[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]And for the most part, since then, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer.[/quote]

Check out this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_top_1%25.jpg
From this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

The article makes the interesting point that dual-income households have a big impact on the “inequality”.

Also there is a major correlation with education.

[KSMountain]

[quote=SK in CV]And for the most part, since then, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer.[/quote]

Check out this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_top_1%25.jpg
From this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

The article makes the interesting point that dual-income households have a big impact on the “inequality”.

Also there is a major correlation with education.

[KSMountain]

[quote=qwerty007]The vote against the health care bill, is a vote against health care reform. I hear these insipid, poorly informed arguments, that are mostly baseless and come from a fear of the unknown, or some partisan BS, or worse some utopian idealism that is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. There is no precedent in the US for a single payer system, or government run option, or any mixture or combination of systems that currently exist through out the world. Therefore there is no experience of another system, so how can you possibly argue that because something works in another part of the world, it can’t possibly work in the US. These arguments either stem from an arrogance that everything in the US is better, or from an ignorance, or lack of experience of other systems. A closed mind and ignorance makes a people their own worst enemy.

Why not do what Taiwan did? Go around the world and take the best bits of all the other systems, discarding what doesn’t work, and forge a health care reform plan that can’t fail to make everyone proud and happy. Why is that so hard?[/quote]

Here’s some folks in Scotland who evidently think their system could be a lot better:
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/09/nicola-sturgeon-pledges-ecmo-machine.html

Why do you assume qwerty007 that it will NOT “be so hard” to create a huge new beauracracy capable of treating 300 million people out of whole cloth. I think it much more likely to assume that yeah, that would be a difficult thing to do.

Why not experiment on a smaller scale first? Why do we have to rope everybody in the whole country into something written in a hurry, and voted on in almost commpletely partisan manner?

[KSMountain]

[quote=qwerty007]The vote against the health care bill, is a vote against health care reform. I hear these insipid, poorly informed arguments, that are mostly baseless and come from a fear of the unknown, or some partisan BS, or worse some utopian idealism that is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. There is no precedent in the US for a single payer system, or government run option, or any mixture or combination of systems that currently exist through out the world. Therefore there is no experience of another system, so how can you possibly argue that because something works in another part of the world, it can’t possibly work in the US. These arguments either stem from an arrogance that everything in the US is better, or from an ignorance, or lack of experience of other systems. A closed mind and ignorance makes a people their own worst enemy.

Why not do what Taiwan did? Go around the world and take the best bits of all the other systems, discarding what doesn’t work, and forge a health care reform plan that can’t fail to make everyone proud and happy. Why is that so hard?[/quote]

Here’s some folks in Scotland who evidently think their system could be a lot better:
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/09/nicola-sturgeon-pledges-ecmo-machine.html

Why do you assume qwerty007 that it will NOT “be so hard” to create a huge new beauracracy capable of treating 300 million people out of whole cloth. I think it much more likely to assume that yeah, that would be a difficult thing to do.

Why not experiment on a smaller scale first? Why do we have to rope everybody in the whole country into something written in a hurry, and voted on in almost commpletely partisan manner?

[KSMountain]

[quote=qwerty007]The vote against the health care bill, is a vote against health care reform. I hear these insipid, poorly informed arguments, that are mostly baseless and come from a fear of the unknown, or some partisan BS, or worse some utopian idealism that is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. There is no precedent in the US for a single payer system, or government run option, or any mixture or combination of systems that currently exist through out the world. Therefore there is no experience of another system, so how can you possibly argue that because something works in another part of the world, it can’t possibly work in the US. These arguments either stem from an arrogance that everything in the US is better, or from an ignorance, or lack of experience of other systems. A closed mind and ignorance makes a people their own worst enemy.

Why not do what Taiwan did? Go around the world and take the best bits of all the other systems, discarding what doesn’t work, and forge a health care reform plan that can’t fail to make everyone proud and happy. Why is that so hard?[/quote]

Here’s some folks in Scotland who evidently think their system could be a lot better:
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/09/nicola-sturgeon-pledges-ecmo-machine.html

Why do you assume qwerty007 that it will NOT “be so hard” to create a huge new beauracracy capable of treating 300 million people out of whole cloth. I think it much more likely to assume that yeah, that would be a difficult thing to do.

Why not experiment on a smaller scale first? Why do we have to rope everybody in the whole country into something written in a hurry, and voted on in almost commpletely partisan manner?

[KSMountain]

[quote=qwerty007]The vote against the health care bill, is a vote against health care reform. I hear these insipid, poorly informed arguments, that are mostly baseless and come from a fear of the unknown, or some partisan BS, or worse some utopian idealism that is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. There is no precedent in the US for a single payer system, or government run option, or any mixture or combination of systems that currently exist through out the world. Therefore there is no experience of another system, so how can you possibly argue that because something works in another part of the world, it can’t possibly work in the US. These arguments either stem from an arrogance that everything in the US is better, or from an ignorance, or lack of experience of other systems. A closed mind and ignorance makes a people their own worst enemy.

Why not do what Taiwan did? Go around the world and take the best bits of all the other systems, discarding what doesn’t work, and forge a health care reform plan that can’t fail to make everyone proud and happy. Why is that so hard?[/quote]

Here’s some folks in Scotland who evidently think their system could be a lot better:
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/09/nicola-sturgeon-pledges-ecmo-machine.html

Why do you assume qwerty007 that it will NOT “be so hard” to create a huge new beauracracy capable of treating 300 million people out of whole cloth. I think it much more likely to assume that yeah, that would be a difficult thing to do.

Why not experiment on a smaller scale first? Why do we have to rope everybody in the whole country into something written in a hurry, and voted on in almost commpletely partisan manner?

[KSMountain]

[quote=qwerty007]The vote against the health care bill, is a vote against health care reform. I hear these insipid, poorly informed arguments, that are mostly baseless and come from a fear of the unknown, or some partisan BS, or worse some utopian idealism that is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle. There is no precedent in the US for a single payer system, or government run option, or any mixture or combination of systems that currently exist through out the world. Therefore there is no experience of another system, so how can you possibly argue that because something works in another part of the world, it can’t possibly work in the US. These arguments either stem from an arrogance that everything in the US is better, or from an ignorance, or lack of experience of other systems. A closed mind and ignorance makes a people their own worst enemy.

Why not do what Taiwan did? Go around the world and take the best bits of all the other systems, discarding what doesn’t work, and forge a health care reform plan that can’t fail to make everyone proud and happy. Why is that so hard?[/quote]

Here’s some folks in Scotland who evidently think their system could be a lot better:
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/09/nicola-sturgeon-pledges-ecmo-machine.html

Why do you assume qwerty007 that it will NOT “be so hard” to create a huge new beauracracy capable of treating 300 million people out of whole cloth. I think it much more likely to assume that yeah, that would be a difficult thing to do.

Why not experiment on a smaller scale first? Why do we have to rope everybody in the whole country into something written in a hurry, and voted on in almost commpletely partisan manner?

[KSMountain]

[quote=NeetaT]Healthcare is a service that is priced via supply and demand just like other goods and services.[/quote]
I don’t know whether this is true, but it should be. And we should take steps to make it true.

[quote=NeetaT]No one will ever agree with me, but I know that if there was no such thing as health insurance, prices for health services would adjust to average income, thus more people could afford it out of pocket.[/quote]
I kind of agree with you. For other services, we pay when rendered. For example car repair, or plumbing, or whatever. I think the whole “insurance” thing confuses the issue and masks the costs.

[quote=NeetaT]I will gladly pay for my own healthcare thank you.[/quote]
Well, you would while you’re young and healthy.

Here’s a question: is “health insurance” really code for “I’d like to receive more healthcare than I pay for.”? For example, it seems to me most people want about $0.5M lifetime worth of healthcare (especially counting end of life costs), but they’d like to only pay maybe $50K over their lifetime. If everyone in the country gets ten times more than they put it in, the thing cannot work.

For other kinds of insurance, say Auto, Fire, earthquake, flood, theft, etc, you don’t really expect to use it. The system works because in aggregate folks put in much more than is taken out. The moment that ceases to be the case you don’t have solvent insurance companies.

Is “health insurance” then different? Aren’t we really talking about “health subsidy”?

Someone tell me if I’ve got that wrong.

[KSMountain]

[quote=NeetaT]Healthcare is a service that is priced via supply and demand just like other goods and services.[/quote]
I don’t know whether this is true, but it should be. And we should take steps to make it true.

[quote=NeetaT]No one will ever agree with me, but I know that if there was no such thing as health insurance, prices for health services would adjust to average income, thus more people could afford it out of pocket.[/quote]
I kind of agree with you. For other services, we pay when rendered. For example car repair, or plumbing, or whatever. I think the whole “insurance” thing confuses the issue and masks the costs.

[quote=NeetaT]I will gladly pay for my own healthcare thank you.[/quote]
Well, you would while you’re young and healthy.

Here’s a question: is “health insurance” really code for “I’d like to receive more healthcare than I pay for.”? For example, it seems to me most people want about $0.5M lifetime worth of healthcare (especially counting end of life costs), but they’d like to only pay maybe $50K over their lifetime. If everyone in the country gets ten times more than they put it in, the thing cannot work.

For other kinds of insurance, say Auto, Fire, earthquake, flood, theft, etc, you don’t really expect to use it. The system works because in aggregate folks put in much more than is taken out. The moment that ceases to be the case you don’t have solvent insurance companies.

Is “health insurance” then different? Aren’t we really talking about “health subsidy”?

Someone tell me if I’ve got that wrong.

[KSMountain]

[quote=NeetaT]Healthcare is a service that is priced via supply and demand just like other goods and services.[/quote]
I don’t know whether this is true, but it should be. And we should take steps to make it true.

[quote=NeetaT]No one will ever agree with me, but I know that if there was no such thing as health insurance, prices for health services would adjust to average income, thus more people could afford it out of pocket.[/quote]
I kind of agree with you. For other services, we pay when rendered. For example car repair, or plumbing, or whatever. I think the whole “insurance” thing confuses the issue and masks the costs.

[quote=NeetaT]I will gladly pay for my own healthcare thank you.[/quote]
Well, you would while you’re young and healthy.

Here’s a question: is “health insurance” really code for “I’d like to receive more healthcare than I pay for.”? For example, it seems to me most people want about $0.5M lifetime worth of healthcare (especially counting end of life costs), but they’d like to only pay maybe $50K over their lifetime. If everyone in the country gets ten times more than they put it in, the thing cannot work.

For other kinds of insurance, say Auto, Fire, earthquake, flood, theft, etc, you don’t really expect to use it. The system works because in aggregate folks put in much more than is taken out. The moment that ceases to be the case you don’t have solvent insurance companies.

Is “health insurance” then different? Aren’t we really talking about “health subsidy”?

Someone tell me if I’ve got that wrong.

[KSMountain]

[quote=NeetaT]Healthcare is a service that is priced via supply and demand just like other goods and services.[/quote]
I don’t know whether this is true, but it should be. And we should take steps to make it true.

[quote=NeetaT]No one will ever agree with me, but I know that if there was no such thing as health insurance, prices for health services would adjust to average income, thus more people could afford it out of pocket.[/quote]
I kind of agree with you. For other services, we pay when rendered. For example car repair, or plumbing, or whatever. I think the whole “insurance” thing confuses the issue and masks the costs.

[quote=NeetaT]I will gladly pay for my own healthcare thank you.[/quote]
Well, you would while you’re young and healthy.

Here’s a question: is “health insurance” really code for “I’d like to receive more healthcare than I pay for.”? For example, it seems to me most people want about $0.5M lifetime worth of healthcare (especially counting end of life costs), but they’d like to only pay maybe $50K over their lifetime. If everyone in the country gets ten times more than they put it in, the thing cannot work.

For other kinds of insurance, say Auto, Fire, earthquake, flood, theft, etc, you don’t really expect to use it. The system works because in aggregate folks put in much more than is taken out. The moment that ceases to be the case you don’t have solvent insurance companies.

Is “health insurance” then different? Aren’t we really talking about “health subsidy”?

Someone tell me if I’ve got that wrong.

[KSMountain]

[quote=NeetaT]Healthcare is a service that is priced via supply and demand just like other goods and services.[/quote]
I don’t know whether this is true, but it should be. And we should take steps to make it true.

[quote=NeetaT]No one will ever agree with me, but I know that if there was no such thing as health insurance, prices for health services would adjust to average income, thus more people could afford it out of pocket.[/quote]
I kind of agree with you. For other services, we pay when rendered. For example car repair, or plumbing, or whatever. I think the whole “insurance” thing confuses the issue and masks the costs.

[quote=NeetaT]I will gladly pay for my own healthcare thank you.[/quote]
Well, you would while you’re young and healthy.

Here’s a question: is “health insurance” really code for “I’d like to receive more healthcare than I pay for.”? For example, it seems to me most people want about $0.5M lifetime worth of healthcare (especially counting end of life costs), but they’d like to only pay maybe $50K over their lifetime. If everyone in the country gets ten times more than they put it in, the thing cannot work.

For other kinds of insurance, say Auto, Fire, earthquake, flood, theft, etc, you don’t really expect to use it. The system works because in aggregate folks put in much more than is taken out. The moment that ceases to be the case you don’t have solvent insurance companies.

Is “health insurance” then different? Aren’t we really talking about “health subsidy”?

Someone tell me if I’ve got that wrong.

[KSMountain]

[quote=poorgradstudent]”A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members.”

“‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'” Jesus in Matthew 25:40

The morality of universal healthcare sadly fell to the wayside early in the debate. To me, it is clearly the right and just thing to do. The United States lags behind the developed world in many ways, and hopefully we will close the gap further.[/quote]
So you feel that your interpretation of morality is sufficient to justify a new trillion dollar entitlement that the rest of all your countrymen must comply with? What if someone else’s definition of the moral oligation of government is different?

When you say “it” is the clearly right thing to do, what does “it” mean? For example, how much money is it morally right to spend on a very premature baby? $1 million? $10 million? Who pays for that? Same with a very elderly person. Who makes those decisions?

[KSMountain]

[quote=poorgradstudent]”A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members.”

“‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'” Jesus in Matthew 25:40

The morality of universal healthcare sadly fell to the wayside early in the debate. To me, it is clearly the right and just thing to do. The United States lags behind the developed world in many ways, and hopefully we will close the gap further.[/quote]
So you feel that your interpretation of morality is sufficient to justify a new trillion dollar entitlement that the rest of all your countrymen must comply with? What if someone else’s definition of the moral oligation of government is different?

When you say “it” is the clearly right thing to do, what does “it” mean? For example, how much money is it morally right to spend on a very premature baby? $1 million? $10 million? Who pays for that? Same with a very elderly person. Who makes those decisions?

[KSMountain]

[quote=poorgradstudent]”A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members.”

“‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'” Jesus in Matthew 25:40

The morality of universal healthcare sadly fell to the wayside early in the debate. To me, it is clearly the right and just thing to do. The United States lags behind the developed world in many ways, and hopefully we will close the gap further.[/quote]
So you feel that your interpretation of morality is sufficient to justify a new trillion dollar entitlement that the rest of all your countrymen must comply with? What if someone else’s definition of the moral oligation of government is different?

When you say “it” is the clearly right thing to do, what does “it” mean? For example, how much money is it morally right to spend on a very premature baby? $1 million? $10 million? Who pays for that? Same with a very elderly person. Who makes those decisions?

[Author]

Posts