The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central This is the country I want

We don't need shamans in southeast Texas. We have cajun voodoo.

Not want? How is that exactly works? So you are bleeding on the street, and decide, hey I would rather bleed to death, no thank you. Well, if one that suicidal, it is probably advisable to see a psychiatrist, and one would need coverage for that.

People don't want to get sick, people don't want to get bankrupted by emergency hospital visits, people don't want to die of preventable diseases.

Lets call spade a spade, people DON'T WANT TO PAY for access to health care system. They want it for free.

Speaking of freeloaders...

Fuck You Texas...

---

I think your assertion of “properly constructed society” is silly, I remember hearing similar arguments from proponents of communism. Ideal society cannot exist; we have to design system that is robust enough that it can deal with corruption, inefficiency and irrational actors.



---



Your position is flawed. Any society other than pure anarchy requires contribution from its members, almost always in form of taxes. Thus, by belonging to a society you give explicit agreement to give up some of you “time, money and services” in exchange for benefits of society. Since you view any society as immoral, I invite you to purchase one-way tickets to Somalia.



You did not address my point #2. I stated that uninsured population relying on emergency room service is highly inefficient way to provide health coverage. It is both costly to the system, participants and does not provide good outcomes.

Emergency Room Use Among Adults Aged 18...une 2011 [PDF]

Expenses for a Hospital Emergency Room Visit [PDF]



My argument was much simpler – I pointed out that emergency room use for uninsured (they don’t have anywhere else to go) was inefficient, as a result getting them ON INSURANCE and channeling them away from emergency rooms will be cheaper.



Still, you bring up universal health care, and I am highly surprised you would state “what it does not prove however is that your model of universal care is any better”. In the past I demonstrated that universal health care is cheaper, both in % of GDP and absolute costs, and provides better outcomes by comparing US healthcare to a slew of other countries with socialized medicine. I posted data, studies and comprehensive charts demonstrating this. US health care costs, of about $8000 per person and 15% GDP, are above and beyond what any other country pays, with most socialized healthcare first-world countries paying about 9% of GDP and $3000 per person. You are making bad faith argument, you know, or ought to know, what you saying is not true.



No they don’t. They have an incentive to maximize profits, that is by definition includes pricing some people out of the system. That is how profit optimization works.

Again, free market is ineffective model for a health care. People are unable to be rational consumers when health care is the product. While most consumers can make rational decision not to consume some good, putting a downward pressure on the price, there is no such downward pressure exists in a health care. Health care is market with unlimited demand, as a result supply/demand breaks down and entire system becomes unworkable.

Yes some people don't want to pay for healthcare, I didn't want to pay for health care when I was in my 20's so I didn't.

Its really sad that you don't see a problem with the feds forcing people to pay for something or get fined for it.

PAY is key word.

I have no problems with people not wanting to CONSUME health care, like Amish, but people not wanting to PAY?

We ALL pay for it when these people get sick and clog emergency rooms. Some have conscience and eventually pay it back, but most are freeloaders and don't.

You'd think this would resonate with conservatives, but no, they go "you will pry my right to freeload the system out of my cold dead hands!" on this one.

I guess conservatives have bigger hearts then you because they are willing to let the poor have free healthcare.

When you force someone that is poor to pay thousands of dollars for healthcare, and if they don't you fine them, you are making them poorer(is this a word it looks funny to me).
So now you are the guy making people eat sawdust soup, grats now they have free healthcare. Good job on not replying to this when I have brought it up several times, you would make a great democrat politician.

Great! So lets not needlessly waste money and get them all on insurance. Visits to emergency rooms cost significantly more than alternatives.



Since you decided to bring ACA into this, "someone that is poor" will get subsidized. This subsidy is still cheaper to the taxpayers than subsidizing non-insured visits to the emergency room under current system.

Meant to address this, but missed it in a huge train of quotes.

Maslow's theory and hierarchy of needs is well-established principle in both psychology and sociology. It states "If basic needs are not met, then there is a tendency to ignore higher needs".

What does it mean? Well, it means that humans tend to prioritize basic needs. It does not explain what any individual would do, there are individual exceptions to this, but over large enough population sample tendency is there.

To preserve democratic process it is not enough to simply demonstrate that it is possible to participate in it, you have to ensure that there is no barriers to entry in such participation. Well, having to address your basic needs is one huge barrier that we know will turn voters away.

So what does it mean in context of democratic process? It means that people that do not have basic needs satisfied will tend to ignore democratic process. I hope you are familiar with historical examples of this, I believe almost every dictator in the last 100 years came to power promising to address basic needs of population... and people let them, because they were more interested in addressing basic needs instead of higher needs, such as protecting principles of free society.

I never argued for an ideal society, unlike leftists I realize that society will never be anywhere close to perfect. Building a "robust" society to withstand the forces of corruption etc via larger and complex mechanisms is impossible. Entropy works on a social level, not just in thermodynamics.

--

Your view of society is flawed. Societies must work together in some regards *for a universal good. In other words, if it doesnt benefit everyone equally - at least in principle, it does not apply as a required contribution. Police, in principle, benefit everyone by protecting everyone equally from internal violence.

A military, in priciple, benefits equally by protecting everyone from external violence.

Perhaps you are seeing a trend. A just Govt exists to *protect everyone from violence, equally.

What you propose on the other hand, *inflicts violence for the purported good of a select few. There is a massive moral canyon between justice and a leftists arbitrary opinion on how social control should be handed off to the feds.

--

I addressed your point #2, and even pre-empted the point you tried to make with your "rebuttal". Reading glasses more. I specifically predicted you would bring up the emergency room example... and you ignored the fact that I did so... and brought up the emergency room example..... mmmmmmmkay.

--

As for you demonstrated how "cheap" and effective universal care is... you and I both know you did no such thing.

You *asserted such... but missed and ignored anything you didnt want to hear. Since you had no effective rebuttals, your arguments were unconvincing. You really did not seem to understand why the GDP ratios were different, either lower in some cases or higher for us. Nor did you demonstrate an understanding of many issues plaguing our own system.


Your idea that universal care could be implemented here while maintaining any quality of care was pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Since nothing can penetrate your intellectual bubble (see repeated misused Somalia references for hard proof) I can see how you might see it differently.... but as has been aptly demonstrated , your opinion and objective reality have very little in common.

--

Maximizing profits typically involves finding ways to get more buyers. Obviously services would be tiered. In fact there have been multiple good attempts to get more affordable care via free market in the USA to date... however the govt keeps stepping in due to lobbying influence and killing it. Obamacare included.

Also, health care market demand is not *unlimited*.... and if it WAS unlimited... that is the worst indictment you could possibly make to have a central planning committee decide how it was allocated. Because you are introducing even greater inefficiencies in the face of an already unmeetable demand.. which is insanity.