Our health care system delivers another fantastic metric.

[glenn1]

The bigger point is that we are spending 18% of GDP to get similar health care to countries spending 10% of their GDP. So someone is getting 8% of GDP, or $1.3T per year, for nothing. Those are the leeches you should go after, not the sick people who need care. But you will never go after them, because they are corporations and "respectable" members of society.

The "sick people who need care" who already receive Medicaid or Medicare, or some different sick people who need care? The sick people we're already spending a quarter of the federal budget on and rising fast?

 

[fskimospy]

Of course they're things I've personally benefited from as well as everyone else, that's the entire point. Every single person benefits from them and relatively equally - rich people get the same benefits from roads as the poor. Thus it makes sense that we all pay taxes to commonly enjoy the benefits. That's the proper role of government and exactly what the Constitution stipulates it's supposed to do.

The Constitution does not stipulate the function of government in this way. Like, at all.

Contrast that with social welfare, which by their essential nature means the benefits go to a single person - government by Santa Claus. By definition the heart surgery you get paid via taxpayers benefits you and you alone, the only benefit I get is that you don't die on my doorstep. There is no and never will be an equal and universally shared benefit, and the idea that "well you *could* need the benefit someday isn't compelling either as I *could* be victim to lots of unfortunate circumstances and it's still not right or moral for me to ask you to mitigate them on my behalf. If the prospective value of a social welfare benefit bore any relationship to the risk it was mitigating, then it would called just regular insurance and not social welfare.

So you're recognizing the communal benefits of education but not the communal benefits of public health? Baffling. The far more likely answer is the one that's already been given, which is that you're a hypocrite who appreciates social insurance that benefits you and views social insurance that doesn't as theft.

 

[theeedude]

The "sick people who need care" who already receive Medicaid or Medicare, or some different sick people who need care? The sick people we're already spending a quarter of the federal budget on and rising fast?

We spend twice as much as other developed countries, which provide universal health care. So we are paying enough to ensure everyone, paying it again for no obvious reason, and still not ensuring everyone. But instead of asking the health care system, the big pharma, etc, why they are ripping us off in both money and coverage, you are instead going after sick people. BTW, it's Republicans who explicitly banned Medicare from using it's buying power to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs, so that party has no leg to stand on when complaining about Medicare costs.

 

[glenn1]

The Constitution does not stipulate the function of government in this way. Like, at all.

So you're recognizing the communal benefits of education but not the communal benefits of public health? Baffling. The far more likely answer is the one that's already been given, which is that you're a hypocrite who appreciates social insurance that benefits you and views social insurance that doesn't as theft.

Oh yes, the general welfare clause which was intended to cover any imaginable spending.

LOL at you thinking hypocrisy is what drives support for government programs that benefit everyone equally, and opposing those that benefit only specific individuals completely unequally - the exact antonym of general welfare. Of course you wouldn't understand that distinction because to you those with more money are nothing but ATMs to take money from in pursuit of your social goals. To you the poor have a higher moral claim on a rich man's money than the rich man.

 

[cbrunny]

You should educate yourself better.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ee-market-american-health-care-system/254210/

Are you trying to tell me that hospital shareholders DON'T make money when someone is sick?

We have no shareholders in our hospitals. There is no incentive to increase healthcare costs because no one profits from increased costs. Especially not the people setting the costs.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh yes, the general welfare clause which was intended to cover any imaginable spending.

If you think the Constitution stipulates that the proper scope of government spending is on police, fire, schools, etc, by all means quote the relevant section(s).

Good luck, haha.

LOL at you thinking hypocrisy is what drives support for government programs that benefit everyone equally, and opposing those that benefit only specific individuals completely unequally. Of course you wouldn't understand that distinction because to you those with more money are nothing but ATMs to take money from in pursuit of your social goals. To you the poor have a higher moral claim on a rich man's money than the rich man.

You think police protection, fire protection, and education spending benefits everyone equally? What a joke. The benefits from them are often highly unequal (and in some cases even detrimental), and they are funded completely unequally. So again, you're perfectly fine with laying a claim on rich people's money for things that benefit you while simultaneously being outraged that someone else would have the gall to do the same to you.

You've made it abundantly clear in this thread and many others that you only really care about what benefits you personally. I think you've even explicitly said as much. It's not my fault that you may now realize how shitty and incoherent a person that makes you.

 

[CountZero]

Of course they're things I've personally benefited from as well as everyone else, that's the entire point. Every single person benefits from them and relatively equally - rich people get the same benefits from roads as the poor. Thus it makes sense that we all pay taxes to commonly enjoy the benefits. That's the proper role of government and exactly what the Constitution stipulates it's supposed to do.

Contrast that with social welfare, which by their essential nature means the benefits go to a single person - government by Santa Claus. By definition the heart surgery you get paid via taxpayers benefits you and you alone, the only benefit I get is that you don't die on my doorstep. There is no and never will be an equal and universally shared benefit, and the idea that "well you *could* need the benefit someday isn't compelling either as I *could* be victim to lots of unfortunate circumstances and it's still not right or moral for me to ask you to mitigate them on my behalf. If the prospective value of a social welfare benefit bore any relationship to the risk it was mitigating, then it would called just regular insurance and not social welfare.

The person that walks to work everyday benefits from roads as much as the RV driving retiree touring the country?

The person that causes a house fire due to inattentive cooking receives the same fire fighting benefit as the person that never causes a house fire?

The person whose jewelry store is robbed receives the same police benefit as the person that never deals with a cop in their life?

The person with 10 kids receives the same school benefit as someone with no kids?

All of these are things you *could* benefit from but it doesn't mean you do and certainly not equally. No government benefit of any kind will ever be universally shared at an individual level, it is laughable to think it is. While some get more out of these systems than they pay and some get less the main benefit is societal, not individual equality in benefits.

I can only assume you don't pay for health insurance since that would be stealing money from you for something that *could* happen while actually covering what did happen to someone else. You don't support that.

Also interesting that your first argument was it was better to let a kid die so that we can give "government by Santa Claus" gifts to more starving Africans. Now you are arguing that it wouldn't be right because *you* don't benefit enough. You flopped in a single thread. You support only that which benefits you at or higher than what you pay in (in your head anyways) and lack the empathy to support anything else.

The only system where everyone benefits exactly as much as they put in is one with no government services at all.

 

[glenn1]

The person that walks to work everyday benefits from roads as much as the RV driving retiree touring the country?

The person that causes a house fire due to inattentive cooking receives the same fire fighting benefit as the person that never causes a house fire?

The person whose jewelry store is robbed receives the same police benefit as the person that never deals with a cop in their life?

The person with 10 kids receives the same school benefit as someone with no kids?

All of these are things you *could* benefit from but it doesn't mean you do and certainly not equally. No government benefit of any kind will ever be universally shared at an individual level, it is laughable to think it is. While some get more out of these systems than they pay and some get less the main benefit is societal, not individual equality in benefits.

I can only assume you don't pay for health insurance since that would be stealing money from you for something that *could* happen while actually covering what did happen to someone else. You don't support that.

Also interesting that your first argument was it was better to let a kid die so that we can give "government by Santa Claus" gifts to more starving Africans. Now you are arguing that it wouldn't be right because *you* don't benefit enough. You flopped in a single thread. You support only that which benefits you at or higher than what you pay in (in your head anyways) and lack the empathy to support anything else.

The only system where everyone benefits exactly as much as they put in is one with no government services at all.

Sure, you're correct. The average American gets just as much benefit from an expansive welfare state as someone who drops out of high school and sits around all day in public housing eating Cheetos.

Your welfare utilitarianism that you use to justify taking from the wealthy to pay for freebies for the poor has won me over, especially considering how in its application that inequality could actually hugely spike (as it has in reality) and still be consistent with the progressive theories. Or more likely the middle class just gets fucked over, which is exactly consistent with observed reality.

 

[Slew Foot]

We spend twice as much as other developed countries, which provide universal health care. So we are paying enough to ensure everyone, paying it again for no obvious reason, and still not ensuring everyone. But instead of asking the health care system, the big pharma, etc, why they are ripping us off in both money and coverage, you are instead going after sick people. BTW, it's Republicans who explicitly banned Medicare from using it's buying power to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs, so that party has no leg to stand on when complaining about Medicare costs.

One simple law, allow the free importation of pharmaceuticals, could save the US hundreds of billions a year. But no, Mr. Hedge Fund donating to Hillary Clinton, needs to raise drugs prices 5000% to buy his 50th yatch. Until big money gets out of politics, youre fucked.

 

[Moonbeam]

How stupid are you? The voters have clearly accepted my position and it was enacted into law. People who can't afford it get uncompensated care every day.

As for the state/local thing, the answer is again obvious. We live under a system of laws that provides uncompensated care for people who can't afford it. The people who live in those other countries do not live under the same system. You're basically asking why it's right for your car insurance company to pay for an accident one of its customers is in but not someone who isn't. It's called social insurance for a reason.



I pay far more in taxes each year than I get in services, so I'm already contributing, thanks. I find it amusing how enraged you get about collective action problems. Your level of anger about them in no way changes the reality of them, btw.



So what? By your logic you were no more deserving of an education than any kid in Africa. In fact, we probably could have educated 10 kids over there for what we spent on you, you greedy parasite. Funny how you have no problem with entitlement to other people's money so long as it benefits you.

He is a religious zealot member of a social theory cult that is absolute in nature, a true believer. His opinions are safe because he will personally never be held account to what he believes. Too many good Samaritans around to let him to be hoist on his own petard.

 

[CountZero]

Sure, you're correct. The average American gets just as much benefit from an expansive welfare state as someone who drops out of high school and sits around all day in public housing eating Cheetos.

Your welfare utilitarianism that you use to justify taking from the wealthy to pay for freebies for the poor has won me over, especially considering how in its application that inequality could actually hugely spike (as it has in reality) and still be consistent with the progressive theories. Or more likely the middle class just gets fucked over, which is exactly consistent with observed reality.

I never made the claim that everyone gets just as much benefit, that is the exact opposite of what I said.

Go back and read what I typed or don't. I'm done debating with you. I will never win an argument with a sociopath that sees no upside for themselves in something.

 

[glenn1]

I never made the claim that everyone gets just as much benefit, that is the exact opposite of what I said.

Go back and read what I typed or don't. I'm done debating with you. I will never win an argument with a sociopath that sees no upside for themselves in something.

Do the rich have statistically more fires and thus derive more benefit from the fire department? Or completely unlike welfare spending, is the probability of you getting more benefit from roads than others scale almost directly with the poor decisions you make like dropping out of school or doing drugs?

 

[Moonbeam]

Do the rich have statistically more fires and thus derive more benefit from the fire department? Or completely unlike welfare spending, is the probability of you getting more benefit from roads than others scale almost directly with the poor decisions you make like dropping out of school or doing drugs?

You didn't choose to be a blind religious fanatic. The unfortunate ignorance you were raised in did that. This is why, if you get sick you will be covered even though, by your standards applied to you, the absurd opinions you hold, you don't morally deserve it.

 

[Newell Steamer]

But wait - there's more!!

http://www.economist.com/news/21678669-americas-big-spending-healthcare-doesnt-pay

AMERICA remains the world’s most profligate spender on health care, according to a report published on November 4th by the OECD, a club of 34 mostly rich countries. In 2013 America spent, on average, $8,713 per person—two and a half times as much as the OECD average. Yet the average American dies 1.7 years earlier than the average OECD citizen. This longevity gap has grown by a year since 2003. Americans have the same life expectancy as Chileans, even though Chile spends less than a fifth of what America spends on health care per person

 

[OverVolt]

So then what the hell was Obamacare supposed to change except higher deductibles to lower premiums.

People don't take care of themselves, like at all. Its getting somewhat ridiculous. Diabetes is 9%+ now? Obesity? 30%+?

I'm all for institutionalizing healthcare if it brings down cost.

 

[theeedude]

When are Republicans going to repeal their give away to big Pharma and let Medicare use its purchasing power to negotiate drug prices?