The premiums aren’t all that high, neither are the out of pocket. I think you’re being a little overstated there.
Having health insurance is what is necessary to have non-emergency healthcare for most people.
No, that’s silly. Saying that if one instance is okay, all are is hardly justified.
Shooting a woman in the face is generally not okay. But if she’s about to detonate a suicide vest on a crowded subway, it suddenly is.
Businesses working together to make more money by making it impossible for some people to get health care is different that a government regulating those businesses for the common good.
What does subsidizing roads, electrical grid, water treatment and telephone grids have to do with what I said? And when you “subsidize” something to the tune of 90% of its cost - it’s not a “subsidy” anymore. It is pure welfare.
It is cheaper, more reliable, and overall far more efficient to have government produce 5 models of cars only and have everyone only drive those. Thing how much savings there would be just on spare parts. Should it be done - because it is cheaper, more reliable, and overall far more efficient?
Thank you for your informative and insightful response. It’s always helpful to be reminded which side of debate refuses to answer simple and direct questions attempting to clarify ambiguous statements. The clarity you’ve provided is a welcome addition to the fight against ignorance.
Really? The ACA’s benchmark person at age 27 making $25,000 a year and paying a subsidized $147 for a silver plan and then having to pay a maximum of $6,350 out of pocket is…not all that high?
A bad medical year where you drop $8,114 on health care is somehow affordable to anyone who gets the full subsidy? That’s almost 40% of your take home pay. And if it’s a really terrible disease, you get to look forward to that payment for more than one year.
And what if the regulations done by government benefits the corporations far more than the citizens? Such as the ACA, tax breaks for relocating, or similar?
Collusion should be stopped at all levels because it’s never the colluders (in this case, the government and corporations) that suffer for it, despite intentions.
In that case, welfare paid for those highways to be placed. Welfare paid for those telephone wires to be strung.
Just because we subsidize them, now, doesn’t mean anything about where they came from. The government wrote a giant check and the work was performed. And it has yielded an incredibly wealthy nation as a result.
Should we dismantle the entire highway system with dynamite, despite it’s proven value to us as a nation?
And what sort of infrastructure does that provide? None. You have moved from “infrastructure” to “consumer goods”. If you want to provide infrastructure, you mandate and spend for everyone having…say…an internet connection. You do not mandate that everyone must buy an Apple MacBook Pro of design 1, 2, or 3.
Highways? Allows for national transport and trade to allow bananas from South America to reach stores and consumers in Albuquerque, NM. Allows families to travel to see the fun places of the US. Allows a business like FedEx to arise and compete with the USPS.
Telecom? Provides for communications between both sides of the US for defensive, offensive, and logistical operations of the government. Allows Aunt Una from Altoona to call her niece in New York City. Allows businesses to conduct sales, offers, and all manner of things from one location instead of needing hundreds.
Heath Care? Provides for Americans to be healthy so that they can build successful businesses, no matter if they are entrepreneurs or secretaries.
Infrastructure: We Need It.
I was hoping, but I wasn’t sure that was the thrust of your statements.
If we didn’t, who would we see at the front of the pack decrying government waste and inefficiency? Hell, why haven’t we seen them at the front of the pack *applauding *ACA for moving us in that direction?
That certainly sounds good. Repeat it to myself, it sounds like a solid and sensible remark, were it not for the fact I have no idea what you are talking about.
While I agree with that idea wholeheartedly, it kinda begs the question that such a discussion is even possible in the US. How on earth do we do that, in a way that’s effective, not hijacked by partisan bullshit, and (most importantly) doesn’t take decades?
The markets for most goods and services are well-suited to competition: customers can freely chose from a variety of products offered by a variety of firms, each competing to win the dollars of customers. In those markets, competition does indeed drive efficiency and benefit the consumer.
Others are not. Reason include:
Technical monopoly, such as a utility company - due to the mechanics of how the good/service is delivered to customers, it is inherently inefficient or impossible for multiple firms to offer the service.
Non-excludability, such as clean air - due to the nature of the good/service, there is no way for a firm to deny the good/service to those who do not pay.
Capital requirements, such as a spaceport - producing the good/service is so difficult and expensive, there are only one or a few firms capable of providing it.
Legal barriers, such as patents - due to government intervention, either customers may not choose from multiple firms, or only one firm may produce a given good/service.
Network effects - the value of the good/service depends not on its qualities, but on how many people use it.
As I noted, without such barriers, cartels are unstable and doomed to fail.
To conclude: aside from certain narrow exceptions, it is true that competition is a driving force for efficiency, and this benefits the consumer. I would also note that even beyond the issue of cheating, collusion isn’t necessarily more reliable or profitable than competition: if ABC Corp makes a better car than XYZ Corp, then ABC has nothing to gain from a territorial agreement that limits its sales, and would only agree to stop selling cars in XYZ territory if they were forced to.
Interesting take, but it’s not true. Words have definitions: Definition of infrastructure:
So, highways? Needed by society at large for goods transport. We could use alternate versions of transport infrastructure (rail, etc), but roads are what we chose.
Electricity? Needed by society at large for pretty much everything, these days. Currently, we have no alternate method of distribution but many ways to generate it. We try to prevent nuclear power as a society, for instance.
Water? Needed by society at large for basic sanitation, healthy water, and other such things. We have many, many sources for water, but only one method of distribution and no alternative methods.
Health care? Needed by society at large for basic health and well being of the citizens of society. We currently have no effective method to treat all citizens.
Cars? How are they needed by society at large? What function do they provide that can be harnessed for other purposes? How does a car become a “basic physical or organizational structure” to a larger society?
So, no. Defining cars as an infrastructure investment is not “convenience.” It’s distortion.
Cars? Needed by society at large to transport its citizens for work and leisure for the citizens’ general welfare and well-being. We currently have no effective method to transport them without cars.
Clothes? Needed by society at large to protect its citizens against the elements when they are outside the home, and in most cases to prevent horrible unsightliness. We currently have no effective method to do that without clothes.
We don’t need cars. The consumers have chosen them over other options and they are well entrenched, however they don’t provide a basic organizational need. You can get to your job via bike or bus in many areas if you so choose. They also aren’t a basic physical or organizational structure. Nothing can be built on top of them, logically or physically.
While we need clothes, true, but they aren’t a basic physical or organizational structure.
One link shows the patient flow from Canada to the US. The other show the flow from the US to Canada. To support my assertion that the patient flow to Canada from the US is far larger than that going the other way, I need to show both flows.
And there is nothing that excludes a patient flow from being medical fraud. Patient flow is about patients going elsewhere for treatment. Fraud or not is about how (and if) they pay for it. It can be both.
On getting treatment in a Canadian hospital, I think it would be quite exceptional if anyone was refused service. One of the central cultural divides here is that people are not in general refused treatment for inablility to pay outside the US. I know how it works here in Norway, and no-one would be refused service. There is no gatekeepr function to check for payment anyway.
Generally, I think you need to look into the large branch of economics called health Care Economics, which deals with how health care behaves economically. I don’t get the impression you are fully informed on how healthcare behaves in a market.
A good start is Kenneth Arrow. He won the Nobel prize in Economics for his work on uncertainties, of which this was part. Its considered fundamental to modern Health Care Economics.
I’d also avoid the Fraser Insititute as a source. They are a Canadian equivalent of the CATO institute.
Okay, follow along: “Basic physical or organizational structure”. A bike doesn’t become infrastructure just because you have one. Neither does a car, an ipad, a bluetooth headset or a wife.
You are, again, saying that goods built to go with infrastructure is somehow infrastructure itself. The bike is not infrastructure. The bike trail “roadway” is. Cars are not infrastructure, the roadway is.
As for clothes, you still haven’t given any reason that they provide a basic physical or organizational structure. Yes, they are a requirement that we all have…but you can’t build anything on top of clothes and use them as a basic structure of any kind.
You also still haven’t given me any reason to think that keeping people healthy isn’t a vital infrastructure need. Or do you think businesses will run themselves without people?
No, it becomes infrastructure if you call it that. And it stops being infrastructure if you stop calling it that.
Because you choose to call it that way.
You can’t build anything on top of clothes? The society is built on top of clothes. Take all clothes away and it will collapse (well at least in the northern countries).