Re: OT - Michelle Obama & Pride In America


"Robert Allison" <rimshot27@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
Bruce S wrote:

Two thoughts - first, Check some of Walter E. Williams' writings on the subject of minimum wages - he teaches economics and does a much better job on the subject than I can. Secondly, if everyone in your area pays above minimum wage, why would the minimum need to be raised? The point is moot.

Walter Williams is a far right economist and economizes with an agenda. I prefer to listen to neutral economists that aren't pushing a point of view.

Typical liberal, refuse to read anything that might challenge your prejudices.

People fight Microsoft all the time and win (see Google) - it is just a matter of building a good product and making it available at a competitive price.

Microsoft has a lot of money to pay lawyers. When a company is in a position to become a monopoly (think Ma Bell),

Thank you for using an example that makes my case - AT&T became a monopoly only because ut had government assistance.

I don't know much about the Mass. program as it is fairly small and has only been in effect for a short time. When changing over to a new system, unforeseen costs are to be expected, and the costs of start up are almost always higher at first.

It hasn't failed, it has barely gotten started. How can you judge something that is still in its infancy?

I judge it the same way I would judge you in a similar situation. If I contracted with you for a house, and just after you started, you told me things were more expensive than you had planned, and it would cost twice as much as estimated, I would call you a failure, and cancel the contract. MA is no different, when they agree to provide a service, but as soon as it gets started, they double the price, with no corresponding improvement inc are, they are a failure.


Here is a quote about the Swiss health care system from Science Week:

What is most impressive about the Swiss health system is the role tight government regulation plays throughout the entire system. One can plausibly argue that this regulation is chiefly responsible for both the high quality and (relative to the US) low cost of Swiss health care. Absent that regulation, the Swiss health system probably would metamorphose into something resembling the much less regulated, high-cost US system, which is both more inefficient and more inequitable than the Swiss system.

Well, I read the piece you linked to about the Swiss system. First, they do a couple things I have advocated for several years - everyone must pay for his own insurance - no company paid programs, it all comes out of your own pocket, just like car insurance. (If you cared, you could Google me and insurance, and find out that I made that recommendation a long time ago.)

Second, when you buy your insurance, you can buy a plan that meets your needs, anything from no frills with high deductibles, to complete coverage. I believe that is necessary in order to get more people involved. Why should I (a single 59 year old) pay for maternity insurance? Along that line, I like their transparency of cost - you always know what something will cost right from the start, and that's a good thing - I certainly wouldn't go into a grocery store with no prices listed, and hope I could afford whatever they charged me when I got to the checkout. Why should healthcare be priced differently?

Now, the things I don't necessarily agree with: Forced participation. I still believe that a person should have a choice to make his own mistakes. If he chooses not to participate, he has no insurance, and must pay cash to receive any medical care. At that point, I don't care if he dies on the steps of the hospital, it was his choice. In this my attitude is no different from skydiving - if you make that choice and something goes wrong, I might mourn, but I won't feel sorry for you, and I won't try to take that choice away from you.

Fixed pricing. I believe in the capitalist system. I may want prices clearly marked, but I want the freedom for the supplier to set his own prices. I may decide I want to go to a no frills hospital and pay less toget less service, and you may want to go to the Hilton of hospitals and have a private nurse sitting by your bed. Why should we both be forced to accept the same thing, just to obtain a forced set price? Simply having prices displayed before receiving service, or predetermined in the type of insurance you get should be enough.

Finally, I am against the government paying for anyone's premiums, but if the only choice is that or socialized medicine, I won't give it my strongest fight. However, I believe that a person should be responsible for his own health care. If you know that you cannot afford insurance, you should go to your family, your friends, your church, a civic group, or a private charity and let them know what your situation is. Those private people will make a much better decision about your need. And I do not believe that an unwillingness to take care of yourself constitutes a need that I should pay for. You should have to go into said private charity, hat in hand, and beg for help. You should be required to go thru that routine on a regular basis. It should be so demeaning that you finally decide to take care of yourself. That is how health care becomes affordable.


When profit is the only motive for a business, services become minimal.


Bull***! When profit is the primary motive, the incentive is to do what it takes to maximize profits. People who have a choice will go where service is best, not where they are treated like cattle. Capitalism has worked in every industry it has been tried in - do you really think computers, televisions, or cellphones would have seen the improvements, and price/feature benefits we see today if the government provided the service? Why is it that you claim to believe in capitalism, but you don't believe it works?

The same is true for HMOs. Patients be damned, as long as profits are soaring. Insurance will do whatever it can to deny claims because it helps to increase profits.

Now, if profit is the ultimate goal, BUT a company assumes that the way to profit is through extremely satisfied customers, then the goal becomes extremely satisfied customers, thus leading to profits. Profit is NOT the only goal.

So you can see, that having profit as the only goal can lead to failure (except in the case of monopolies), while having benefits to the customer as the goal will more likely lead to profits.

In both cases profit is the only motivation. Just like going to a five star French restaurant, versus going to McDonalds. In each case the whole reason they are there is to maximize profits in the food service industry. They approach it differently - one with quick food, plastic seats,and low prices; the other with fine linen, fawning waiters, elegant settings, and high prices. There is no difference in their motivation - profit. They each chose a different path to that end.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that health care would be any different if people had choices. The biggest problem (in my not so humble opinion) is that people do not buy their own insurance, it is given to them (and most of them are so stupid that they think it does not cost them anything). Because of that, they take whatever their employer (or the government) provides. They do not look for a policy that will give them the best cost/benefit ratio. And then because it is "free" they abuse the insurance they do receive.

Everyone should be forced to buy their own (or have none at all), just like they do with car insurance. That way, they will seek a policy that provides what they need, and only what they need. If they are very healthy, they might choose one with a high deductible and good crisis care, so that they do not bother the insurance company for sniffles, but they have what they need when the motorcycle crashes, and they spend 6 months in the hospital. Another person might want total coverage because he has a wife and 4 kids, that should be his choice. And in each case, (just like in auto insurance) the customer can shop around and find the company that offers the best combination of service, price and coverage, all of which is spelled out, in detail, in their contract. There is no need for the government to provide anything but the opportunity for competition.


made? There will be times when someone has to decide whether to save a life, or to save a dollar. On those occasions, are you going to be satisfied with the some government drone saying, "no you can't do that transplant, it is too expensive." And if there is no drone around to make that decision, will you agree to pay an infinite amount for healthcare so that everyone gets the very best care every time? What is an acceptable upper limit to spending? Ask Massachusetts, Canada and Britain.

That is the system that we have now. Profit is more important than the patient. Only it is insurance companies that make the decisions instead of government drones. I don't want the insurance companies OR the government to make ANY medical decisions.

Then who is going to decide how much to pay for your coverage? When you show up at the hospital and the Dr says that you need a heart transplant to live, who is going to pay for it? Someone, whether it be the government, or an insurance company, or you personally, is going to have to make decisions about how much health care you can afford. At some point, the decision must be made as to whether or not the treatment can be afforded - or do you just propose that the government pay for everything? Are you willing to bankrupt the system, and the nation, to provide that type of care? A Dr may decide what treatment is best, but somenone will have to pay for it - or did you forget that when the government provides coverage, it is still paid for?


I just can't take that hard nosed approach to society, when I know that people aren't perfect. They are going to make mistakes. They are not going to live up to their potential. They are people, not machines.

And they must be made to deal with the repercussions of their bad decisions.


People complain all the time about the costs of the American system, but they ignore that the expense is driven by government regulations and lawsuits.

The cost of American health care is not high due to lawsuits, however. That is a myth. It is ONE of the costs of doing business, but lawsuits are paid for by, guess what?, insurance companies.

If you believe that, you must be a rotten businessman. Every cost incurred by insurance companies (like other businesses) is passed on to their customers. So, when some scum sucking personal injury lawyer (like John Edwards) creates a lawsuit industry against doctors (OB/GYN Dr's in Edwards case) the insurance companies pass every dollar of those lawsuits on in the form of premiums, in many cases raising the cost of insurance to such an extreme level that Dr's are put out of business.
So, yeah, lawsuits are a major expense in the medical industry.

Bruce



.

Loading