|
Post by Limity (BLM) on Nov 9, 2016 18:04:58 GMT -5
A) Health care is NOT a service oriented field. It is a vital field that cannot be done without. Anything vital will be something that private companies charge out the nose for because the demand for vital services dictates that they can get away with it. B) Competing with a government option forces private companies to lower their costs. This is because, for all of their faults, government options do not have a profit motive to deal with and only charge based on actual cost of service. Their is no profit-margin mark-up that is incumbent with private insurance. Not only that, government options have a stronger negotiating position with health care providers and can force the providers to lower their costs, which further lowers the cost of the public option. There is a reason, after all, that of the 50+ nations that have some form of universal health care a rather large portion of them have a Medicare-for-all type of insurance. You're welcome to whatever rhetoric based interpretations suit your argument. If that's the case, then why have health care costs only gone up, all while there has been an existing government option? And what stops private companies from charging out the nose is competition in a free and open market. I've already listed two examples. In addition, I have a sneaking suspicion that this argument can go on and on indefinitely until we finally disappear up our own assholes, with neither conceding to the other. So in the spirit of bipartisanship, what say we focus on the fact that Trump's only two solid concrete ideas, build a wall and deport millions, WILL explode our taxes and drive us into bankruptcy.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,360
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Nov 9, 2016 18:08:58 GMT -5
A) Health care is NOT a service oriented field. It is a vital field that cannot be done without. Anything vital will be something that private companies charge out the nose for because the demand for vital services dictates that they can get away with it. B) Competing with a government option forces private companies to lower their costs. This is because, for all of their faults, government options do not have a profit motive to deal with and only charge based on actual cost of service. Their is no profit-margin mark-up that is incumbent with private insurance. Not only that, government options have a stronger negotiating position with health care providers and can force the providers to lower their costs, which further lowers the cost of the public option. There is a reason, after all, that of the 50+ nations that have some form of universal health care a rather large portion of them have a Medicare-for-all type of insurance. You're welcome to whatever rhetoric based interpretations suit your argument. If that's the case, then why have health care costs only gone up, all while there has been an existing government option? And what stops private companies from charging out the nose is competition in a free and open market. I've already listed two examples. I have to ask, how old are you? Did you ever have to buy your own health insurance before the ACA? The free and open market in health care before the ACA led to large increases AND loss of services. They did this because, unlike your auto insurance, cell phone service, and whatever other example you want to put out there, people LITERALLY cannot live without it. My satellite service got too expensive. Can you guess you no longer has that service? This guy! I can do so because I can live without it. My car was expensive. Guess you downgraded to a cheaper one? This guy! I can do so because getting a smaller, cheaper car does not negatively impact my life and health. I'm finding that my house is too expensive. Can you guess who is looking to sell it and get a smaller place just outside of town? This guy! I can do so because either option is suitable for my purposes. Guess who cannot go without health insurance? Guess who cannot afford his medical care with a lesser policy? Guess whose long term health is dependent on my insurance company not deciding that their bottom line is more important than my health? This guy!
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Nov 9, 2016 18:12:12 GMT -5
It is rather unfair to say that a minimum wage worker is in they are in purely because they did not plan well. When you don't get a quality education because you live in a poor area, you can't compete for those college opportunities. Many people who might be able to get that opportunity based purely on merit find themselves needing to work instead because they cannot afford college even with scholarships and student loans. Not only that, but there's also the same case even if you do live in a poor area and you DO get those college opportunities- you could still be set in the same boat as you were beforehand. The fact the Rust Belt was such a key to Trump's win had its own questions said there, but it also ties into EXACTLY THE PROBLEM for health insurance based on "lack of planning" where- quite frankly, in most parts of the country your education really doesn't matter- if you live in a certain area, that dictates what your job WILL BE whether you like it or not, whether you're trained for it or not- and being able to move to a different region with a job you'd be better at would be an even bigger luxury than anything else you could think of, even if you're just moving into a cardboard box in this new area. With that in mind, it does end up being a case of "you may be left in this situation regardless of anything else, simply because you drew that lot in where you live and it just doesn't matter what you do- if you dropped out of high school, you work at the factory in the area...but if you got an Ivy League education in a STEM field and a Master's, and you go back home...well, luckily you got that engineering job, you'll be good at fixing the machinery when you go back to work at that same factory.
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on Nov 9, 2016 18:19:17 GMT -5
You're welcome to whatever rhetoric based interpretations suit your argument. If that's the case, then why have health care costs only gone up, all while there has been an existing government option? And what stops private companies from charging out the nose is competition in a free and open market. I've already listed two examples. I have to ask, how old are you? Did you ever have to buy your own health insurance before the ACA? The free and open market in health care before the ACA led to large increases AND loss of services. They did this because, unlike your auto insurance, cell phone service, and whatever other example you want to put out there, people LITERALLY cannot live without it. My satellite service got too expensive. Can you guess you no longer has that service? This guy! I can do so because I can live without it. My car was expensive. Guess you downgraded to a cheaper one? This guy! I can do so because getting a smaller, cheaper car does not negatively impact my life and health. I'm finding that my house is too expensive. Can you guess who is looking to sell it and get a smaller place just outside of town? This guy! I can do so because either option is suitable for my purposes. Guess who cannot go without health insurance? Guess who cannot afford his medical care with a lesser policy? Guess whose long term health is dependent on my insurance company not deciding that their bottom line is more important than my health? This guy! 33. And I lived without insurance until I was 26, and got a job that offered it. Health care is vital to SOME, not ALL. In addition, before ACA there was no free and open market for health insurance, there hadn't been since the inception of Medicaid and Medicare. In addition, when my girl got cancer, she had her treatment at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, which was able to offer all kinds of treatments because they didn't accept Medicare or Medicaid, and thus weren't beholden to the treatment restrictions that come with government health care. Now as I said in my last post, let us shake hands and move forward.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Nov 9, 2016 18:25:39 GMT -5
Alright let's call it quits since we're just delving into back and forths before we get too confrontational. If this bleeds out anywhere else to any other thread even as a vague comment we'll warn and suspend. Back to the norm.
Y'all wanna continue on do it on social media or in private PM I guess.
I do NOT want to see anything from here used as ammunition against each other for those who expressed their own views and shared their opinions. Please don't make us regret doing these threads.
As for President Elect Donald Trump and his involvement with the WWE, we're not quite sure where our line is there as to allow what and disallow whatelse. By all means help us out in AaM and spitball ideas as you see fit.
Thanks for the thread everyone. We'll get through these next four years for better or for worse. We'll make it out it to the other side.
|
|