She's exactly right. Really well written and most assuredly agrees with the majority of the country right now. That is what scares the left so much, she's dead on correct and people respect her. She busts through their lies and deception.
Yeah, they respect her so much that she has a 43% favorable rating. This is how low the bar for Republicans has sunk, if only 6 out of 10 people dislike you, you're looking good!
Except that in the case of health insurance, actuarial concerns come into play. Thus, I want to purchase health insurance as part of a group and not as an individual. Collective bargaining through work provides me with lower risk than what I could get on my own (increased risk pool size).
Information asymmetry is only one problem with the healthcare market (and being able to purchase insurance individually doesn't cure the asymmetry that exists between the doctor, hospital, and myself). You're assuming that exposing me to more pricing is going to solve the cost problem. Why would it? You assume that transactional mobility with regards to buying insurance is going to lead to more information symmetry between my doctor and myself. If I go to a doctor with a headache and dizziness and he/she tells me that I may have a brain tumor and need an MRI, I'm going to take their word for it with cost being secondary, regardless of if they're lying.
You're also excluding any of the other real problems with the market. Inelastic demand. Everyone wants healthcare and are willing to pay almost anything to get it, even if they can't really afford it (leading to massive numbers of medical bankruptcies). Relatively inelastic supply. The barriers of entry into the profession are quite high and burden doctors with huge amounts of debt, forcing many to specialize, thereby further increasing cost.
The free market also doesn't really address the fact that we want to give healthcare to sick people. Giving everyone their own mandate to get themselves covered pretty much ensures that sick people won't be able to get insurance that either A) covers the majority of their expenses or B) they can afford. Only a minority of people have severe chronic conditions that require a great deal of medical expenditures. As it stands, they can get insurance that covers pre-existing conditions because they commonly enter under a group plan with healthy people or get insurance with high deductibles or that doesn't cover this specific condition. If you allow insurance companies to individually price everyone based purely on risk (no more heterogeneous group risk pools), you're basically telling the minority of expensive people that they can have insurance that won't really help reduce their costs or that they can't afford.
At least with employer-based, I am forced to subsidize the cost of the chronically ill in my group. Yes, this doesn't bother me as I believe that even the chronically ill should get treatment. If you eliminate employer-based you'll force these individuals into what amounts to low number high-risk pools. It's simply antithetic to the view that everyone should have or get health insurance. If the government steps in to say that companies can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions then you might as well just move to single payer and capture some of the cost savings that comes from a single large risk pool, a single large collective bargaining scheme, and no need to generate profit.
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Harvey
Given such statements, is it any wonder that any rational human being would believe Republicans are a product of?dare I say it?STUPIDITY panels?
Proving the point. :laugh:
Proud member of "insert appropriate Harvey macro here" right wing club.
:laugh:
You didn't include any of my "macros," appropriate or otherwise, so you're booted out of the club. PM me if you want the text files, and I'll e-mail them to you. :laugh:
Meanwhile, if you really want to side track the discussion onto the subject of the Bushwhackos' many heinous crimes, I'll be glad to post lots of them in this thread to save you the effort, but remember, YOU will be the one who made them "appropriate" for this thread.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Spidey07 asserts, "she's dead on correct and people respect her."
Which does not exactly square with why the McCain Palin ticket lost the presidency by a large margin in 2008. And Palin became a side show freak exhibit every time she opened her mouth.
And in terms of approval numbers, last time I checked, the Palin approval numbers were in the sewer. And approval numbers are closely related to respect.
But I guess every Spidey07 is entitled to his own little delusions, even if they do square with any of the known facts.
Which does not exactly square with why the McCain Palin ticket lost the presidency by a large margin in 2008. And Palin became a side show freak exhibit every time she opened her mouth.
And in terms of approval numbers, last time I checked, the Palin approval numbers were in the sewer. And approval numbers are closely related to respect.
But I guess every Spidey07 is entitled to his own little delusions, even if they do square with any of the known facts.
She's definitely right about allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines. If there was more competition between the insurance companies, insurance coverage would not be so bureaucratic.
One of the biggest problems now is medical care is too bureaucratic.. If government took over, it could only be made more bureaucratic.
Further, there are NOT a significant number of people just flat out going without medical care. If there were, we'd see stories about people dying in emergency rooms all the time. Even if a person has no insurance and no money, most people at the local level handle the 'charity' of treating that person. If government takes over, it becomes forced charity.
One of the biggest problems now is medical care is too bureaucratic.. If government took over, it could only be made more bureaucratic.
Further, there are NOT a significant number of people just flat out going without medical care. If there were, we'd see stories about people dying in emergency rooms all the time. Even if a person has no insurance and no money, most people at the local level handle the 'charity' of treating that person. If government takes over, it becomes forced charity.
Um.... it's already forced "charity." You don't think that people with no money that enter the ER are simply written off do you? Equipment, facilities, labor, those costs are simply passed on to people that can pay. Namely, those with insurance. You are paying for them already via increased costs when you go to the doc.
Wrong. It's already forced charity, because the law already states you cannot deny people emergency medical care. Also, how do you square your 'the government could only make medical care more bureaucratic' with the fact that government run medicare is less bureaucratic than the average private insurance company? (It's not the 2% that some people claim, but all estimates I am aware of still rank it with lower overhead.)
That's the funny thing. It's a well known fact in economics that when the market "fails" and the government intervenes, they make things worse. That is the universal rule of Government Economics.
Yeah, such a 'well known fact in economics' that the majority of economists currently favor government intervention in the markets after the market failure we recently had.
Oops.
Polls show most people don't want government run healthcare, so yeah, the majority DO agree with her and this article.
What an argument, Obama's sitting at 39%, below Palin's. I love seeing the leftist hacks go nuts because it leads to slews of stupid BS and name calling about everyone else being stupid. Do you guys really think your intelligent or does the Internet make it easier to pretend? Scary thing about the left is that they never try to look down the road more than a day or two and see the harm they cause. When the time to realize it comes about, they blame everyone else.
Uh, the president's approval rating is hovering right around 50%, a bit lower or a bit higher depending on which poll you view. That isn't a statistically significant improvement over Palin's so-called "horrible" favorable rating.
So, your point again? Wait, you don't have a valid point.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...eform_falls_to_new_low
"Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low as just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan. That?s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago. "
Notice I didn't attack your source, but I know you attack mine.
The people are waking up and fighting against congress and this administration and disapproval and disagreement with his policies are growing EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Actually it IS a statistically significant improvement over Sarah Palin's. Go learn about statistics.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter