Good point, I don’t know.
It’s an interesting point, but a misguided one.
Again, I’m like the majority of Americans; we are satisfied with our coverage. And the majority of Americans are, likewise, not clamoring for hippie-style “get rid of our military” cuts – just like we’re not out “to enact every half-baked idea that comes along regardless of evidence simply to try different things and see how they turn out”.
We need to hear a good reason to interfere with the voluntary choices made by consenting adults in this or that free market – and, yes, one excellent way to do that would be with evidence that this or that free market is up and running but isn’t getting satisfactory results. But that’s not the only way; there’s a reason why we look at the military and think, say, this seems to be working out pretty well for us.
Your best shot against free-market reform in health insurance is: there’s no evidence free markets will solve this or that problem. My best shot against disbanding the military would sound – quite different, I assure you.
No, infinite competition won’t lower the price of milk. The elimination of an antitrust exemption, though, probably would.
I’d sure love to watch that fight, it would be a vicious one.
[unproductive snark]
There sure is. “Guns are awesome.”
[/unproductive snark]
Really? You think that’s working out pretty well for us. That yearly bonfire of the benjamins, enough money to send every kid in the country to college, buy every senior citizen bumper cars with computers to automatically turn off the turn signal? Sure is working out great for us, Viet Nam, Iraq, Grenada. Good times!
I’ve spent about 40 years now questioning that presumption. Now, I don’t really want to start an argument about that, but if you would scratch your head and consider that maybe, just maybe, it really isn’t worth it. Just a thought.
Well, that’s admittedly a cute trick; raise your point and mention that you’ve spent decades on the question while suggesting that I haven’t so much as scratched my head and considered it – all while spelling out that you don’t want to start an argument.
That’s a superficially clever way to score points in a debate, but the problem is that you’re too savvy too fall for it right back; otherwise I’d reply with a couple of sarcastic remarks about the free market before patiently explaining that I’ve given this decades of thought sure as you haven’t (a) so much as scratched your head, let alone (b) considered it – all in italics just like that – all while mentioning that I sure don’t want to debate this point, but nevertheless want to relay that “maybe, just maybe” you’re missing the entire point.
Which is to say, you really don’t want to debate the point that the military, with the possible exception of Gulf War I, hasn’t worked out all that great for the last fifty years.
You are not the majority. ABC ran a poll last week and 60 to 30 Americans wanted the single payer option. Both the Dems and Repubs ran in 2008 on changing our health care. The increases in cost are unsustainable. Our health care is badly broken. The question is way past should it be changed, but how?
No, it’s that (a) I’m happy to debate that point, but (b) elucidator has gussied up his quips with an “I don’t really want to start an argument” disclaimer. If he does want to start an argument – or if you do – then I’d love to address it head-on; I merely don’t wish to bicker with someone who (a) claims to have spent decades on stuff he figures I haven’t even scratched my head about, and (b) is explicitly unwilling to commit to an actual debate. So long as he’s trying to stake out that double position, I merely want to object to his approach.
If anyone wants to discuss whether our military spending has been worth it, I’d love to do so; elucidator, of course, doesn’t, but simply wants to bring up his points while insulating himself from hearing the other side.
Of course it should be changed; I suggest we drop the antitrust exemption and lower barriers to competition across state lines. As for what the majority wants:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603334.html So, okay, let’s start over and consider each idea one by one; maybe some of them will garner enough support, and maybe others won’t. If you feel pretty confident about getting single-payer passed, then go for it.
You are making shit up to the point that you are either lying or you are an idiot. There’s no evidence that it would “probably” do anything. Stop inventing facts, you deluded know-nothing.
Good heavens, man; take a second look at what you’re doing, here. You’re the one who asked the purely hypothetical question about grocery stores in my area: “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.”
I’m responding in kind. You answered your own question about reducing the price of milk by inventing facts about a hypothetical where my area suddenly gets a hundred additional grocery stores; I replied to that by likewise inventing facts to answer a hypothetical question about whether the price of milk would be higher if an antitrust exemption is in effect.
You’re the one introducing assumptions; I’m the one playing along.
Since when are conservatives concerned about what the majority wants? But, OK, since you are pretending to be a populist, I guess you support health care reform that includes the public option, just like 59.9% of Americans:
I would never have pegged you as a big government liberal, but if you support what the majority wants, I guess I was wrong.
Well, as per the poll I’d cited in the post you’re quoting, the majority currently wants Congress to start over. At that point, I believe you and your side can trot out “reform” that includes the public option – and at that point, I have confidence that my side can concentrate fire on that proposal to sink it in the polls while talking up giving the free market a chance.
But maybe you’re right. I’m open to being proven wrong as the experiment plays out; let’s start over like the public wants, and maybe your side can then win enough public support to slide straight from ‘antitrust exemption’ to ‘public option’. If you think that’s a good plan, then, by all means, go for it.
There is no free market. There is no free market.
A free market would cause competition. That helps you. They don;t want that. They have dumped the bad demographics on the government . The old, the chronically ill, soldiers ,anyone who could cost them money are foisted on the government and then they say the government can’t handle the finances. Insurance companies cherry pick customers and then cheat them. How can you not love that system.
You say they don’t want a free market. Would you say they also don’t want what the other side is pushing? Because if they don’t want either option, then I’m not seeing how that cuts against my option any differently than it cuts against the other option.
I can produce expert opinion that goods and services have a basic level of cost that is unaffected by additional competition, such as with milk. I have produced analysis of experts that removing state mandates is not expected to reduce costs or cover more people.
You refuse to acknowledge that experts know what they are talking about, an insist against this evidence that your solution will make a difference. You have no basis to say that. Ergo, you’re making shit up.
I don’t “insist” that my solution will make a difference. I want to see the experiment play out in a free market, such that we can then look at the results and note whether or not they make a difference; I prefer that over deferring to predictions from the “experts”.
There’s lots of experiments we really want to try out in the real world just to see what the heck happens.
Travelling to the far reaches of the universe to collect dark matter to test cosmology.
Putting sets of twins through a series of abuses to test nature vs nurture theory.
Dropping turkeys out of helicopters to test whether they could fly.
Sometimes you just have to trust the “experts” instead of conducting all those really cool experiments just 'cause ya wanna.
We could give saline drips to cancer patients. Sure, doctors say it won’t do anything, but why not see what happens?
We could insist the all medical bills be paid in gold. Sure, health care economists say it is pointless, but why not see what happens?
We could insist that hospitals must be spaced five miles apart. Sure, medical administrators say it wouldn’t help anything, but why not see what happens?
We could require all sick people to take Chinese herbal tea. Sure, science has shown it doesn’t do anything to help, but why not see what happens?