Would a Public Option Hurt Competition? - David Hyman

[humanist7117]

Propaganda!!

[Smaug84]

Would a logical, long term solution be to create more government based medical/nursing schools and oversaturate the market with potential, qualified graduates?

[eskimosurferdreamer]

yes! screw 'universal' health care.. just remove some of the red tape and let business do business.

[spits32]

business does well when peoples' health does not.

[artformeandyou]

Great Video Clip! Ten Stars!!!!!!!

[furyofbongos]

That's the wrong question to ask.

The relevant question:

Is it moral to use the initiation of force (violence) to attempt to solve social issues?

"Anything government does will be organized, financed, and carried out using force — not just force against criminals, but force against taxpayers and innocent bystanders. Any program based on force will be inefficient, expensive, misdirected, and intrusive of individual liberty."

- Harry Browne

[andid]

Healthcare is not the computer chip/web browser/search engine business. It's someone's LIFE. Just like socialized police, socialized fire departments, socialized medicare and veteran's healthcare....where health is concern, there should be no BUSINESS. Only SERVICE.

[truthadvocate]

"Even more have been killed by people" Joseph Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 20 million people. Mao Zedong executed millions of people and caused the largest famine in human history killing tens of millions of Chinese peasants. I'll give you a million dollars if you can find me one civilian that has killed that many people. Only government officials can murder millions and get away with it.

[funkalunatic]

Straw man. Nobody is calling health care a monopoly, or accusing providers of engaging in anti-competitive practices. Health care is a perfectly free market that failing to do what Cato thinks free markets always do.

In the health industry, it's generally cheaper to screw people over than to provide better service. It's actually because of robust free market competition that providers that fail to screw people over enough get run out of business. The unregulated free market is the PROBLEM

[MagellansUnderwear]

I think you'd be better served saying the insurance and pharmaceuticals industries, and not the overall health industry. Most doctors support UHC in some form or another. It's the insurance companies that stand to lose money here, and they are generally the ones that profit from the screwing.

[blackiron60]

Market fanatics: always gambling with peoples' lives, and in this case literally so.

[LiberalLibra]

The difference between COMPUTER COMPANIES

and HEALTHCARE

is that ONE ensures the LIFE OF CITIZENS, while the other is simply capitalist pleasure .... WORST argument EVER

Is the well-being of the citizens not the responsibility of the state? That should be the argument, not blasting the government's ability to run an insurance business

[goldgrif]

capitaiims had lead is down this road especially in the last 30 years, they have not been reigned in

[TurboDally]

Ironic when it comes to healthcare and saving lives every cent counts. Never mind the war and feeding the greedy banks (who get spoon fed your money all the time).

[thesparitan]

how could anyone be against universal healthcare. every country on the planet that matters has it. and all have at least a gov option

[wimscheers]

That's because the competition doesn't work for humane services.

They'll cut spending, cut costs and try to rip everybody over. Why don't we privatize fire fighters? Do we want a private company going 'nah, you violated rule x & y, we're not coming to save you".

Then why do we allow this for healthcare? 'Nah, you had an obscure previous condition you might have known about, we're not going to cover your heart surgery'.

Government won't bring raw competition, it brings quality competition.

[goldgrif]

what competition, there is none, they all have it tied up, this man is an idiot,

[truthadvocate]

I know it's satisfying to call someone you disagree with an idiot. But if you want to gain wisdom and make life better, it's more helpful to debate the issues. There is very little competition due to government intervention. Creating national healthcare would push any remaining competition out of the market, creating a monopoly controlled by corrupt politicians. This would further lower the quality and increase the price.

[sugarpuddin88]

Gimme a Break!

Soulless corporations are allowed to legally bribe politicians - So it is a fantasy to think the USA will ever be a bastion of competition

In fact, it is statistically impossible to run a small business in America

[sugarpuddin88]

America bankrupt:

102 trillion for SS & medicare

25 trillion for TARP & bailouts

53 trillion plundered from other trusts

Every single American man, woman & child owes over $600K in FED Gov debt

The US dollar will collapse within the next 1 to 2 years

Check out Rockefeller & Senate Bills 773 & 778 attempting to end American access to the Internet

Americans lost all but no. 3 of their Bill of Rights; Geithner has been wrong about everything for 15 straight years!

1 in 10 on US food stamps!

[astrophysicistCUboul]

FAIL

[ikghazali]

comparing health care to web browsing is redicioulus. The flaw in his argument is that health care should not be a "buisness", it is an essential service and a citizin's RIGHT.

[sugarpuddin88]

American stats to consider:

1 in 10 on food stamps; US second only to Mexico in illiteracy & poverty among industrialized nations

USA medicine is ranked 54th in world

Of 50 top world corporations, all but 1 is in Europe!

14 of 20 largest banks are in Europe

1.5 quadrillion in counterfeit derivatives

Gov grows 4 Xs faster than economy

Fed spending grows 16 times faster than economy, (16 fold expansion in control & gov dependence)

The US gov now holds 57% share of entire National Income

[migkillertwo]

"USA medicine is ranked 54th in world"

by whom?

[sugarpuddin88]

The World Health Organization ranked the countries of the world in terms of over all health performance, and the US (was) 37th; In fairness of care, USA is ranked 54th. The irony is that the US spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world - Pay more, get lots, lots less! (European Dream p 79 - 80 quoting from WHO reports)

Due to morbidity & morality of babes, the hospitalized, pregnant women, access, etc., the USA is ranked 54th in Medicine world wide

[migkillertwo]

Unfortunately fairness of care isn't exactly an objective standard by which to measure the performance of a healthcare system.

[Mastikator]

Where did you gt those numbers from?

[sugarpuddin88]

Mastikator

I am msg to you the source citations - Look to your mail box

I am extremely hopeful in humanity when I see people like you willing to search for authenticity in the things they hear!

[migkillertwo]

No ghazali, I'm very sorry, but healthcare is not a right. You do not have a right to someone else's property.

[goldgrif]

yep, it is a priviledge you dont have a right to it, it is a business, like they who make food not a right, nope you gotta pay the corps for it, the corps with large farms of pollution that breeds flu, yep cant afford, just go ahead and die,

[truthadvocate]

Where does health care come from? It is a service provided by people. If you claim that we have a right to health care, you are claiming to have the power to order other people to serve you. You don't have that right, neither do I, neither did the slave masters during slavery.

[wimscheers]

"you are claiming to have the power to order other people to serve you."

Serve is a very broad term here. Do we order a police officer to 'serve' us? Do we order other citizens to pay for an army? For roads? For a bridge I'll never use? For an education?

[truthadvocate]

The government is a group of people with the exclusive legal power to initiate force. When they pass laws, they are forcing others to act a certain way without their consent. When you vote for a politician that imposes the force of government on others, you are indirectly using force against others, similar to the way you hire a hitman to commit a crime. Citizens are forced to pay for an army, roads, bridges, educations, etc. If they were free, they could choose which provider to support.

[wimscheers]

"If they were free, they could choose which provider to support. "

Ever seen Somalia? it severely lacks government control, but yes, they have freedom all right. Total liberty is a nice idea, for nice people, too bad the world doesnt work that way. On a basic principle level, yes, its force, but if you study history, youll see why we got there.

It turned out working together has its benefits. It turns out working together comes with a set of rules, a necessary contribution to the system.

[truthadvocate]

If I look at history I see 160 million casualties of war in the 21st century alone caused by governments.

Somalia is an example of a region oppressed by government for ages, which led to the collapse, and believe it or not, many stats show their lives have improved significantly since the collapse. When testing a variable you need to keep other variables consistent. Somalia now vs. Somalia under government is a compelling test.

Working together happens all the time without government force.

[wimscheers]

Sorry, but that's BS.

Just running the number on this thing would be insane. Somalia is probably one of the most statistically unstable countries in the world. How many birth? crimes? No idea.

Society is a fact. It works. It's here to stay. Anarchy has failed and leads to small pockets of dictatorial, violent regimes. Probably accumulating into larger nation. Until people are fed up and demand liberties and democracy.

Sounds familiar?

We can argue how fa rit should go, but its here to stay.

[truthadvocate]

Forget anarchy. Instead, understand Im apposed to the State, a coercive monopoly enforced with physical violence on people within a geographic region. That is what all governments presently are. The society I support is a stateless society or free society.

Chaos in young stateless societies is result of previous government. All coercive governments especially democracies expand until they implode. As they expand they force people into dependency. That is why the people struggle without it.

[wimscheers]

Question:

"The society I support is a stateless society or free society." How do we keep the more powerful from seizing power and enforcing it upon us?

[GuyaRicanMC]

"How do we keep the more powerful from seizing power and enforcing it upon us?"

Are you suggesting that we need a State to seize power and enforce it upon us in order to stop "the more powerful" from seizing power and enforcing it upon us? Seems kinda self-defeating.

[wimscheers]

And it is, because a powerless society does not exist. So we make a choice how we install this power. Democracy, constitutions, checks and balances, ... It's more, in order to stop the more powerful to abuse the people, we install a system that prevents this. And we can argue till the cows come home how far this power should reach, but a power will always be in place.

[eirefrance]

That isn't an answer to wimscheer's question. He/she poses a real world problem and yopu answer with a philosophical, moral absolute. The real world doesn't work in philosophical, moral absolutes, though. You aren't the first person to imagine a utopian society that would work "if only". And you wouldn't be the first utopian dreamer to be shot down by human nature.

[truthadvocate]

If I forced people to depend on me for food for a hundred years, then suddenly burned up all the food, you would see a similar effect.

[GuyaRicanMC]

Anarchy DOES NOT equal chaos or anomie. Somalia is a case of total chaos and anomie. But even in a bad a case as Somalia, there have been cases of social institutions being built from the bottom-up w/o the intervention of a State apparatus. And "society" DOES NOT equal the State. The State is merely one of society's many historical forms. To suggest that society couldn't exist without a State is just incorrect.

[eirefrance]

And its just as incorrect to equate violence with the State, as if there were no violence pre-State or that the difference between the State and society is simple and dichotomous. It wasn't the State that allowed people to kill in massive numbers, it was scientific advancement.