Obamacare cost...

[VirginiaCougar]

So VirginiaCougar I think we agree for the most part.

The way we finance health care in the US sucks -- it's ridiculously inefficient and overly expensive.

There are two ways to fix it, in my opinion.

1. Make people pay out of pocket (through health savings accounts?) for everything except for a true health care catastrophe, when some type of either private or government insurance kicks in.

OR

2. Go single government payer for health care.

I think #1 would be better, but I'm quite confident that eventually we will end up with #2, just like the rest of the industrialized world.

I suspect we do have some common ground. I think we do agree on major illness. I do think you may be wrong about the market at the lower end. Given how we are as human beings, I strongly suspect and the comparative data supports (US vs. other advanced, industrialized democracies) that health care is still highly inelastic at the lower end of costs. It would be great if that weren't the case, but the numbers are the numbers. The most market oriented system has by FAR the highest health care costs.

There are elements that work and don't work in those other systems and we can't just duplicate any one of them. Our solutions will need to be "American," but health care will bankrupt America with the current system.

For some reason, I can't post the following graph on percent of GDP spent on health care (with public/private expenditures separated), so here is the URL:

http://www.oecd.org/media/oecdorg/sa...61hd2011fr.png

[VirginiaCougar]

Even NBC news admits it

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_n...employee-hours

Admits what? That as corporate profits increase higher and higher, they refuse to help employees get health care? They would rather screw over their employees than make somewhat lower profits? For all its faults, Obamacare has not "forced" business to cut hours.

[CardiacCoug]

The most market oriented system has by FAR the highest health care costs.

OK we disagree here. In my opinion, the US doesn't have a market oriented health care system in any sense of the word.

LASIK surgery is market oriented health care and the costs have plummeted while quality has improved over the years. In a free market, health care technology would get cheaper just like TVs and computers. While under our bastardized system the costs keep skyrocketing.

[All-American]

OK we disagree here. In my opinion, the US doesn't have a market oriented health care system in any sense of the word.

LASIK surgery is market oriented health care and the costs have plummeted while quality has improved over the years. In a free market, health care technology would get cheaper just like TVs and computers. While under our bastardized system the costs keep skyrocketing.

That's in large part what's wrong with our current system. It combines most of what's bad about markets with most of what's bad about government-provided systems. It's an awkward marriage of the two economic structures, and Obamacare only serves to solidify and exacerbate the dysfunctional relationship.

[calicoug]

you don't even need my data. YOUR data supports it. And I never-- NEVER-- made that argument you seem to think I made.


If I give you too much credit as a debater, my apologies.

We can agree neither of us has much use for your data. My data certainly doesn't support that Obamacare is a drag on the entire economy (I'm assuming this is still your argument- please confirm. Your argument changes so frequently I feel the need to check in every other post or so). And for someone not making an argument, you sure spend a lot of words not saying something.

[VirginiaCougar]

OK we disagree here. In my opinion, the US doesn't have a market oriented health care system in any sense of the word.

LASIK surgery is market oriented health care and the costs have plummeted while quality has improved over the years. In a free market, health care technology would get cheaper just like TVs and computers. While under our bastardized system the costs keep skyrocketing.

We do. Lasik isn't cancer, nor is it even a bad childhood virus. I am well taken care of with the eye glasses I am currently wearing. Lasik would not only be purely voluntary for me, it is also an unnecessary and somewhat vain fluff given other options. Most health care doesn't fit the model of lasik and thus completely misses the point of inelasticity.

Are you attempting to argue that we are not more market oriented than Europe or Japan? I would strongly disagree with you there - we have powerful market mechanisms in place, always have. The data is pretty clear on this. Inelasticity causes health care technology to increase in price - not following the model of TVs and computers. We also know what happens in an even more pure market system, what happened to the elderly before Medicare is horrific.

[calicoug]

OK we disagree here. In my opinion, the US doesn't have a market oriented health care system in any sense of the word.

LASIK surgery is market oriented health care and the costs have plummeted while quality has improved over the years. In a free market, health care technology would get cheaper just like TVs and computers. While under our bastardized system the costs keep skyrocketing.

There are many aspects that are "free market," but there are many others that aren't. That's sort of an inevitable outcome when you mandate that care be given by providers to those with life threatening conditions. Nobody is seriously proposing to eliminate that mandate, and it would never have any real traction to pass even if someone was really proposing it, so the "free market" we are operating in will always be strongly skewed by that fact. Add on top of it that we aren't willing to let the old, the veterans and poor go without care (at least the civilized portion of us aren't willing) and you have another layer of issues that will always prevent a truly free market from operating. I think this is where I nearly always depart with the "free market" crowd. People clamoring for a "free market" in the health care system would almost never suggest there should be no safety net for the poor, the veterans or the old, nor would they suggest we ought to let people bleed to death on the hospital steps if they can't afford care. Given that, I'm left scratching my head as to what exactly they are proposing that doesn't exist today. Elimination of insurance? Not very practical.

[VirginiaCougar]

There are many aspects that are "free market," but there are many others that aren't. That's sort of an inevitable outcome when you mandate that care be given by providers to those with life threatening conditions. Nobody is seriously proposing to eliminate that mandate, and it would never have any real traction to pass even if someone was really proposing it, so the "free market" we are operating in will always be strongly skewed by that fact. Add on top of it that we aren't willing to let the old, the veterans and poor go without care (at least the civilized portion of us aren't willing) and you have another layer of issues that will always prevent a truly free market from operating. I think this is where I nearly always depart with the "free market" crowd. People clamoring for a "free market" in the health care system would almost never suggest there should be no safety net for the poor, the veterans or the old, nor would they suggest we ought to let people bleed to death on the hospital steps if they can't afford care. Given that, I'm left scratching my head as to what exactly they are proposing that doesn't exist today. Elimination of insurance? Not very practical.

Actually there are quite a few people on the right arguing that we get rid of that implicit mandate. Some quite directly others through the complete market argument you mention. Now, that isn't what Cardiac is arguing, but I've heard it many, many times.

[VirginiaCougar]

We can agree neither of us has much use for your data. My data certainly doesn't support that Obamacare is a drag on the entire economy (I'm assuming this is still your argument- please confirm. Your argument changes so frequently I feel the need to check in every other post or so). And for someone not making an argument, you sure spend a lot of words not saying something.

The drag of health care on the economy LONG precedes Obamacare. While deeply flawed, it is not the primary problem. Cost increases that have occurred are not outside of long-standing historical norms.

[All-American]

We can agree neither of us has much use for your data. My data certainly doesn't support that Obamacare is a drag on the entire economy (I'm assuming this is still your argument- please confirm. Your argument changes so frequently I feel the need to check in every other post or so). And for someone not making an argument, you sure spend a lot of words not saying something.

Nothing of substance to respond to here. I'm not going to come back and clean up after you each time you rip apart a straw man. I'll let you know if you come close to addressing anything I actually said.

[All-American]

Actually there are quite a few people on the right arguing that we get rid of that implicit mandate. Some quite directly others through the complete market argument you mention. Now, that isn't what Cardiac is arguing, but I've heard it many, many times.

And there are some on both sides who fear that we will do away with that mandate through the single-payer system.

[VirginiaCougar]

And there are some on both sides who fear that we will do away with that mandate through the single-payer system.

That makes zero sense. Nor is Obamacare about single payer.

[All-American]

That makes zero sense. Nor is Obamacare about single payer.

A point which I acknowledged above. Although, you also have some prominent figures on the right and left who worry that Obamacare will also erode health care for the most vulnerable-- namely, Palin and Dean. I don't exactly think of them as authoritative figures, though.

[VirginiaCougar]

A point which I acknowledged above. Although, you also have some prominent figures on the right and left who worry that Obamacare will also erode health care for the most vulnerable-- namely, Palin and Dean. I don't exactly think of them as authoritative figures, though.

Well, Dean would want the most extreme version of a single payer system you could think of and Palin would just want to take anyone sick out back and shoot them. You are right, neither could be considered all that authoritative. I guess a small plus for Dean would be his years as a Governor which administers most public health systems in the US and his background as a Doctor.

[All-American]

Well, Dean would want the most extreme version of a single payer system you could think of and Palin would just want to take anyone sick out back and shoot them. You are right, neither could be considered all that authoritative. I guess a small plus for Dean would be his years as a Governor which administers most public health systems in the US and his background as a Doctor.

Plus, that great BBYYYYAAAAAAHH!! moment of his.