Silent no more

[Dr.Who]

Ever get an EOMB form (Explanation of Medical Benefits) from your insurance company? Next time you do, check out the amount the insurance paid, + your share vs. the amount billed.

Now I get what you are saying. Sorry.

Did you ever buy a new car. If you did then you know that you did not pay the full sticker price. They told you what the full sticker price was but you paid less. does that mean that someone who did not get whatever discount you got paid the full sticker price? No. If you want to show that the uninsured pay more than the insured you won't do it by showing that the insured pay less than they could. You need the show that the insured when they pay their part are paying less than the uninsured when they pay their part.

But, isn't public aid what you want to end? Furthermore, no, they can't get public aid always. If they're welfare drones, then they can. If they work for low wages, then they can't.

There are low wage workers who qualify for public aid. But, yes, there are low wage workers who do not qualify for public aid. Based on the amount of material wealth that the welfare queens posses, and based on the amount of material possessions that the low wage workers possess it is clear that they could have purchased catastrophic health care insurance by forgoing a few of the luxury items they own (remember most of the nations poor have air conditioning, etc. - and we are not even talking about poor just people with low wages).

Yes I would want to end public aid AND replace it with something better.

Really? Pay, how much out of pocket? Half a mil or so for a serious illness/accident? I think you're giving charity a job it can't handle.

I made a mistake and only addressed the issue as if we were talking about the doctors visits and other things that could easily be handled out of pocket or through public aid. I did not say that charity was the recourse for this right now. I will fix that.

For those who have insurance needs that are not covered by insurance - like very large claims. They can appeal to public aid right now. In the future they can appeal to the better system that replaces public aid. The better system could easily be as large as public aid is now and public aid now covers all those very large claims. in fact, I already demonstrated that all of public aid medical spending could be covered by a charity based system at an average cost of $50/person/month.

I seriously doubt that the figures will add up to anything like 16% of the GDP. Sure, medical school is expensive, but it is nothing like a major part of medical care costs. The difference between 10.7% (your figure, I've heard a lot lower) and 16% (which is low) is around 50%.

Figures aside you did not argue that France does not leave uncounted medical expenses that we are counting this meaning that they could easily be paying just as much as we are. I have shown at least one. How many others are there? What do they add up to? And if we are about the same (or even less) or even if they pay less would you abandon your constitutional freedoms and your checks and balances to save a few percent?

 

[Dr.Who]

But Don't Businesses Need to be 'Regulated'?

That is just semantics. To say that they don't need to be regulated but our rights do need to be protected by laws seems insignificant. We need to focus on the fact that we need either laws or regulations (whatever you call them) to just protect our rights and not to attempt to shape the culture or other non-government roles.

 

[PLC1]

Now I get what you are saying. Sorry.

Did you ever buy a new car. If you did then you know that you did not pay the full sticker price. They told you what the full sticker price was but you paid less. does that mean that someone who did not get whatever discount you got paid the full sticker price? No. If you want to show that the uninsured pay more than the insured you won't do it by showing that the insured pay less than they could. You need the show that the insured when they pay their part are paying less than the uninsured when they pay their part.

Huh??? That makes no sense. The uninsured's part is all of it. Showing that the insured pay less than the uninsured is the same as showing that the uninsured pay more than the insured.

Negotiating a hospital bill is not the same as negotiating for a new car. Insurance companies negotiate for a bulk rate, as it were. Those without insurance have to pay more. Those outside of the PPO pay more, also. If you're a member of an HMO, then you go to your HMO, and non members don't. Insurance makes you a member of either one or the other.

PPO = Preferred Provider Organization
HMO = Health Management Organization.

There are low wage workers who qualify for public aid. But, yes, there are low wage workers who do not qualify for public aid. Based on the amount of material wealth that the welfare queens posses, and based on the amount of material possessions that the low wage workers possess it is clear that they could have purchased catastrophic health care insurance by forgoing a few of the luxury items they own (remember most of the nations poor have air conditioning, etc. - and we are not even talking about poor just people with low wages).

Having or not having air conditioners has nothing to do with it.

If a welfare drone wants to get off, and get an entry level job that most likely doesn' pay for health care, then the cost of insurance is a huge disincentive for doing so.

Yes I would want to end public aid AND replace it with something better.

If the "something better" is an unregulated for profit insurance industry, good luck with that.

I made a mistake and only addressed the issue as if we were talking about the doctors visits and other things that could easily be handled out of pocket or through public aid. I did not say that charity was the recourse for this right now. I will fix that.

For those who have insurance needs that are not covered by insurance - like very large claims. They can appeal to public aid right now. In the future they can appeal to the better system that replaces public aid. The better system could easily be as large as public aid is now and public aid now covers all those very large claims. in fact, I already demonstrated that all of public aid medical spending could be covered by a charity based system at an average cost of $50/person/month.

No doubt we could all own yachts for a few bucks a month, too.

You seem to have no idea what the cost of medical care really is today.

Figures aside you did not argue that France does not leave uncounted medical expenses that we are counting this meaning that they could easily be paying just as much as we are. I have shown at least one. How many others are there? What do they add up to? And if we are about the same (or even less) or even if they pay less would you abandon your constitutional freedoms and your checks and balances to save a few percent?

Well, figures aside is the only way that your charity and private insurance based system would work.

 

[Dr.Who]

Huh??? That makes no sense. The uninsured's part is all of it. Showing that the insured pay less than the uninsured is the same as showing that the uninsured pay more than the insured.

But you did not show that the uninsured pay more than the insured nor that the insured pay less than the uninsured. What you showed was that the insured pay less than they could. It may very well be that the inusred pay less than they could also.

Negotiating a hospital bill is not the same as negotiating for a new car. Insurance companies negotiate for a bulk rate, as it were. Those without insurance have to pay more. Those outside of the PPO pay more, also. If you're a member of an HMO, then you go to your HMO, and non members don't. Insurance makes you a member of either one or the other.

Insurance companies do negotiate a bulk rate. But those who cannot pay also negotiate a reduced rate - often pennies on the dollar.

Having or not having air conditioners has nothing to do with it.

It has tons to do with it. You brought up the low income worker who could not afford insurance. Obviously if he has an air conditioner, et al. he could afford insurance.

If a welfare drone wants to get off, and get an entry level job that most likely doesn' pay for health care, then the cost of insurance is a huge disincentive for doing so.

Yes it is hard to get off of welfare once on - a good reason to replace it with something else. But the welfare queen still have insurance - punlic aid. They still cannot be counted as part of the 47 mil "uninsured" and they certainly can't be counted as anyone who is lacking in health care. The truth remains that everyone has access to health care.

If the "something better" is an unregulated for profit insurance industry, good luck with that.

I do not advocate unregulated industries. The role of government is to create regulation and laws that protect people from harm. I do advocate removing all regulation that does not protect someones rights. That is an uneccessary feature that increases costs.

Get rid of the various things that decrease competition and thus increase costs and more of the uninsured could afford it. Get rid of the incentives to be on welfare and more of the werlfare recipients would be paying into the pool decreasing costs so that more of the uninsured could afford it. do enough to lower the costs enough and the "problem" we have with unisured could be a whole lot smaller and a whole lot more manageable.

No doubt we could all own yachts for a few bucks a month, too.

I am going to have to lower the amount of money that we would all need to donate to replace public aid. I learned last night that 20% of the medicaid budget was spent on welfare. That means that of the my numbers can be reduced by 80%. Each person only needs to donate $40 to completely cover the medical expenses of all the welfare queens.

You seem to have no idea what the cost of medical care really is today.

If you are claiming that it can be covered by all of us being part of a medical pool that is administered by the government then certainly it can be covered by all of us being in a pool that is not covered by the gov.

SS and medicare are systems that are already paid into by the participants. Leave that alone and make it work right. Medicaid is covered by taxpayers against the constutition. But $40 per person in donations would cover it. The uninsured could be greatly reduced of insurance did not cost so much. We could reduce the cost by doing a number of things. I am however not so deluded as our government to think that we could reduce waste from whatever source by more than 15%. The bulk of the bill is really just that medical care is highly technologically advanced and costs a lot. The best solution is to create a society that is so fair in how it treats workers that it really is a land of opportunity allowing everyone to work hard enough to buy insurance if they choose.

Well, figures aside is the only way that your charity and private insurance based system would work.

If the money could be raised through taxes and taxes it could be raised through donations and taxes where appropriate. That is something that everyone needs to get. If the money is there it is there and we need to raise it the right way. If it is not there then collecting it through taxes will not make it appear.

 

[GenSeneca]

That is just semantics. To say that they don't need to be regulated but our rights do need to be protected by laws seems insignificant.

I can see why you would think that but I think you have misunderstood the difference between Laws (legislation that protects our individual rights) and Regulations ("laws" which do not protect our rights but impose regulations on the operations of an industry).

We need to focus on the fact that we need either laws or regulations (whatever you call them) to just protect our rights and not to attempt to shape the culture or other non-government roles.

We don't need regulations but we do need laws (only those which protect our rights).

Perfect example of unnecessary regulations: CAFE standards for vehicles. Such "laws" don't protect your rights, they only impose unnecessary obligations on industry. Before some Eco-Fascist chimes in claiming I'm pro-pollution for being against CAFE, its worth noting that a vehicle could get 100 MPG but billow out thick clouds of black toxic smoke and it would not be in violation of the CAFE "laws".

Example dealing with HC: The regulations that state all insurance plans have to cover every possible expense, eliminating the possibility of getting catastrophic ins and drastically raising the cost of plans. Such "laws" don't protect your rights, they simply impose unnecessary obligations on industry.

 

[Dr.Who]

I can see why you would think that but I think you have misunderstood the difference between Laws (legislation that protects our individual rights) and Regulations ("laws" which do not protect our rights but impose regulations on the operations of an industry).


We don't need regulations but we do need laws (only those which protect our rights).

Perfect example of unnecessary regulations: CAFE standards for vehicles. Such "laws" don't protect your rights, they only impose unnecessary obligations on industry. Before some Eco-Fascist chimes in claiming I'm pro-pollution for being against CAFE, its worth noting that a vehicle could get 100 MPG but billow out thick clouds of black toxic smoke and it would not be in violation of the CAFE "laws".

Example dealing with HC: The regulations that state all insurance plans have to cover every possible expense, eliminating the possibility of getting catastrophic ins and drastically raising the cost of plans. Such "laws" don't protect your rights, they simply impose unnecessary obligations on industry.

I am not quite so sure the distinction is that clear. For example,

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced a regulation expected to prevent each year 79,000 cases of foodborne illness and 30 deaths caused by consumption of eggs contaminated with the bacterium Salmonella Enteritidis.

The final rule requires preventive measures during the production of shell eggs in poultry houses and requires subsequent refrigeration during storage and transportation."
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm170788.htm

I do not think protecting us from being harmed or killed from salmonella and requiring refrigeration to do so is an unnecessary regulation nor is it's purpose other than to protect our rights.

I would add that the Constitution uses the word regulation several times in empowering the government but we also know that the stated purpose of government is to protect our rights.

 

[GenSeneca]

I do not think protecting us from being harmed or killed from salmonella and requiring refrigeration to do so is an unnecessary regulation nor is it's purpose other than to protect our rights.

Here's what I said:

I think you have misunderstood the difference between Laws (legislation that protects our individual rights) and Regulations ("laws" which do not protect our rights but impose regulations on the operations of an industry).

As you point out, that law (yes, it is a law as are all regulations) is a legitimate function of government and an example of government fulfilling its proper role.

Regulation refers to "controlling human or societal behaviour by rules or restrictions."

When I, as a laissez faire Capitalist, say that I want UN-Regulated Capitalism, I am specifically talking about removing the regulations (laws) that do not legitimately protect our rights... Like the CAFE standards.

For this reason, its necessary to draw a clear distinction between what constitutes a Law (any legislation that protects our individual rights) and what constitutes Regulations (any legislation which does not protect our rights but instead seeks to control human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions) regarding the laissez faire capitalists vernacular.

Whenever a Capitalist stands up for laissez faire Capitalism, the Anti-Capitalists of the Radical Left start frothing at the mouth and spewing garbage about how un-regulated Capitalism would result in children working 15 hour days in dangerous sweatshops for slave wages, deadly air pollution and a poisoning of the water supply etc. Of course all that is pure nonsense, the point of Lassiez Faire is to limit the governments role, especially in economics, to specifically focus on protecting the rights of its citizens.

As the saying goes, do one thing and do it well. Government has become a jack of all trades and master of none...

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

Government are not instituted among men to "control human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions" outside of its role of securing our rights.

 

[PLC1]

Here's what I said:



As you point out, that law (yes, it is a law as are all regulations) is a legitimate function of government and an example of government fulfilling its proper role.



When I, as a laissez faire Capitalist, say that I want UN-Regulated Capitalism, I am specifically talking about removing the regulations (laws) that do not legitimately protect our rights... Like the CAFE standards.

For this reason, its necessary to draw a clear distinction between what constitutes a Law (any legislation that protects our individual rights) and what constitutes Regulations (any legislation which does not protect our rights but instead seeks to control human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions) regarding the laissez faire capitalists vernacular.

Whenever a Capitalist stands up for laissez faire Capitalism, the Anti-Capitalists of the Radical Left start frothing at the mouth and spewing garbage about how un-regulated Capitalism would result in children working 15 hour days in dangerous sweatshops for slave wages, deadly air pollution and a poisoning of the water supply etc. Of course all that is pure nonsense, the point of Lassiez Faire is to limit the governments role, especially in economics, to specifically focus on protecting the rights of its citizens.

As the saying goes, do one thing and do it well. Government has become a jack of all trades and master of none...

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

Government are not instituted among men to "control human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions" outside of its role of securing our rights.

When they arrest someone for robbing banks, isn't that controlling human behavior by rules or restrictions?

There are no absolutes.

 

[GenSeneca]

When they arrest someone for robbing banks, isn't that controlling human behavior by rules or restrictions?

There are no absolutes.

Its a violation of someones rights to rob them.

If a law controls human behavior by rules or restrictions FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, then its a legitimate law. If a law is made that controls human behavior by rules or restrictions but the law DOES NOT PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, then its not a legitimate law.

There are absolutes.

 

[PLC1]

Its a violation of someones rights to rob them.

If a law controls human behavior by rules or restrictions FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, then its a legitimate law. If a law is made that controls human behavior by rules or restrictions but the law DOES NOT PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, then its not a legitimate law.

There are absolutes.

The first part is correct. I thought that must have been your point to begin with, and now you have clarified it.

Absolutes? Well, in physics there are absolutes. In human affairs, they're harder to find.

 

[Dr.Who]

Here's what I said:



As you point out, that law (yes, it is a law as are all regulations) is a legitimate function of government and an example of government fulfilling its proper role.



When I, as a laissez faire Capitalist, say that I want UN-Regulated Capitalism, I am specifically talking about removing the regulations (laws) that do not legitimately protect our rights... Like the CAFE standards.

For this reason, its necessary to draw a clear distinction between what constitutes a Law (any legislation that protects our individual rights) and what constitutes Regulations (any legislation which does not protect our rights but instead seeks to control human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions) regarding the laissez faire capitalists vernacular.

Whenever a Capitalist stands up for laissez faire Capitalism, the Anti-Capitalists of the Radical Left start frothing at the mouth and spewing garbage about how un-regulated Capitalism would result in children working 15 hour days in dangerous sweatshops for slave wages, deadly air pollution and a poisoning of the water supply etc. Of course all that is pure nonsense, the point of Lassiez Faire is to limit the governments role, especially in economics, to specifically focus on protecting the rights of its citizens.

As the saying goes, do one thing and do it well. Government has become a jack of all trades and master of none...

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

Government are not instituted among men to "control human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions" outside of its role of securing our rights.

Well they will have one less person to falsely attribute laissez faire Capitalism to after this post.

 

[Dr.Who]

The first part is correct.

If you disagree with the second part that would put you at odds with the founding fathers, the constitution and many others. It would also put you in company with socialist and communists.

 

[PLC1]

If you disagree with the second part that would put you at odds with the founding fathers, the constitution and many others. It would also put you in company with socialist and communists.

OMG! If I don't think that there are absolutes in human affairs, then I'm a Communist, or maybe even a socialist!

On what spurious grounds was that astounding conclusion reached?

 

[GenSeneca]

Well they will have one less person to falsely attribute laissez faire Capitalism to after this post.

I'm not sure what you were saying in that reply, depending on how you read the statement it could be taken different ways... So I'll just content myself with believing you think I'm awesome.

If you disagree with the second part that would put you at odds with the founding fathers, the constitution and many others. It would also put you in company with socialist and communists.

Well he does think HC is a "right" and that we should organize the public around a collectivist system of government sponsored/subsidized HC... Truly never expected PLC to champion such a position.

 

[Dr.Who]

OMG! If I don't think that there are absolutes in human affairs, then I'm a Communist, or maybe even a socialist!

On what spurious grounds was that astounding conclusion reached?

The second part read:

"If a law is made that controls human behavior by rules or restrictions but the law DOES NOT PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, then its not a legitimate law."

The bit about absolutes would be a third part.