The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Powerful Paintings...

False. If the government would get out of the way and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines then the consumer could indeed shop around. The argument has never been about the affordability of the actual health care. It has always been about being able to obtain health INSURANCE.

Consumer shopping around would never address fundamental issue - when it comes to your own health, or health of your loved ones, no price is too high. No procedure is too expensive, no treatment is too low on cost vs. benefit.

This will always put upward pressure on costs as industry races to come up with more and more expensive procedures and treatment, way past diminishing returns point, because they are always consumed.

You are absolutely right, my response was meant for a large group of people, 'you' should read 'usual suspects', but ended sounding like it was directed only at Derid. I apologize if I unjustly singled out Derid when it meant to be addressed at multiple people.

You must excuse me, it is difficult to talk to the conservative swarm when multiple issues (recent example - health care) getting dragged into conversation and when multiple people respond with interchangeable opinions. I usually respond to the last person in the chain. This time it happened to be Derid.

Side note, I have nothing but respect for Derid, while I violently disagree with him, he tend to be well-informed and articulated in his opinions. I'd love to debate any one specific issue with him without having discussion topic derailed by others.



Please don't confuse me getting angry with my words angering you. It is easy to project emotions, especially when you don't have face to face communication.

This is the fundamental root of the problem. There is not now nor has there ever been a system where everyone can get every treatment they want. Also, keep in mind that all of those treatments people are clamouring for were developed because some private firm spent millions of dollars.

You've not angered me. Several times I've been frustrated with both you and Jet, but Tas is the only one who sends me into fits of hysterical rage and only then because he argues against himself like a MPD patient on cocaine, and leaves me out.

We agree that you cannot possible have a health care system that satisfies any and all demands. Question becomes of how to distribute what resources we have. Conservatives tend to suggest for-profit model where middle man (insurance) and personal wealth determine distribution of such global resource. Progressives tend to suggest centralized system with equal access.

Considering that I see health care as a product/benefit of society, and not individuals or corporations, I strongly favor centralized redistribution system.



Most of the time this is not the case, NIHresponsible for bulk of research and progress. The only exception is some limited pharma research to file patents on specific compounds, and that research is still heavily based on public domain knowledge.

Typically research is done in academia, where government grants make it possible, and if something major discovered generic process is published then researchers jump into "industry", file "manufacturing technique or efficiency gains" patents and start making money. This is fine, since it leads to progress, but none of it would be possible without initial public research grants.

*edited due to later clarification*

Also, your analysis regarding health care is fatally flawed because the free market has proven time and again over the past couple centuries that innovation will occur and cheaper alternatives will become available as long as the market demands them.

The reason health care costs are inflating is the same reason college education costs are inflating - because the govt is pumping a lot of money into the industry, which sets the baseline regarding what they can charge people. Also, govt REGULATIONS that favor the insurance industry also play a factor, such as prohibiting you from buying insurance out of state.

In a free market system, competition drives prices down. What we have now, due to govt involvement is not a free market system, hence the cost issues. The govt adds quite a bit of entropy into the health care system, and it drags the whole system down with it.

You accuse people of spouting "talking points", but your whole rationale does in fact seem Marxist. You seem to be trying to apply Marx's "Iron Law of Wages" to health care costs - except the so-called " Iron Law of Wages" has been thoroughly and utterly debunked.

At the end of the day, its not about whether people have a choice regarding health care ( they actually do, many people choose to go without) but rather about if there is an opportunity for someone else to make money by providing a better service at less cost. People have tried to make a case in the past that this will not happen in regards to other industries, but it always has, every time, as long as the govt was not preventing it.

You are confusing two separate issues here, plus you brought in another topic into this discussion. We are now talking about Constitution, Healthcare, Free Market AND now Education. Can we narrow it down a bit? I am more than willing to discuss any of these topics, but not at once.

Education issue is that for-profit Universities have access to government loans, solution is to end for-profit part, not government subsidies. Another issues is that corporations offloaded all training on a public sector without corresponding increase in wages, it is now expected that you know how to do your job prior to getting hired. Yet another issue is that a degree is now expected for almost any position that traditionally didn't require one, like a secretary with a bachelors in related field is the norm.

Still, even with all these undue pressures getting education is a choice. Your life does not literally depend on it.

As to your suggestion that not getting health care is a choice - please don't insult readers with such ridiculous suggestion. This is no more choice than homeless choosing to live under the bridge or starving people choosing not to eat.

Well, there are many angles to the discussion. none of this happens in a vacuum, and there are myriad pressures from all directions. Also, do not mistake me pointing out that govt infusion of money into the education system is all bad. As a system in of itself, it certainly needs to be looked at on its own merits. But nonetheless - the fact remains that govt pumping money into the system via grants and (mostly) loans has had a direct impact on the rising cost of tuition.

Also, I have known plenty of people who have chosen to spend less on healthcare than they could have. Whether it was wise on their part or not is debatable. But humans are individual, sovereign creatures.. and they always have a choice. You can argue that they may only have one "good" choice, but it is just a point of view and not objective reality.

Your life literally depends on healthcare in only a fairly small amount of cases, when talking about most people - especially the non-elderly.

You need to look at the system as a whole, and the flow of money from start to finish. Wherever govt (or any body) injects lots of free capital into a system, the system will find ways to soak up all the money on the table. That is what has happened here. The principles don't change, only the expression of those principles.

Capital is completely agnostic. It does not matter if the market is govt funded, or privately funded. If there is an opportunity for someone to make money off it, many people and industries will work at doing just that whether the resulting outcome is healthy or not for the rest of us, thats just human nature.

"solution is to end for-profit part, not government subsidies."

This is where you steer away from most of us. Advocating that non-profit is wrong.

also a lot of the research that takes place is privately funded.

You like to go into to the past, look up the guy that cured Polio he did it on private funds.