IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st January 2008, 07:34 PM   #401
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
You would do better for freedom if you fought the Patriot Act.
Different thread, besides the NSA is watching.



Quote:
Yes, but you know it too. You have given nothing to back up your false claims, at least I gave two easily checked statistics that would tend to support mine.

You have made many claims that, simply by belonging to a universal healthcare system, I know for a fact are wrong. You have an uninformed opinion about what universal healthcare is that you state as fact.
But you have stated that you do not even know the base facts of universal health-care.

You do not know how much it costs!
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 07:46 PM   #402
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by qayak View Post


Is there some relevance here? This is like asking "If it is best for my son to ride his bike to school, should I drive my car to Toronto?"
Getting to a desired destination is not a right.

According to the proponents, health-care is a right. If health-care is a right than food is as well.

Please logically explain why if government provides health-care that government should not provide food.
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 07:57 PM   #403
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,772
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Excellent value for the cost of which you do not know? You are stating knowingly that you do not have the pertinent information, yet you claim value!
Let's put it this way, when my mother had her cancer treatment and my parents were on a fixed income, they not only afforded it, it didn't impact their lifestyle at all. My friend got lupus ten years ago and started taking pills worth $1500.00 a month and more, it didn't affect his ability to provide for his family or pay his bills. Another friend's daughter required major reconstructive surgery and it didn't bankrupt them, in fact, except for a few nights motel stay, it didn't cost them anything.

ETA:don't forget to add in the amount it would cost for these people and their families to be on social assistance.

You are asking me something I don't have the inclination to figure out but off the top of my head I would say that I pay very little. Much of the tax for the medical system comes from alcohol and tobacco. I don't smoke or drink and never have. To be fair though, I am probably the exception, Canadians tend to drink their fair share.

I don't remember exactly what my sister's medical was in the US with a husband and three children but it was very high. I doubt very much that I pay that much in taxes and premiums to our medical system. In fact, I know I don't. Plus, she wasn't completely covered, there were a lot of things she had to pay for extra.

It isn't that medical procedures are that high, it is that US citizens are being raped by providers who are fighting the push for universal healthcare.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Last edited by qayak; 21st January 2008 at 08:08 PM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 08:07 PM   #404
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,772
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Getting to a desired destination is not a right.

According to the proponents, health-care is a right. If health-care is a right than food is as well.
This is a logical fallacy. Please show me where health care = food.

Quote:
Please logically explain why if government provides health-care that government should not provide food.
Your logical fallacy cannot be explained logically.

And you changed again, before you said "If government can best provide. . ." which would be an important qualifier should you be able to somehow make healthcare = food. Let's face it, if government could provide the same food, more reliably and at a much lower rate, then there would be a big outcry for them to do so.

I think a better question would be, "If government provides corporate welfare at taxpayer's expense, by way of military protection for corporate oil interests around the world, shouldn't they at least provide affordable health-care for those taxpayers?"
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 08:38 PM   #405
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
This is a logical fallacy. Please show me where health care = food.
Is it.

Without food, health-care is not needed.

If health-care is a right than food must also be a right.

Are you stating that food is not a right and health-care is?

Does not the human body need food?

Is not food needed to be healthy?


Please explain why food is not a right.

Please explain why health-care is a right.
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 08:44 PM   #406
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
 
quixotecoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
I buy the products that I deem are the best value. These are individual determinations. I know both ends of this market, and many times the product with the highest profit margin for the grocer is also the lowest price and best value for the consumer.



Would you like to examine your qualifying word which I highlighted and incorporate that word into the health-care market?

What a lot of bluster to avoid saying that you are in an adversarial relationship with your grocer, as you are with all merchants. They want to charge as much as possible while you want to pay as little as possible. Whether this expresses itself as haggling or shopping at alternate vendors is more of a question of the product being sold.

And to one of your later questions, the government does indeed pay for food in the form of food stamps in a way that is very analogous to the way it would pay for medicine in a public system. The difference is that food is generally cheap enough it's not necessary for the government to intervene on a large scale. Health costs are.
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.
quixotecoyote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 08:44 PM   #407
IchabodPlain
Graduate Poster
 
IchabodPlain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,252
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Well, you know, that might be because in Britain, healthcare is a right!

And successive governments have realised very clearly that in order to get and remain in office, they better not mess with this!

You know, I'm really, really happy about that. The idea of living in a country where the majority believes that the economically disadvantaged should be left to rot gives me the screaming ab-dabs. And, believe it or not, not just because my imagination extends to the possibility that some misfortune might put me in that category.

Rolfe.
Is it then also your right to food, water, and shelter provided by the government? Rights are not entitlements. They are a state of natural being in all people. This stands in conflict with the forced decisions made unto them by the state, in any Democratic fashion. Freedom of speech is the freedom from another's imposed will on your speech. Freedom, as I said before, is defined as a negative concept, not as a positive. Natural rights of man are not physical objects, but are internal and external processes of man (or woman). To assemble, speak, and socially interact on your own accord, without state or institutional intervention.


The egalitarianism is the worst defense for socialism. Sure, you break an arm, pay nothing (at the point of service), and it's great. But in state plans, the goal it to keep the majority relatively healthy, which excludes minorities and those with rare, expensive diseases. Every person on a waiting list for surgery are individuals needing care who are not getting it. You cannot measure or address health needs or any economic need by the community, only by the individual. Government, or any other single institution cannot manage, condense, and comprehend all available knowledge. Knowledge is dispersed in the hands of the many. Progress is not planned, as the mind cannot see its own advance. Advance depends on leaving open all possible unforeseen and unpredictable opportunities. Progress it is a trial and error process, with spontaneous evolutionary efforts made by individuals, which directly connect to business and investment, which in turn connects them to the consumer for-profit via markets. Profits are necessary for future development and uncertainty. It also provides the necessary drive and quick application of technology. Socialist markets, in contrast, are distorted because they are limited in scope, which reflects in higher prices to the customer. Poor individuals and disadvantaged individuals benefit the most from free markets, due to lower prices on a wide selection of goods.

Great thinker:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0392d.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom
IchabodPlain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 08:47 PM   #408
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
What a lot of bluster to avoid saying that you are in an adversarial relationship with your grocer, as you are with all merchants. They want to charge as much as possible while you want to pay as little as possible. Whether this expresses itself as haggling or shopping at alternate vendors is more of a question of the product being sold.

And to one of your later questions, the government does indeed pay for food in the form of food stamps in a way that is very analogous to the way it would pay for medicine in a public system. The difference is that food is generally cheap enough it's not necessary for the government to intervene on a large scale. Health costs are.
What a sad world you live in.

I want my grocer to make a profit so he can stay in business and continue to service my needs.

This is a symbiotic relationship.
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 08:49 PM   #409
IchabodPlain
Graduate Poster
 
IchabodPlain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,252
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
What a lot of bluster to avoid saying that you are in an adversarial relationship with your grocer, as you are with all merchants. They want to charge as much as possible while you want to pay as little as possible. Whether this expresses itself as haggling or shopping at alternate vendors is more of a question of the product being sold.

And to one of your later questions, the government does indeed pay for food in the form of food stamps in a way that is very analogous to the way it would pay for medicine in a public system. The difference is that food is generally cheap enough it's not necessary for the government to intervene on a large scale. Health costs are.
The relevant relationship is between the good/service and the consumer. As consumers make their decisions, merchants follow consumers needs, and adjust to the market, not the other way around. Government is providing proverbial food-stamps in health-care, namely Medicaid and Medicare.

Last edited by IchabodPlain; 21st January 2008 at 08:51 PM.
IchabodPlain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 08:54 PM   #410
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by IchabodPlain View Post
Our well established infrastructure is a direct result of our economic policy. Innovation and markets are very tightly correlated, and when the state comes in, they distort the market, through subsidies, price controls, and guidelines. The State attempts to bring people together under a 'common purpose', but this is flawed because we cannot predict the future. These comprehensive programs always have stable conditions in mind, but this is not how the world operates. If government involvement produced better results, why wouldn't we want them develop the next innovation in the auto industry, or the housing market?
But the United States already operates with subsidies, price controls, and guidelines. And can't these concerns be taken into consideration when developing a universal healthcare plan?

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 08:56 PM   #411
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
 
quixotecoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
What a sad world you live in.

I want my grocer to make a profit so he can stay in business and continue to service my needs.

This is a symbiotic relationship.

So why don't you pay him more than he asks?

Why doesn't he cut profits to provide you a better deal?

Do you not understand why customers haggle with car dealers?

Do you not understand why customers visit different business to search for the lowest price?

This is so entirely basic. Businesses are not out to give you the best deal they can. They are out to charge you as much as possible without you going to a different supplier.
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.
quixotecoyote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 08:58 PM   #412
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by IchabodPlain View Post
The options of consumers and doctors are limited by the State, so it is not a real choice. You can only receive the care they provide, unless you spend your own money. This has the effect of the consumer paying twice for care, and they then must also deal with distorted markets.
Doctors and other services operate privately. How does the state limit options? I thought the ability to spend your own money was a good thing?

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:23 PM   #413
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,385
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
If government provided health-care is the best way, should the government also provide food?
If insurance is the best way, should insurance also provide food? The answer is really simple: no, it would not be efficient to share the costs of food among all people. That's because the need for food are fairly distributed; everyone needs about the same amount of food. Food is also pretty cheap, so everyone can afford it.

Suppose there are 100 people and each needs 100 dollar worth of food to support themselves for a month. Together they need to spend 10000 dollars to feed themselves. If they all pool the money and redistribute it, they would all need to pay 100 dollars into the pool, and would get 100 dollars worth of food. If on the other hand they were to buy their food individually they would spend 100 dollars on food. So assuming no inefficiencies in redistribution, there would be no benefit for anyone sharing the costs of food.

It is quite different for healthcare. Suppose their are 100 people, and one of them needs an operation costing 10000 dollars, while the others are healthy. If everyone would need to pay for their healthcare individually, one ill person has to pay the full 10000 dollars, and likely isn't able to, ends up bankrupt which means that his debts aren't paid in full and thus that the healthcare received isn't fully funded. But if all shared the costs, it would only cost each individual 100 dollars. Because the costs are not equitably distributed, sharing of costs becomes a good idea. That's the whole concept behind both insurance and socialised healthcare.

If however the insurance isn't mandatory, it is difficult to keep the costs shared evenly, because of adverse selection. Each healthy individual has a financial incentive quit paying into the pool, and with each healthy individual quiting, the incentive to quit for the other healthy people in the pool becomes greater. The only way I see to combat adverse selection is through government mandate.

Another thing to note is that in pretty much all succesfull countries, the government does provide food.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:31 PM   #414
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
So why don't you pay him more than he asks?
Why would I? He is asking what he thinks is the price he can sell it for based on its value and keep him in business so I can buy more things that I need from him.

Quote:
Why doesn't he cut profits to provide you a better deal?
Without a profit he is out of business and I can no longer purchase anything from him.

Quote:
Do you not understand why customers haggle with car dealers?
This is the wonderful thing about a free market.

Quote:
Do you not understand why customers visit different business to search for the lowest price?
Some do. Others shop based on value.

You are presenting arguments for the free market whilst advocating for socialism.

Quote:
This is so entirely basic. Businesses are not out to give you the best deal they can. They are out to charge you as much as possible without you going to a different supplier.
Wrong.

How many businesses do you own?

I own a number. None of which operates on the premise that I am going to charge as much as possible without the consumer going to a different business.


Why do you write with such certainty when you know so little?
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:33 PM   #415
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
If insurance is the best way, should insurance also provide food?
Try reading what I wrote before establishing a premise. You are embarrassing yourself.


I never implied or hinted that insurance was the best or even an acceptable way.
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:36 PM   #416
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
Another thing to note is that in pretty much all succesfull countries, the government does provide food.
The government does not provide food.

What about the subsidies that government pays to farmers NOT to grow food?

Ducks in a barrel.

Last edited by JEROME DA GNOME; 21st January 2008 at 09:36 PM.
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:36 PM   #417
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
 
quixotecoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Why would I? He is asking what he thinks is the price he can sell it for based on its value and keep him in business so I can buy more things that I need from him.



Without a profit he is out of business and I can no longer purchase anything from him.
Ducking, dodging, and weaving you go. The price he thinks he can sell it for is the maximum he thinks you'll pay. The profit you're willing to give him is the minimum you can buy that product for. Otherwise you'd be happy to pay above the list price to make sure he stays in business.




Quote:

How many businesses do you own?

I own a number. None of which operates on the premise that I am going to charge as much as possible without the consumer going to a different business.
Then you're either a moron and a bad businessman or dishonestly lying to try and score points. You are in business to make money. If you are not in business to make money you will fail as other people who know the first thing about business rip you apart.

Do you only charge pennies above the break even point for each product or service you sell? If not then you are trying to get more money from the consumer than you theoretically have to. Nothing wrong with that in most cases and there's no need to lie about it, so I'm perplexed that you feel the need to do so.
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.
quixotecoyote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:37 PM   #418
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,078
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
I buy the products that I deem are the best value. These are individual determinations. I know both ends of this market, and many times the product with the highest profit margin for the grocer is also the lowest price and best value for the consumer.
So please, tell us how this works for healthcare?

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Think about this:

If government provided health-care is the best way, should the government also provide food?

If no, why not?

One can make every argument for government supplied food that is made for government supplied health-care.
It's been pointed out as a fallacy and that food is relatively cheap but I might as well say something. When I go and buy some food I have many choices. From where I am sitting at this computer I am walking distance away from two supermarkets, one deli, one pizza shop, a pub, a bakery, a fish and chip shop, a restaurant and one shopping centre. If I use my bike I can get to an additional shopping precinct, the restaurants, cafés and pubs on Jetty Road, another two shopping centres, another pizza shop, a pizza/fish and chip shop, and if I use my car I have access to the innumerable shops in the entire city plus three markets where I can get fresh produce, both within city limits, or I could go out into the country and buy produce, and other goods.

My point for listing all this? As you can clearly see I have plenty of choice as to where I can go to get my food. Australia has plenty of food and, with the exception of a few items, are all very affordable. If I don't like one shop I can go to another cheaper one. If I go to the markets I can get produce at prices that are far cheaper then if I were to go to a shop, if I want range I will go to shops that sell specific foodstuffs, if I quickly need to get something I will go to a shopping centre or supermarket.

The problem is that healthcare is not like that. There is no equivalent to a market or shopping centre, I can't go around and compare prices to specific treatment and choose the one I can afford. I am basically stuck with what I have got. In my case because I am in Australia I won't face the same problems as someone in the US would. If I have a non life-threatening problem I can wait on the government program and basically pay nothing, or I can fork out the money and get it done by a private doctor. But I still have the same lack of choice as I would in a country without universal healthcare but in this case I won't end up going bankrupt if I choose to wait.

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
You do not know how much it costs!
According to the budget website, the Federal Government budgeted in 07-08 (we are still on this budget, the new one comes out in May) A$42 964 million. Medicare is makes up about 43% of that budget, so in Australia universal healthcare would cost the Government about A$18.361 billion. We spend about 4% of our GDP on healthcare.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:39 PM   #419
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
Ducking, dodging, and weaving you go. The price he thinks he can sell it for is the maximum he thinks you'll pay. The profit you're willing to give him is the minimum you can buy that product for. Otherwise you'd be happy to pay above the list price to make sure he stays in business.
How are you so certain you know the minds of men?

Telepathy?
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:41 PM   #420
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
Then you're either a moron and a bad businessman or dishonestly lying to try and score points. You are in business to make money. If you are not in business to make money you will fail as other people who know the first thing about business rip you apart.
Your argument has come down to insults.

Well done!!!
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:42 PM   #421
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
So please, tell us how this works for healthcare?
The same way it works for all other markets.
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:43 PM   #422
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
It's been pointed out as a fallacy and that food is relatively cheap...
Would food be relatively cheap if government was providing it?


If government was providing your food you would not have all those options and choices you listed.

Last edited by JEROME DA GNOME; 21st January 2008 at 09:44 PM.
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:45 PM   #423
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
 
quixotecoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Your argument has come down to insults.

Well done!!!
Congratulations. You have failed to address any points. I assumed that you realized how idiotic your contention was that businesses do not attempt to maximize profits. Now that you have confirmed that you have no defense or justification and were just playing the fool out of ideological mindlessness, I consider this argument over.
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.
quixotecoyote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:46 PM   #424
IchabodPlain
Graduate Poster
 
IchabodPlain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,252
Originally Posted by fls View Post
But the United States already operates with subsidies, price controls, and guidelines. And can't these concerns be taken into consideration when developing a universal healthcare plan?

Linda
No. Price controls, and most guidelines/subsidies are counterproductive. Laws as well in the US are flimsy and full of loop-holes. The US Federal Government underwrites 50% or more of all healthcare costs. Government intervention take the individual out of the financial and medical choices that affect cost.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...indexed=googleExample of Public Health Care in the US


How much of your deductible is profit?http://www.ahipbelieves.com/media/Th...re%20Costs.pdf

Taking Universality into account is the problem. State promoters long for comprehensive plans to benefit the whole of society, but it must happen on the individual level. The US problem is access. Access requires removal of government guidelines and quotas, state restrictions, and taxation on money spent towards health-care.
IchabodPlain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:47 PM   #425
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
According to the budget website, the Federal Government budgeted in 07-08 (we are still on this budget, the new one comes out in May) A$42 964 million. Medicare is makes up about 43% of that budget, so in Australia universal healthcare would cost the Government about A$18.361 billion. We spend about 4% of our GDP on healthcare.
So, 43% of every dollar you pay in taxes pays for health-care?
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:49 PM   #426
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
Congratulations. You have failed to address any points. I assumed that you realized how idiotic your contention was that businesses do not attempt to maximize profits. Now that you have confirmed that you have no defense or justification and were just playing the fool out of ideological mindlessness, I consider this argument over.
You did not make any points. You just insulted me because your world view assumes incorrectly and your only recourse was to call me names.
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:52 PM   #427
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
 
quixotecoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
You did not make any points. You just insulted me because your world view assumes incorrectly and your only recourse was to call me names.
Please defend your assertion that businesses do not seek to maximize profits, or STFU.
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.
quixotecoyote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:52 PM   #428
IchabodPlain
Graduate Poster
 
IchabodPlain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,252
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
So please, tell us how this works for healthcare?



It's been pointed out as a fallacy and that food is relatively cheap but I might as well say something. When I go and buy some food I have many choices. From where I am sitting at this computer I am walking distance away from two supermarkets, one deli, one pizza shop, a pub, a bakery, a fish and chip shop, a restaurant and one shopping centre. If I use my bike I can get to an additional shopping precinct, the restaurants, cafés and pubs on Jetty Road, another two shopping centres, another pizza shop, a pizza/fish and chip shop, and if I use my car I have access to the innumerable shops in the entire city plus three markets where I can get fresh produce, both within city limits, or I could go out into the country and buy produce, and other goods.

My point for listing all this? As you can clearly see I have plenty of choice as to where I can go to get my food. Australia has plenty of food and, with the exception of a few items, are all very affordable. If I don't like one shop I can go to another cheaper one. If I go to the markets I can get produce at prices that are far cheaper then if I were to go to a shop, if I want range I will go to shops that sell specific foodstuffs, if I quickly need to get something I will go to a shopping centre or supermarket.

The problem is that healthcare is not like that. There is no equivalent to a market or shopping centre, I can't go around and compare prices to specific treatment and choose the one I can afford. I am basically stuck with what I have got. In my case because I am in Australia I won't face the same problems as someone in the US would. If I have a non life-threatening problem I can wait on the government program and basically pay nothing, or I can fork out the money and get it done by a private doctor. But I still have the same lack of choice as I would in a country without universal healthcare but in this case I won't end up going bankrupt if I choose to wait.
I don't see it at all as a fallacy. People misinterpret the concepts of Freedom and Rights. They are not entitlements to objects.

None of you are answering on what justification is health-care your right?
IchabodPlain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:57 PM   #429
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
Please defend your assertion that businesses do not seek to maximize profits, or STFU.
I thought you ended the talk?


I said business want to stay in business, and as a consumer I want businesses to stay in business. This is different than what you are saying I said.

Would you like to try again to mischaracterize my statement?
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 09:57 PM   #430
IchabodPlain
Graduate Poster
 
IchabodPlain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,252
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
So, 43% of every dollar you pay in taxes pays for health-care?
http://www.ahipbelieves.com/media/Th...re%20Costs.pdf

Profits are about 5%. Less than what is spent on taxation.
IchabodPlain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 10:03 PM   #431
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by IchabodPlain View Post
http://www.ahipbelieves.com/media/Th...re%20Costs.pdf

Profits are about 5%. Less than what is spent on taxation.
Your link does not work. Try creating a smaller URL here at Tiny URL . Just cut/paste the URL your are trying to link into the Tiny URL web site and then use the created tiny url here.
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 10:12 PM   #432
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
 
quixotecoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
I thought you ended the talk?


I said business want to stay in business, and as a consumer I want businesses to stay in business. This is different than what you are saying I said.

Would you like to try again to mischaracterize my statement?
If you wish to talk, then I will talk. I assumed when you gave up on any pretense of argument and resorted to whining about insults that you were out of steam.

Apparently not.

You have said that business owners do not try to charge the highest price allowable by market forces.

You see Mr. 'business owner':

Profit can be simply defined as revenue - costs.

Maximizing profit entails raising revenue and lowering costs as much as possible.

Refusing to charge the highest price the market will allow is not raising revenue as much as possible and thus not maximizing profits.

Therefore you are claiming that businesses generally do not attempt to maximize profits, which is absurd on the face of it.

Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but your desperate attempt to recast a competitive enterprise in terms of a cooperative endeavor has forced you to defend this absurd notion.

Why can't you just agree that businesses are not out to provide the best price possible for their customers? It's not a dirty secret, it's one of the first consequences of supply and demand.

I suppose that if you admitted that businesses actually did exist to turn a profit then you'd have to question whether the profit motive is acceptable as applied towards health care, but I could swear you've done that in other threads. So I really am confused.

Pretend I agree for a moment. What do you gain by putting business in a role where it volunteers to accept reduced profits for the sole purpose of saving the customers money? Remember, it's not gaining any customer loyalty or anything like that because I brought up the point of competitive pricing and you pooh-poohed it as irrelevant to why business uses low prices.
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

Last edited by quixotecoyote; 21st January 2008 at 10:15 PM.
quixotecoyote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 10:13 PM   #433
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by IchabodPlain View Post
No. Price controls, and most guidelines/subsidies are counterproductive.
You say that, yet they are present in the US, and you are holding the US up as a hotbed of innovation, so I don't see how it can be claimed that that they are some sort of poison pill.

Quote:
Laws as well in the US are flimsy and full of loop-holes. The US Federal Government underwrites 50% or more of all healthcare costs. Government intervention take the individual out of the financial and medical choices that affect cost.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
The article seems to be about the expectation that hospitals and physicians will have an incentive to perform more efficiently under a new payment scheme. What is the problem with that?

Quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...indexed=googleExample of Public Health Care in the US
They found that Medicaid services tend to be provided by those doctors and hospitals that can provide care to them more efficiently. What is the problem with that?

Quote:
How much of your deductible is profit?http://www.ahipbelieves.com/media/Th...re%20Costs.pdf
I don't understand what point you are making with that.

Quote:
Taking Universality into account is the problem. State promoters long for comprehensive plans to benefit the whole of society, but it must happen on the individual level. The US problem is access. Access requires removal of government guidelines and quotas, state restrictions, and taxation on money spent towards health-care.
How would someone access the system if they have little money and no insurance? Why would insurance companies pick up people that they recognize as unprofitable instead of those that are profitable? When history showed us that poor sick people are the ones who end up with limited access in the absence of any intervention, why would you expect it to be different now?

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 10:14 PM   #434
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,078
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
So, 43% of every dollar you pay in taxes pays for health-care?
No. If you read what I wrote I said 43% of that budget. I did post the health budget you know. That was the A$42 billion.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 10:19 PM   #435
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,078
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Would food be relatively cheap if government was providing it?
No idea. I would say that they wouldn't bother making it any cheaper then it already is.

Quote:
If government was providing your food you would not have all those options and choices you listed.
Really? I am walking distance away from two places where I can see a doctor. Both are run by the government so it is free. See I still have the choice as to which place I want to go.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 10:25 PM   #436
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,470
There is a mistaken notion being promoted here by Jerome and others that the mechanism by which health care is paid for is somehow the government providing. That is an ignorant view point, sorry, there's no other way to word that observation.

Is the government giving you streets and police services because of the way we fund them? Of course not.

It's unfortunate that as people debate how to correct a worsening functioning system there are people who have such a mistaken view of what is actually being proposed.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 10:26 PM   #437
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
You have said that business owners do not try to charge the highest price allowable by market forces.
That is not what I said.


Quote:
Profit can be simply defined as revenue - costs.
That would be the simple way to look at it, yes.

Quote:
Maximizing profit entails raising revenue and lowering costs as much as possible.
Assuming we are using your simple business model?

Quote:
Refusing to charge the highest price the market will allow is not raising revenue as much as possible and thus not maximizing profits.
Not true, in many cases the business will sacrifice profit for market share as one example.

Quote:
Therefore you are claiming that businesses generally do not attempt to maximize profits, which is absurd on the face of it.
No, you are attempting to claim what I am stating without reading what I am writing and relying on your incorrect propagandized notions of business.

Quote:
Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but your desperate attempt to recast a competitive enterprise in terms of a cooperative endeavor has forced you to defend this absurd notion.
I have only presented the realities in contrast to your misconceptions.

Quote:
Why can't you just agree that businesses are not out to provide the best price possible for their customers? It's not a dirty secret, it's one of the first consequences of supply and demand.
Because you are wrong. The goal of business to stay in business.

Quote:
I suppose that if you admitted that businesses actually did exist to turn a profit then you'd have to question whether the profit motive is acceptable as applied towards health care, but I could swear you've done that in other threads. So I really am confused.
If what you were saying was so than all business would fail in short order.

Quote:
Pretend I agree for a moment. What do you gain by putting business in a role where it volunteers to accept reduced profits for the sole purpose of saving the customers money? Remember, it's not gaining any customer loyalty or anything like that because I brought up the point of competitive pricing and you pooh-poohed it as irrelevant to why business uses low prices.
I did not pooh-pooh the idea of competitive pricing. I asked you to introduce in your mind medical care with competitive pricing.
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 10:30 PM   #438
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,837
Originally Posted by skeptigirl View Post
There is a mistaken notion being promoted here by Jerome and others that the mechanism by which health care is paid for is somehow the government providing. That is an ignorant view point, sorry, there's no other way to word that observation.

Is the government giving you streets and police services because of the way we fund them? Of course not.

It's unfortunate that as people debate how to correct a worsening functioning system there are people who have such a mistaken view of what is actually being proposed.
Why do you continue to ascribe to me incorrect presentations of my ideas?

Are the ideas I actually write to difficult to argue against?
JEROME DA GNOME is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 10:41 PM   #439
IchabodPlain
Graduate Poster
 
IchabodPlain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,252
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Your link does not work. Try creating a smaller URL here at Tiny URL . Just cut/paste the URL your are trying to link into the Tiny URL web site and then use the created tiny url here.
http://tinyurl.com/2rs34j

Thanks!
IchabodPlain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 10:42 PM   #440
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
 
quixotecoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote
You have said that business owners do not try to charge the highest price allowable by market forces.

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
That is not what I said.
Oh really?

Quote:
I own a number. None of which operates on the premise that I am going to charge as much as possible without the consumer going to a different business.
Quote:
Quote:
Ducking, dodging, and weaving you go. The price he thinks he can sell it for is the maximum he thinks you'll pay. The profit you're willing to give him is the minimum you can buy that product for. Otherwise you'd be happy to pay above the list price to make sure he stays in business.
How are you so certain you know the minds of men?

Telepathy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote What a lot of bluster to avoid saying that you are in an adversarial relationship with your grocer, as you are with all merchants. They want to charge as much as possible while you want to pay as little as possible. Whether this expresses itself as haggling or shopping at alternate vendors is more of a question of the product being sold.
Quote:

What a sad world you live in.

I want my grocer to make a profit so he can stay in business and continue to service my needs.

This is a symbiotic relationship.
When you can admit that you wrote the posts which are freely accessible and easily referenced, which appear in this very thread and have your name attached to them, when you can display honesty to the point of admitting that the posts with the name JEROME DA GNOME attached to them were actually written by you, at that point I will address your further issues.
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.
quixotecoyote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.