Hell, I’m fine with making ideology irrelevent to the queston. Bring a free market solution that will solve all the problems that UHC does, I’m on board. Be a hell of a lot easier than fighting Big Money ever step of the way, even if it were only 90% as good, I’d be willing to consider it.
But that would certainly mean that the profits the insurance companies are wallowing in today will have to be minimized. And their executives wont earn much more than the executives of the Salvation Army.
Of course, it would be a great thing for their country! Wouldn’t it be a grand thing, to see them rush to volunteer?
. . . which shows quite nicely how you filter facts through your beliefs. Your statement is based on studies showing that countries with UHC have healthier populations. But that doesn’t mean that UHC is better. It just means that countries with UHC have healthier populations. There are lots of factors that go into the health of a population other than whether they have UHC or some other system. One such factor is the amount of french fries and ice cream and whatnot that goes down the throat of members of such population.
I don’t give even half a shit about whether a solution is “free market” or not. I care whether it’s private sector or publich sector. Charities are part of the private sector. And charities could do everything in the current health care reform billl and more (hell, a charity could provide UHC). Government involvement is completely unnecessary (unless, of course, one wants to force everyone to accept your ideas, which is exactly what you want to do).
You of course don’t want that? Your solutions all distill down to one thing, anybody but you. You do not want to have any of your sacred money go toward health care. We get it. Whether they live or die or suffer, no matter. Your money matters.
Why are you guys still trying to engage Rand Rover? He’s all but admitted he’s an evangelist for the religion of the private sector. Might as well try to convert Jack Chick to Tibetan Buddhism.
He’s an obsessed one-trick pony. I’m amazed that ppl keep throwing themselves against that wall. “It’s taking longer than we thought” indeed - and I’m not talking about RR. In fact, I’m amazed at how often this sort of thing goes on, and not just with RR. The only thing crazier than spending hours a day on a message board repeating the same BS over and over is lining up to argue with it.
Hey, guys like RR do liberals & centrists a service though. It exposes how little thought goes into their ideas, and shows how reasoned the opposition is. Keep up the good work, RR!
Have you seen what the British eat? This is the country that invented the deep-fried Mars bar. And alcohol consumption is dangerously high for a significant percentage of the population. Healthy diet is definitely not a factor here.
It’s really simple: all one has to do is provide a charity with an operating budget of a few trillion dollars per year, and - ZAM! - it could provide health care for everyone!
Personally, I’d rather have my UHC provided by magical unicorns.
Ford Motor Company could do all these things, too. Continually bouncing off your sloping forehead is the point that they (and charities) don’t.
Well, it’s not an either/or proposition.
Be that as it may, the barriers to entry are going to remain extremely high and insurers are already free to compete across state lines. As long as states continue to regulate their own insurance markets, deregulation on the federal level is pointless.
In any case, reduced state control of anything is something the righties and their Rand Rover-esque “free market or death!” cock-gobbler peons will never accept.
No it’s not. The problem we should be dealing with is the fact that the provision and administration of payment to health care providers is being operated on a for-profit basis. As long as this is the case, the very function itself will remain incentivized to maximize profit, even when it results in harm to patients, whether it be financial or medical harm.
Mark my words: once Big Charity has its way, there will be no end to it! You think the United Way rep in your office is a pain in the butt now, just you wait!
Actually long ago ,Ford came up with Henry Ford Hospital to escape the cost of health care in his autos. But it became so successful on its own that Ford could not resist spinning it off. There have been attempts made for companies top provide doctors and clinics for their employees.
I worked at a company that had an employee clinic. It dealt with regular doctor type illnesses for their immediate families. It was a great idea.
Competing across state lines sounds good on the surface, but they will convince a state to allow them to cheat their customers worse than the others and they would all have a base there quickly. Two states allow usurious credit card rates. All financial institutions have a presence there. Corporations hate competition and will do everything in their power to avoid it.
And since you admittedly don’t give to charities, it would be a win for you! Which is really, the whole point of everything you post. It’s all about you.
You disregard the expert opinion of people who don’t agree with you… shhhhhhhhhhocking.
These government employees are not advocating one solution over another. They aren’t saying your idea is bad, they are saying it is inconsequential.
We have impartial, non-partisan economists looking at an economic problem and saying that your preferred solution is inconsequential. That is evidence. I like free markets when they work, but there’s no evidence that more free markets will solve the rising cost and shrinking availability of health insurance. Here’s why.
Is there any state in which there is a shortage of companies offering health insurance? Does adding more insurance companies to any state necessarily reduce costs?
Let’s consider where you live. Are there several grocery stores in your area? I assume so. Will adding another store reduce the price of milk? Will adding ten new grocery stores further reduce the price of milk? Will adding one hundred stores reduce the price of milk to almost nothing?
Of course not. The problem with health insurance isn’t lack of competition, it’s the cost of business in providing the service. More competition in health care providers just isn’t going to make milk cheaper.
