Very interesting facts about our beloved Congress

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Yep. If the subsidies were removed and free trade permitted, corn wouldn't be in EVERYTHING, sugar growers would have to compete with South American sugar growers again, and so on and so forth. There's a reason that the least healthy foods are the cheapest, y'know.

And meat would go back to being a minor proportion of the diet, rather than it being incorporated into every meal, every day, because it will be more expensive to produce.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
About "this guy" - there's no way he's a Tea Party guy. I'm not all about the Tea Party myself, but I do know that know self-respecting Tea Partier would say that a for-profit healthcare system doesn't work. As things are, the government has been VERY involved in health-care since the 1930s, so it's hard to call it a free-market system.

I'd like to see a single state nullify all federal healthcare laws and try a truly free market in health-care. That way we could objectively compare the results instead of arguing hypotheticals, which I myself am guilty of doing.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Yep. If the subsidies were removed and free trade permitted, corn wouldn't be in EVERYTHING, sugar growers would have to compete with South American sugar growers again, and so on and so forth. There's a reason that the least healthy foods are the cheapest, y'know.

And meat would go back to being a minor proportion of the diet, rather than it being incorporated into every meal, every day, because it will be more expensive to produce.

Except for the fact that demand would rise and more companies would begin producing meat, lowering the price through competition. It may very well be slightly higher even with competition, but there wouldn't be an astronomical difference by any means.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
About "this guy" - there's no way he's a Tea Party guy. I'm not all about the Tea Party myself, but I do know that know self-respecting Tea Partier would say that a for-profit healthcare system doesn't work. As things are, the government has been VERY involved in health-care since the 1930s, so it's hard to call it a free-market system.

I'd like to see a single state nullify all federal healthcare laws and try a truly free market in health-care. That way we could objectively compare the results instead of arguing hypotheticals, which I myself am guilty of doing.

There can never be a "truly free market in health-care" because it can be legally administered only by those belonging to the medical profession. Unregulated costs imposed by this industry worked more like an oligarchy than free market, and the costs were attempted to be reined in by insurance companies in the 1980's via their HMO plans. But, greed took over again, and instead of the intended goal of making health care more affordable to everyone, the profit-minded insurance companies instead reduced costs of bills made by physicians, and decreased the rate of coverage for health care beneficiaries. In the free market, profit rules, even over health. So perhaps we should try a system whereby the administration of our healthcare is NOT dictated by profit-seeking, but rather health-seeking.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
About "this guy" - there's no way he's a Tea Party guy. I'm not all about the Tea Party myself, but I do know that know self-respecting Tea Partier would say that a for-profit healthcare system doesn't work. As things are, the government has been VERY involved in health-care since the 1930s, so it's hard to call it a free-market system.

I'd like to see a single state nullify all federal healthcare laws and try a truly free market in health-care. That way we could objectively compare the results instead of arguing hypotheticals, which I myself am guilty of doing.

There can never be a "truly free market in health-care" because it can be legally administered only by those belonging to the medical profession. Unregulated costs imposed by this industry worked more like an oligarchy than free market, and the costs were attempted to be reined in by insurance companies in the 1980's via their HMO plans. But, greed took over again, and instead of the intended goal of making health care more affordable to everyone, the profit-minded insurance companies instead reduced costs of bills made by physicians, and decreased the rate of coverage for health care beneficiaries. In the free market, profit rules, even over health. So perhaps we should try a system whereby the administration of our healthcare is NOT dictated by profit-seeking, but rather health-seeking.

Try running a major company and making a profit without government help when your product is terrible.

'Nuff said.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
And meat would go back to being a minor proportion of the diet, rather than it being incorporated into every meal, every day, because it will be more expensive to produce.

Except for the fact that demand would rise and more companies would begin producing meat, lowering the price through competition. It may very well be slightly higher even with competition, but there wouldn't be an astronomical difference by any means.

Feeding grain to traditionally grass-fed livestock began because it was cheaper to do so with low grain prices than practicing land management for the purpose of grazing, and because it produced meat faster (and also meat that was more unhealthy, both for us and for the environment). Look at prices for grass-fed beef and imagine that that is the only alternative, and you'll get an idea of what beef "should" cost, if not for the artificially low prices of grain used on feedlots.

I'm all for "changing the system" but we must acknowledge how much is wrapped up in "the system" before we make sweeping changes...and anticipate future results of our actions.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
There can never be a "truly free market in health-care" because it can be legally administered only by those belonging to the medical profession. Unregulated costs imposed by this industry worked more like an oligarchy than free market, and the costs were attempted to be reined in by insurance companies in the 1980's via their HMO plans. But, greed took over again, and instead of the intended goal of making health care more affordable to everyone, the profit-minded insurance companies instead reduced costs of bills made by physicians, and decreased the rate of coverage for health care beneficiaries. In the free market, profit rules, even over health. So perhaps we should try a system whereby the administration of our healthcare is NOT dictated by profit-seeking, but rather health-seeking.

Try running a major company and making a profit without government help when your product is terrible.

'Nuff said.

You are ignoring a principle of applying free market economics to health care -- the health care industry has an incentive to make profit, and that profit is made by continual treatment, not by making people truly healthy. When the "product" produced by a health care industry is truly amazing, it will drive itself out of business in a for-profit environment. Thus the only health care system that works in a for-profit environment is one which grows in treatments and procedures, not in cures and prevention. If my health care system keeps me healthy, how will it make money if I rarely utilize it? That's why for the health care system to truly work FOR US, it can't also work FOR PROFIT.

ETA -- imagine if law enforcement worked for profit. Do you think it would truly seek to reduce or eliminate crime? Or just keep it under control but constantly flowing in?

 

[mom'sfolly]

I often see things that people have found on other forums, on the internet or from e-mails that get posted here, and also on facebook. So many of these things are total fabrications, that in some cases have been circulating for years. Yet, I'm always amazed at the complete lack of skepticism (or maybe complete optimism?) show by those who forward or re-post these things. Most are easily fact checked, but nobody seems to want to take 5 minutes to do so. The one that really irritated me was about a sexual predator living across the street from my kid's elementary.

Do us all a favor, before you post something that sounds horribly unreal, do a quick fact check. If it is outlandish as it sounds, it is probably untrue.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Try running a major company and making a profit without government help when your product is terrible.

'Nuff said.

You are ignoring a principle of applying free market economics to health care -- the health care industry has an incentive to make profit, and that profit is made by continual treatment, not by making people truly healthy. When the "product" produced by a health care industry is truly amazing, it will drive itself out of business in a for-profit environment. Thus the only health care system that works in a for-profit environment is one which grows in treatments and procedures, not in cures and prevention. If my health care system keeps me healthy, how will it make money if I rarely utilize it? That's why for the health care system to truly work FOR US, it can't also work FOR PROFIT.

ETA -- imagine if law enforcement worked for profit. Do you think it would truly seek to reduce or eliminate crime? Or just keep it under control but constantly flowing in?

I see your point there - at the same time, think about the fact that every human being is going to need health care many times in their lives. If I were running a health care company, I wouldn't worry too much about business. I'm saying, we should stop arguing hypotheticals and have a single state try for-profit health care. If it doesn't work, I'd be MORE than willing to admit I was totally wrong. I may have a strong position, but if I'm proven wrong, I'm proven wrong.

That all said, it's all probably a moot point, since nothing is ever going to have a real chance at changing while most people are not researching outside of the media (FOX included).

No offense meant, but the law enforcement deal is a bit of a red herring.

It's generally accepted that law enforcement is the prerogative of local governments.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
You are ignoring a principle of applying free market economics to health care -- the health care industry has an incentive to make profit, and that profit is made by continual treatment, not by making people truly healthy. When the "product" produced by a health care industry is truly amazing, it will drive itself out of business in a for-profit environment. Thus the only health care system that works in a for-profit environment is one which grows in treatments and procedures, not in cures and prevention. If my health care system keeps me healthy, how will it make money if I rarely utilize it? That's why for the health care system to truly work FOR US, it can't also work FOR PROFIT.

ETA -- imagine if law enforcement worked for profit. Do you think it would truly seek to reduce or eliminate crime? Or just keep it under control but constantly flowing in?

I see your point there - at the same time, think about the fact that every human being is going to need health care many times in their lives. If I were running a health care company, I wouldn't worry too much about business. I'm saying, we should stop arguing hypotheticals and have a single state try for-profit health care. If it doesn't work, I'd be MORE than willing to admit I was totally wrong. I may have a strong position, but if I'm proven wrong, I'm proven wrong.

That all said, it's all probably a moot point, since nothing is ever going to have a real chance at changing while most people are not researching outside of the media (FOX included).

No offense meant, but the law enforcement deal is a bit of a red herring.

It's generally accepted that law enforcement is the prerogative of local governments.

Strict "for-profit" health care has already been tried. It is what exists today. And prior to HMO's, the cost of health care didn't change tremendously for the average person. The difference is where the profits shifted -- fewer went to the health care profession, and more to insurance companies. In the effort to increase their own profits, insurance companies seek to keep revenues coming in, and keep costs (i.e. paying out for health care procedures) down. One path could have been seeking efficient solutions, but instead, the general policy is to deny claims or procedures.

Yes, every human being will likely need health care at some point, but here's what happens -- Doctor A sees patients with complaints, and offers treatments which require ongoing visits with costs incurred (and profits received) per visit. Doctor B sees other patients with the same complaints, but offers cures (or shorter-term treatments). Doctor B will end up having fewer patient visits, and receive fewer profits (unless he charges more for each visit...). After a few years, in a free-market economy, which doctor's model is more successful with regards to profit?

The comparison with law enforcement is not a red herring. Law enforcement's purpose of controlling crime is similar to health care professionals' purpose of controlling illness. If the police charged for each visit they make on a burglary call, it'd be in their economic self-interest to make sure burglary never goes away, but is simply "dealt with" on an as-needed basis. That is how illness is dealt with now in a for-profit health care system. Health is a profit killer -- continual treatment brings in the revenue.