal is to enjoy myself, and I have succeeded in that respect. I am not doing this for others at the expense of myself. I am learning how to argue a lot better. I am getting results. I will let you on a little secret. I receive, on average, 1 or 2 private messages per day here on Reddit from people who are too afraid to speak their minds in the threads. They ask me to keep it up, and that since they are new to all this, they are learning from me, and that although they cannot express it as well as they would like, they understand that there is just something wrong with government messing with people's lives. They tell me that they enjoy reading what I write and to keep it up. The reason they are doing this is because they know that they are going to get relentlessly attacked by anti-freedom posters here, and they would rather not admit they like what I say in the threads, because they don't want the stigma that I obviously got. But being a libertarian is not about giving up when you are attacked. Being a libertarian is to protect the attackers of individuality. It makes no sense to refuse to be an individual and take your lumps, and still call yourself a libertarian. I am not just trying to be the devil's advocate. I seriously am convinced of the things I have accepted as the truth. Nobody can stop me on Reddit, and I have no idea why people try. In fact, the more negative responses I get, the more I know I am touching people's nerves. That's a good thing, because even if people disagree with me, at least they will look at what I say and reconsider their own beliefs. I don't think you can possibly claim that I have gotten no results in this regard. You are living proof.


	I agree with most of what you said, but you also have to consider how many people will be affected negatively by what you say, and relate the truth with being obnoxious, if that is how they perceive you. You said a couple of people a day tell you they agree with what your points. But how many will see that libertarianism and being frustrated and condescending go together? People don't want to change their minds, and calling them idiots and freaks give them an easy way out. It's not logical, but I avoid reading posts who call me an idiot, and I'm not the only one. So how many people dismiss you because of your attitude vs how many listen to you in spite of that. After all, why would anybody consider what every rambling redditor has to say? anyway, I think I'm not going to get anywhere on top of sounding condescending myself, so I'll stop this.


	I agree with most of what you said, but you also have to consider how many people will be affected negatively by what you say, and relate the truth with being obnoxious, if that is how they perceive you. As I said, I do not care for these people. I only expend effort for those who show that they are willing to find the truth with me, and not demand that I tell them in a way that makes them feel all nice and cozy on the inside, like they are princesses. People don't want to change their minds Yes they do. They just need a good reason. calling them idiots and freaks give them an easy way out. I am not concerned by those who want the easy way out. The truth requires discipline and self-study. Those who want the easy way out will never know the truth even if I tried. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to teach themselves what is real and what is bullshit. So how many people dismiss you because of your attitude vs how many listen to you in spite of that. Don't care. After all, why would anybody consider what every rambling redditor has to say? Because the truth is the truth no matter who utters it. Those who only listen to people and not reason are doomed to fail in life. I think I'm not going to get anywhere on top of sounding condescending myself, so I'll stop this. Go ahead, I welcome condescension and egoism. What I don't welcome are attacks that are solely designed to make the attacker feel better about his own inadequacies or because they have an agenda against something they don't like (freedom) and use every crap excuse in their shallow bag of tricks to try and convince themselves that it can't be true simply because it doesn't feel good.


	But you also have to consider how many people will be affected negatively by what you say, Maybe, but what angers people about Private-Freedom is that he doesn't have hairs in his tongue to bullshit around with persuasive shit -- he is blunt about the truth and ideologues / anti-intellectual self-styled intellectuals quite literally hate and bury him for that.


	What are you talking about? What makes you think that my goal is to convince people? What exactly, is your goal then? To boost your own ego? I will let you on a little secret. I receive, on average, 1 or 2 private messages per day here on Reddit from people who are too afraid to speak their minds in the threads. They ask me to keep it up, and that since they are new to all this, they are learning from me, and that although they cannot express it as well as they would like, they understand that there is just something wrong with government messing with people's lives. They tell me that they enjoy reading what I write and to keep it up. Here's a little secret: there are hundreds of comments a day here on reddit from people who disagree with the government. Get over yourself. That's a good thing, because even if people disagree with me, at least they will look at what I say and reconsider their own beliefs. I don't think you can possibly claim that I have gotten no results in this regard. You are living proof. Perhaps you should listen to your own advice.


	What exactly, is your goal then? To boost your own ego? How can my ego be boosted if I say, as you claim, incorrect things? My goal is to have fun. Here's a little secret: there are hundreds of comments a day here on reddit from people who disagree with the government. Get over yourself. There is not enough. BY FAR. Perhaps you should listen to your own advice. I do. That is why I read what I say and make sure it makes sense before I post it.


	I receive, on average, 1 or 2 private messages per day here on Reddit from people who are too afraid to speak their minds in the threads. AKA pussies.


	You seem like a very frustrated and touchy guy. No he doesn't, and you ought to be a bit more thankful and appreciative because he is shining quite the ray of truth in this matter.


	Buddy, you have got to be kidding me. It's like you live in a bubble of your own ideology and refuse to think or look outside to see what is really going on. Privatized health care fails on all fronts. It fails in motivational principle, economic theory, and empirical evidence. The motivational principle it fails is that of reward systems . This is a well understood principle in most other fields but is often overlooked in ideological "reasoning". The goal of health care is health. However, that is not what is rewarded in the U.S. System. In fact, just the opposite. The goal of private industry is to maximize profits. This is best accomplished at the insurance level by refusing to pay and making payment as difficult as possible for individuals. At the treatment level, it is accomplished by providing sub-standard health care, ensuring patients come back often, and over-prescribing tests and treatments where there is guaranteed payment and under-prescribing when payment will be most difficult. A sick public is profitable to those who provide care for profit, and an ignorant public is profitable to those who pay for health care. It's not like buying a shirt where if you feel ripped off at one store you'll go to another next time. If you are ill you take your doctor's advice and don't know any better, and often there is no "next time". If it is a serious disease or accident that is expensive, you go bankrupt. A universal health care system has no profit goal. It is measured in health outcomes and efficiency. Second, the economic principle it fails is transaction costs . This principle is typically ignored by free market [armchair] economists. Every transaction has a cost. Getting insurance has overhead and administration. There may be tests, and surely there is paperwork. At the point of care, whether doctor or hospital, there is another transaction. They must collect money and deal with the associated accounting. Between health provider and insurer/payer there is another transaction, which adds more overhead. And every company that does any of these multiplies the redundant overhead. And everybody sues everybody else when they don't get the outcome they wanted. These are inefficient costs inherent to the system. By comparison, a universal health care system has essentially no transactional costs. Everyone is automatically insured. There are no payments, no clerks to pay, no advertising & marketing, no collections, no lawsuits, and the only transactions between hospital/doctor and paying agency is the records of the treatment. Third, it fails empirically. The U.S. spends between 2-3 times per capita the typical amount for other Western countries and has worse health care, higher child mortality , and shorter life expectancy than many , if not most, of these countries with universal health care. (Western Europe & Scandinavia, Canada, etc.) You can make all the whiny claims you want. The boogeyman you fear does not exist. Countries with universal health care systems are doing just fine, and are doing much better than the U.S. For results and costs, giving them much better efficiency.


	You seem to be convinced that the US has a free market in healthcare. Don't know why that is, considering that we don't.


	I think there's a lot you are not considering. If you are interested you could listen to a series of podcast with the opposite point of view: An analysis of the power structures of socialized medicine Logical problems with a 'right' to health care Practical problems with a 'right' to health care


	Ah, the Peter Molyneux frontal lobotomy service. No thanks.


	From these three podcasts, do you find anything that Stefan was wrong about? Or would you rather not be confronted with an argument that you can't prove wrong? If you think Stefan is wrong, then say so, and say why -- preferably pointing out in which minute and second. But labeling his work a "frontal lobotomy service" is just a sleazebag move that contributes nothing to the discussion and doesn't prove you right either.


	"There are no payments, no clerks to pay, no advertising & marketing, no collections, no lawsuits, and the only transactions between hospital/doctor and paying agency is the records of the treatment." People will still need to be paid, clerks as well, there will be advertising, etc. Without lawsuits how will the system/doctors/staff be held accountable for poor service and/or failure? "Third..." This is due to lifestyle choices (the US has the largest percentage of obese people) and yes people without access to prenatal care, etc. One reason our health care is so expensive is due to the level of care. Look up MRI machine per population center in the UK compared to the US. I'm not saying that the US system is better or even good but just because the US system need fixing doesn't mean the UK model (for example) is the solution.


	Privatized health care fails on all fronts. It fails now (it didn't fail before, say, in the fifties). So you ought to ask yourself "what changed?". And what changed is very simple: increased government interference and monopolists / rent-seekers. Ironically, that which you clamor for, is the very thing that has destroyed medicine today. Oh, and your three "fails": utter bullshit. You can apply the exact same three "fail" arguments to anything, even food or clothing, yet I don't see you demanding socialization of Chanel or KFC.


	I find it despising that you got downvoted when all you did was contribute sound observations. Sheesh, I suppose people love their myths too much.


	So the corporations are bad because the government does bad things? Edit (to down voters): Instead of voting this down, or maybe in addition, you could explain why is my reply worthy of downvotes. Maybe I'm making a stupid mistake but I really don't see how is it that when government fucks shit up, the businesses are at fault. The government is the one with the guns.


	Corporations, being legal entities, rely on the government to exist. Without government, you have no corporations, so your attempt to divorce the actions of corporations who leverage their ability to concentrate capital to influence the legal system from the government which implements that system is rather futile.


	Without government, you have no corporations I agree so your attempt to divorce the actions of corporations who leverage their ability to concentrate capital to influence the legal system from the government which implements that system is rather futile. Was I trying to do that?


	Then perhaps we should try again. So the corporations are bad because the government does bad things? In short, yes, the corporations are "bad" because they use the government to do "bad" things. Or to answer it another way... I really don't see how is it that when government fucks shit up, the businesses are at fault. These particular businesses are at fault because they are the ones in a reciprocal relationship with the government that allows both of them to simultaneously, "fuck shit up".


	By that logic, if there's a store where all the goods are stolen by the store owner, the fault is all on the customers.


	Sorry, you'll have to paint that analogy to the hilt for me, I don't follow you. If the government is a store and stealing the goods, are the corporations supposed to be the customers? You really think that this analogy fits the relationship between government and corporations? How about we try this instead. Businesses do not need to incorporate. By incorporating they are developing a relationship with the government in order to provide themselves with a competitive advantage. In other words, they are tacitly endorsing the existence of the government and developing themselves into institutions supported by said government. By influencing political figures they are interfering with the supposed principles of a democratic system with the intent of pursuing their own particular agenda and the result of creating a oligarchic governing power. That oligarchic government then serves the will of the corporations who write the checks to the representatives in the government. But by some stretch of the imagination you want to pretend that while the government is doing something "bad", the corporations are merely innocent bystanders? Or as you say, "I really don't see how is it that...the businesses are at fault."


	I meant people from the government sell stuff to corporations. For example corporations invest in presidential candidates. Once in office they pass or influence legislation in favor of their customers. Do you think this happens?


	Ah, I see. Then your analogy is flawed. The analogy would be more like, there is a local mafioso in town who extorts money from you and everyone else. You invite the mafioso over for dinner and pay him a little extra to get more "protection". Later, you pay him even more to go do a hit on your competitor, and you subsequently reap the benefits while still having to pay off a little extortion money now and then. You are claiming that the mafioso is "bad" because he/she kills people and infringes on their rights. Yet, you seem to think that by paying off the mafioso you have no moral complicity. I beg to differ.


	Your analogy is much better, and I agree on the moral complicity thing. My point is it's incorrect to just point at the guy who pays for extra protection. The mafia is the one with the guns, so why focus on the briber? Specially if he has to do it before some else does against him.


	I think the linked article explains why going to a socialist model in terms of health care is a disaster. If a partial socialist model is such a piece of shit, I honestly cannot understand why people would want to go full-socialist. It's akin to having a cyanide-poisoned patient and yelling "MORE CYANIDE". Of course, another inconsistency I cannot explain: if food is so much more important than health, why don't you socialists start by socializing food production? Ah, that's right, socializing food killed 40 million people in the 20th century alone.


	That kind of statement really needs a link.


	Google "The Great Leap Forward". Then Google "Soviet Famine". Have a great day! Edit: Yay! Two suggestions to Google two distinct topics automatically garner a downvote. Wow, the haters!


	The Soviet famine had more to do with the "socializing" (since that's the only word you know) of science than of food distribution itself. Google "Lysenko." But there are so many different ways to "socialize" a sector of the economy, and so many differences between sectors of the economy, and so many differences between "socialism" and what's actually being proposed in the mainstream, that it's still a meaningless analogy.


	I'm familiar with Lysenkoism, and you can chalk up to it the twenty mill deaths from starvation in the U.S.S.R without harming my point. The fact remains that there is only one way to actually execute socialism, and it is to issue veiled threats of violence backed by actual violence to extract the property of those unwilling to go along, then use it for whatever purpose the regime finds worthy. Fortunately for me, I know Macchiavelli is dead and I can tell right from wrong.


	Nah, the famine was primarily in Ukraine, partly because Stalin was racist against Ukrainians and partly because he was scared of them opposing him politically as a mass. He expropriated all of their food to make them starve to death. This was no accident. "The Great Terror" by Robert Conquest spends like 100 pages on this topic. So you're against veiled threats of violence backed by actual violence to extract my property? Help me get the United States government off of my back.


	Yeah, I know about those things, but the fact that starvation from capitalism is considered "normal" makes the comparison tricky.


	Uh, with the amount of food being produced in the world now (FYI: it exceeds the amount of food needed to sustain humanity), hardly can capitalism lead to starvation, since the voluntary exchange of goods without third-party intervention is the most effective system known to mankind so far. Only centralized planning or barriers to commerce can fuck up distribution of food (and, time and time again, they have proven to do exactly that). inb4 African starvation: perhaps the current global mercantilism that is incorrectly labeled "capitalism" has something to do with it?


	True, barriers to commerce have played more of a role in that than capitalism itself. All the same, it's difficult to know whether companies would be enlightened enough to invest significantly in areas lacking resources/education/health, even if trade barriers were removed.


	Africa is not centralized. It's like 1000 ethnic groups in competition with one another, duh. I'm so sure the evil, centralized bureaucracy is ruining food distribution in Africa. I guess the big, bad U.N. Is pulling all the strings, right?


	I think the comment above explains why using the word "socialism" with regard to American health-care policy proves you're not interested in a real discussion.


	I think you can read me in this entire thread engaging others in sound debate and raising valid points while remaining polite. Perhaps that doesn't constitute "real discussion" to you, but then you always have the options of either not be condescending or stop addressing me.


	Well, I think the point of the article is that an advantage of going "full socialist" is the savings in overhead. Having one central system is more efficient that lots of little confusing ones. Of course, then there is also inefficiency in the Canadian medical system bureaucracy. The article is pointing out the difference in inefficiency. So it is akin to having a cyanide-poisoned patient and yelling "Give him Canadian food as it has less cyanide in it!".


	Having one central system is more efficient that lots of little confusing ones. Perhaps you will find it surprising that socialism inevitably leads to inefficiency and corruption as countless examples throughout history have proven it, perhaps you will refuse to acknowledge it. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that a central system can only ever be funded by coercing peaceful people into giving up their property from those too weak to defend from the transgression. And removing property from unwilling people is wrong, however you want to slice it and however expensive the suit of the lawmaker that mandates it is. Now, if after being told this undeniable, objective fact, you still prefer socialism to nonsocialism and you defend the abovementioned violence being executed on others, then we may rightfully call you evil . You might not like it, but that's what you'd be.


	How do you define "their" property? Through some kind of royal libertarian lense? Pray tell, who did current land owners buy their property from? Other land owners? How far does that chain go back? Turtles all the way down? And removing property from unwilling people is wrong, however you want to slice it and however expensive the suit of the lawmaker that mandates it is. Slaves were legally defined as property; I don't find it wrong that they were freed against the will of their "owners" despite your "undeniable, objective fact" that removing "property" from unwilling people is wrong. Do you mean something other than legally defined property? Be clear.


	If we had a partially socialist and partially capitalist model, with that logic the best place to be would be the same place we're at right now even though it's "such as piece of shit." And the reason that a lot of people aren't trying to change food prices is because there is no large portion of Americans who don't have access to food. That said, there are some people in America who are trying to stop subsidies to farmers (which isn't really socialism or capitalism, it's corporatism) and there are a lot of people who are trying to change the nutritional make up of the United State's diets. Plus, nutrition is a large part of "health care."


	If we had a partially socialist and partially capitalist model, with that logic the best place to be would be the same place we're at right now even though it's "such as piece of shit." Maybe, but since your medical sectors have a partially socialist and partially mercantilist model, your argument can only ever be a vacuous truth. And the reason that a lot of people aren't trying to change food prices is because there is no large portion of Americans who don't have access to food. Wow, I wonder why that is. Maybe it's, you know, because people choosing to sell and buy at their informed discretion actually works as a system for provision of goods and services? That said, there are some people in America who are trying to stop subsidies to farmers (which isn't really socialism or capitalism, it's corporatism) To borrow 18th century slang, I'd call that mercantilism. One of the many dangers of having a government, of course -- without a government, which other large group of corrupted psychopaths can you extort for free monies without building a costly and business-bankrupting army? Plus, nutrition is a large part of "health care." I'm sorry, we were talking about medicine , not diet. Don't try and distort the subject. To be a doctor, you need a license because otherwise they put you in a cage. To be a farmer, you do not. To make a medicine, you need a license for the patent, otherwise they put you in a cage. To plant tomatoes, you don't. And you can very well expect the food industry to go to the shitter just as the medicine industry has gone, as increased interventionism is welcome there too.


	What would you consider mercantilism and what would you consider capitalism? I'm unclear on what your definition is of each because you used mercantilism to describe the subsidies of farming but then you said that food prices work because it's free market. Are food prices mercantilism or capitalism? And I would argue that nutrition is an important part of health care that can't be taken away from the general idea of medicine. I understand that it is different, but it's hard to discuss medicine without talking about dietricions or preventative care. By changing our diet, Americans can take away a large part of health care costs that can't be ignored when talking about health care economics.


	I cannot explain: if food is so much more important than health, why don't you socialists start by socializing food production? I'm going to suggest you read up on a America's agricultural industry. Farming is an incredibly socialized industry.


	Everyone realizes that single payer only = insurance companies wet dream right? And that any article that advocates ONLY single payer is more than likely bought an paid for This article is written by and for insurance interests to sway opinion away from the flawed but exceptionally better group option So your comment "Health care in the US is a great example of corporate interests distorting the debate to prevent the implementation of policy that would be against their interests", that was about this article right?


	Sigh . Any time I see anyone decrying the 'bureaucracy', I'm instantly put off by someone who seems to think that everything can run itself without people to run things...


	They aren't getting rid of bureaucracy all together. Just the excess. The nationalized health systems spend way less on administrative overhead than the privatized ones. They're trying to account for that difference.


	"The participation of private insurers raises administrative costs. The small private insurance sectors in Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands all have high overheads: 15.8%, 13.2%, 20.4% and 10.4% respectively, far higher than the 1% to 4% overhead of public insurance programs. Functions essential to private insurance but absent in public programs - e.g. Underwriting, marketing, and corporate services - account for about two-thirds of private insurers' overhead. In addition, private insurers have incentives to erect administrative hurdles - by complicating and stalling payment they can hold premiums longer, boosting their interest income. Such hurdles also discourage some patients and providers from pursuing claims." RTFA


	That's not how I take it. I take it this way. I go to the ER. I get two different statements a week later telling me how much the total cost of the ER visit was. One is for the actual use of the ER. The other is for the doctors' fees. A week later, I get two more statements, again saying, "This is probably what you'll owe, but don't pay, insurance is pending." Anywhere from 4-8 weeks later, I actually get a bill telling me what I owe and that I have 30 days to pay or make payment arrangements. Each different paper they send me is because of some stupid guideline or rule that they have to follow and they notify me each step of the way. That's bureaucracy. Just send me one damned bill. It should say what the insurance covered and what I owe.


	Every single time I go to the doctor, or the pharmacy, or get a lab test, my insurance company sends me a separate piece of paper in a separate envelope. Last year my family had a lot of medical expenses and I was bombarded with letters from them. You'd think they could save a lot of money with monthly statements or the offer of statements on line. All this postage and paper has to cost millions. What a waste.


	If we had a single payer system (i.e., universal healthcare), you would only get one bill indicating how much you would have paid. That's one reason why government run health care is more efficient.


	It is wasteful, true. But mailing expenses aren't going to make the difference. To do that, you'd have to get rid of all the people who's job it is to figure out how to legally deny your claim.


	The question really is "why does the bureaucracy cost so much"...not that we don't need one.


	The question really is "how much do you think the bureaucracy should cost, and why do you think that's what it should cost?"...and yes, there are quite a number of movements in many places to abolish bureaucracy across all sorts of (Public and private) services and to get rid of anyone who isn't a senior manager (i.e. Decision makers) or front line staff (i.e. The peons).


	Before I clicked on the comments, I knew that only people attacking the current system would be upvoted, and everyone else providing a contrary point of view would be downvoted. Accurate predictions of MisterBusiness: +1. (Now up to 2!)


	Downvoted for referring to yourself in the third person. And for griping about downvotes. Gomerbot hates that.


	It's DESIGNED to do that. They system our fascist government wants, works perfectly. Our "elected" officials don't give a d*mn about WE THE PEOPLE.


	This is blogspam. They just copied and pasted the article from public citizen , minus the table and notes.


	Hermes approves.


	Yes but that bureaucracy is a form of taxation that generates steady revenue.


	Please explain


	Bureaucracy is a source of jobs. Once people have the jobs it becomes more difficult to take them away. Plus I was being snarky.


	An expanded health care system in which all people are covered would create many more jobs.


	The government cannot create jobs. It can only take jobs away from the private sector.


	If you had not been mistreated by your parents / authority figures, perhaps you wouldn't be resorting to sexually abusive mental imagery to try and make an insulting point. Then again... That's your problem, not mine.


	That is an interesting point of view although I find it flawed. The US government is the largest employer in the us. What private entity should run the military?


	Well, we've tried Blackwater for a while and I think we're ready for change.


	Huh? C.f. "The New Deal".


	Yeah, it put a whole bunch of private ditch-diggers and ditch-refillers out of work.


	Not to get into an argument with a libertarian, but... I can't resist. Just who was put "out of work"? The capitalist firm owner who extracts "profit" out of the labor of the people doing the actual digging? In any case, when it comes to a project such as, the Hoover Dam, or the interstate highway system (projects only the gov't could ever have afforded), if the gov't (a) hires a private contractor and pays them to find people to dig ditches or (b) finds people to dig ditches and pays them, then doesn't the (a) situation just have a middle man--and for that matter, one inspired by profit motives, thus one with a motive to pass off shoddy work for good, and to exploit labor, in order to maximize profit. What benefit is provided by the (a) situation, besides the enriching of a person who provides no useful function? Also, you're clearly an idiot.


	"Half the human population are middlemen, and they don't take kindly to being eliminated." --Mal Reynolds


	How come doctors, insurance agents and corporate executives never go bankrupt because of medical bills?


	That doesn't include the cost of insuring the insured. You can't just deregulate (get rid of health care bureaucracy) and insure only those who weren't insured before... Can we just change the name to rheddoric.com and get it over with?


	RTFA


	Sure, because having the government provide health care to the poor wouldn't require any additional bureaucracy, now would it?


	Snarky, but wrong. The costs of the additional government bureaucracy in a single payer system eliminate such a massive amount of private insurance company redundancy that exists in a multi-payer system that the overall effect is a drastic reduction in total spending without any loss to quality of care, as is attested here with data from the WHO, CDC, and CIA World Fact Book.


	Sorry but that's a complex logistical and management puzzle. You can say it won't be as costly a bureaucracy but that's just a statement. What government bureaucracy do you know of that's efficient?


	You can say it won't be as costly a bureaucracy but that's just a statement. That is why I presented evidence alongside my statement, for I would have made exactly that criticism myself if I read it without any evidence to back it up. Namely, the article indicates that while Canadian citizens happen to have life expectancy a tad higher than those in the US, along with a lower infant mortality rate, their single-payer system allows them to pay for these results at nearly half the cost. What government bureaucracy do you know of that's efficient? "Efficiency" doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is a relative concept. So we are asking, what single government bureaucracy do I know of that is more efficient in providing less expensive, but similar quality medical care on a per capita basis than the alternative of a multitude of competing insurance companies? The answer, provided in the evidence I linked to, is the Canada Health Act, commonly referred to as Canada medicare. Feel free to refer to the link above. As another example, there is Taiwan, whose medical administrative costs reduced to the lowest in the world following their adoption of a single-payer system modeled on that of Canada. They also reduced the number of uninsured from 40% to less than 1% in that time period. Their system isn't 35 years old like that of Canada, but only 15, so they still have some bugs to work out. However, the popularity of the system maintains itself around a rather impressive 70% compared the the US (around 40%). Neither Canada nor Taiwan have a perfect healthcare system. There is no silver bullet to fix all the problems in US healthcare. However, if your priorities are low cost healthcare with universal access, then both Canada and Taiwan offer single-payer models that are unquestionably preferable to that of the US. Or, if you simply want to improve the US healthcare system in a predictable but random fashion, take a dart and throw it at a map of first-world countries and emulate whichever system it lands on. You will find that out of the 13 richest countries in the world, the US spends by far the most on its healthcare system, gets no better results (arguably the worst results, actually), and just so happens to be the least "socialized" of them all. For this, I'll refer you to table one, and figures one and two of this pdf from the University of Maine.


	The issue I have with this "government bureaucracy is inefficient" stuff is that inefficiency itself is far, far better than a system that is actually made with artificial middlemen who suck money out of the system for no real value added. Inefficiency isn't a constant, either. It's not like changing an inefficient system or organisation is impossible. Just get some oversight into it and actively work on eliminating the inefficiency. The US trusts the inefficient government to provide police, fire departments and a military to name just a few things. If privatizing everything was a good idea it would already have been done - but most people don't find the idea of having to give 911 their credit card number and fork over, what, $2500? Before the police responds to their cry for help very attractive, for some reason...


	"If privatizing everything was a good idea it would already have been done - but most people don't find the idea of having to give 911 their credit card number and fork over, what, $2500? Before the police responds to their cry for help very attractive, for some reason..." Sounds eerily familiar to "but we've never done it that way!" or "everything that's possible to invent has already been invented". Sorry, but your implication is that the system we have is the best we could possibly have, simply because any improvements would already have been done. Bullshit. The other problem with your statement, about privatizing everything....a free system doesn't require either putting a gun to everyone's head to make everyone pay for police, nor requiring people to pay during the 911 call. There's many options to go with. A free system could allow for any or multiple even. One: the individuals that want a community funded police department pay for it themselves. People donate but by choice, not forced. Sure, maybe the police station isn't state of the art and cost the taxpayers 30 million to build it, but so what? Second: one or more private groups that bill you after, such as we have with ambulances. Sure, might have a few problems with it, but we also might have fewer than now. Might not have as many cops busting people for stupid shit, or shaking people down, or taking homes or cars for what amounts to a doobie. What do cops do now? Tickets for speeding. Arresting drunk drivers. Catching drug users. Catching thieves of homes or businesses. Theoretically anyway. Answering noise complaints. Answering overgrown lawn complaints. I think we can trim down some uses of police, new buildings, etc, and pay for a force without requiring guns to the heads of taxpayers to fund it.


	Tell that to the people in wait queues in socialist health care countries. "But imagine how worse they have it in capitalist countries, they don't even HAVE QUEUES!"


	I hate to break this to you, but people in many regions in the US wait weeks or months for appointments with healthcare providers. Maybe you are a multi-millionaire able to afford to pay out-of-pocket for a trip to the neurologist, or maybe you've never been to a community hospital that gives sick children wait times of weeks before they get to see a physicians assistant, but for the other 99% of people in the country waiting in a que is no different than waiting first for a referral and then for an appointment to a provider covered by your insurance. Sometimes the wait is longer, sometimes it is shorter, but it is still waiting all the same. Well, it is a little different, because in those "socialist health care countries" you at least know that the insurance company won't try to weasel their way out of paying after the appointment. You also know that if you get hit by a car crossing the street, you won't have to spend the rest of your life trying to repay your debt on the ambulance that picked you up while you were unconscious.


	I hate to break this to you, but people in many regions in the US wait weeks or months for appointments with healthcare providers. And you think the U.S. Health care system is capitalist ? You also know that if you get hit by a car crossing the street, you won't have to spend the rest of your life trying to repay your debt on the ambulance that picked you up while you were unconscious. Cold comfort for someone who already spent the entirety of his life coercively paying a shitload of money for a service against his will . Emphasis on against his will .


	And you think the U.S. Health care system is capitalist? Did I claim that? Though it is odd, you were the one who compared the capitalist and the socialist countries. Tell me, good sir, whose capitalist health care system are you using as a means of comparison when you remark on how those poor socialist folk have to wait in ques? Cold comfort for someone who already spent the entirety of his life covertly paying a shitload of money for a service against his will. Perhaps the full story will illuminate the relevance of this apparent tangent to the discussion we are having?


	Whose capitalist health care system Uh, I dunno, my country? That's not really the point here and I neither enjoy being nor am a fact mill -- the only important fact that you need to acknowledge is that the system you call "capitalist" just isn't. From patents to medical licensing going through literaly tens of thousands of A4 pages of regulations, it's mercantilist, monopolist, oligopolist, corporatist, and these perversions are enabled by the intervention of the State at all levels. But capitalist, it ain't. And "more of the same" (what you call "socialized health care") is only going to result in more of the same shitty results you hate today. apparent tangent How is it an apparent tangent to discuss the fact that money is taken by force from people to provide a service that some of them disagree with, which is merely a description of the acts underpinning what socialists propose?


	Uh, I dunno, my country? That country being? the system you call "capitalist" just isn't What system did I call capitalist? You were the one who brought up the word and referenced it, I merely tried (unsuccessfully) to figure out what you were referring to when you used it. But capitalist, it ain't. Fair enough. Back in the 80s I used to talk to communists who had a similar line. I would express my problems with how communism worked out in the real world and they would explain over and over that the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea were not communist. They were correct, actually, no country has ever been communist as ye faithful Marxists have imagined it. However, they tended to miss the forest for the trees with their attempts to rule communism out of actual existence, or to isolate it to remote and all but alien primitive economies of the distant past. Not that any of them were silly enough to claim that, say, medieval Iceland was a relevant example to modern economics. How is it an apparent tangent to discuss the fact that money is taken by force from people to provide a service For one, because you never indicated that money was taken from you by force. Rather, you gave a vague reference to having "covertly" paid for a service done against your will. This left it open to many interpretations, including non-monetary payments, illicit services, and substantive reinterpretation by interested parties. Perhaps, if you would like to tell your story, rather than assume that everyone knows how the particulars are relevant to our conversation, you could show me up and demonstrate what a fool I was to doubt the relevance. Or, you could continue to avoid and evade any substantive backing to the statements you give, thus continuing to generate the impression that you think conversation consists of you making assertions while everyone else soaks them up like divine truth.


	RTFA


	I read the article. Did you ever see ads for the Scooter Store on TV? You know what they are doing, don't you? They are gaming the system and getting Medicare to pay for a scooter for an old and/or fat person. No private health plan would pay for a scooter like that, but the US govt thinks it is fine. The US govt knows no fiscal limitations, go look at Fannie and Freddie or the current Medicare/Medicaid liabilities. Yes, our current system needs fixed, but what the fuck is wrong with you people, handing more of it over to the government isn't going to fix it! Do you realize the current financial problems aren't caused by capitalism, but instead by government meddling and manipulation? The more control you give them, the more they will fuck things up.


	The more control you give them, the more they will fuck things up. Are you talking about government or investment banks?


	I know a lot of people who want federal medical care. Most of them seem to think it will be free. I think it's part of an entitlement mentality. Screw it all and let society take care of me, and if they don't and I die, I'm a martyr and society is complicit in murder because I refused to take care of myself when I could.


	More government bureacracy, vastly less private bureacracy.


	Yea, you keep telling yourself that.


	One government healthcare bureacracy with one procedure and set of policies versus... How many different health insurance companies are there now, with all sorts of different procedures and policies?


	Yeah. One set of policies and all easy to figure out. Tax return system all over again. I can just see having to send in my medical return every year, and if I forget to register for my new medical care center when I move, I go to jail.


	Well, once you subtract the bureaucracy that decides which conditions and people you can get away with not covering even though you said you would, how much is really left?


	This i believe.


	OH SNAP THERE PROVIDING INSURANCE FOR THE UNINSURED?? Let me just go cancel my policy right now


	Oh they give food to the poor.. Fuck this job. RTFA


	Wonderful comment... I'd love for the USA to have a single-payer health system. That said, what are your facts? Or are you related to Goebbels and spew lies until people believe them?


	Its not a comment. It's the title of an article in which you can find plenty facts that back it up. Thank you.


	Because they have to cover their asses from frivolous lawsuits


	Ok well here's another idea, why don't we just stop all the war and killing what not and use that to pay for healthcare, then we can be ten times more bureaucratic and still have money left over.


	If by war, you mean the war on drugs! Or, the war on poverty! Or, the war on obesity! Or, the war on red herrings!

Discussion Title: USA wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured : reddit.com
Title Keywords: wastes more health care bureaucracy than would cost provide health care uninsured reddit.com

Omgili Home

About

FAQ

Plugins

Usenet