Obama's new campaign slogan: "Forward, and Over the Cliff."

[Cow Poke]

Works in other industrialized nations,

No reason it can't work here.

Two words: Con gress

[JimL]

Most of which are going bankrupt as well. It also doesn't help that unlike Euro liberals, American liberals are dumber than a sack of bricks. I can only imagine what the JimLs of the world would do if put in charge of even more crap. *shudder*

They are going bankrupt because of private sector corruption which collapsed their economies the same as happened here in the U.S. due to the corrupt practices of the wall street banksters, not because of social policy. Its the middle class conservatives who like yourself vote for the very people whose policies of deregulation allowed these crooks to rob you blind, to crash the world economy in order to further enrich themselves that are, well, lets just say, not to bright.

[JimL]

Also, the thought that it would be a good idea for the government to "cut out the middle man" has long since been refuted by economists, e.g. by Frederic Bastiat c.1850.

Really, and why would spending revenue on actual healthcare rather than on making a profit, marketing, lobbying, and outlandish CEO pay, not be a good idea?

[lilpixieofterror]

Works in other industrialized nations,

No reason it can't work here.

Sure, if you ignore the piles of debt that countries around the world are currently piling up to pay for it or how American's seem to want all these social programs, but do not want to pay the much higher tax rates to pay for such programs. You can't have your higher wages and still have universal health care, somebody has to give somewhere.

[lilpixieofterror]

They are going bankrupt because of private sector corruption which collapsed their economies the same as happened here in the U.S. due to the corrupt practices of the wall street banksters, not because of social policy. Its the middle class conservatives who like yourself vote for the very people whose policies of deregulation allowed these crooks to rob you blind, to crash the world economy in order to further enrich themselves that are, well, lets just say, not to bright.

I guess somebody doesn't look at facts and just sees what he wants to see. Yeah Jimmy, I'm sure the fact that many people seem to want something for nothing has nothing to do with the massive piles of debt that many western countries are currently piling up. It's all the rich greedy corporations and no fault at all of the greedy middle and lower class trying to get everybody else to pay for these social programs. Really Jimmy, do you consistently live in a dream world that is this disconnected from reality?

[Nathan Poe]

As I said before, I agree that shouldn't be the issue.

But it is, and unless you can provide a scenario where it's not, you're not going to have much of an argument -- only wishful thinking.

I think the fact that the government has incentivized this system where all health care funds get channeled through insurance (which is nuts), is likely to blame. This gets insurance tightly involved in everything with health care and health care providers, instead of simply being a contract with the insured person.

Then clearly the health care system needs an overhaul.

And with prices being lower, more things would be affordable out of pocket. Less need for insurance in the first place.

The day a kidney transplant becomes an out of pocket expense, we'll have something there.

It's because you are blaming the motivation of "cost effectiveness" which is certain to be the motive for a government payer. (And only may be the motive for private payers.)

We'll never know, will we -- what we do know is that when Obama proposed the ACA, conservatives shrieked about "Death Panels" which, it turns out, are already the de facto way certain insurers already operate.

[Darth Executor]

They are going bankrupt because of private sector corruption

Partially true. Rich American liberals working together with liberal American politicians crashed the housing market.

However, I'm not sure what this has to do with bankruptcy because those countries were already going bankrupt before the economic collapse and would still be going bankrupt even if the economy hadn't collapsed. The collapse just brought the ponzi schemes you and your ilk run closer to where they were heading anyway.

[Darth Executor]

Really, and why would spending revenue on actual healthcare rather than on making a profit, marketing, lobbying, and outlandish CEO pay, not be a good idea?

Healthcare spending is also spending on profit, for doctors. Nevermind that it's not your money to spend and it's already been tried by the Soviet Union. Remember how well your greed based policy worked then? It'd work about as well now too.

[joel]

Really, and why would spending revenue on actual healthcare rather than on making a profit, marketing, lobbying, and outlandish CEO pay, not be a good idea?

"The sophism of the Socialists on this point is showing to the public what it pays to the intermediates [the middle-man] in exchange for their services, and concealing from it what is necessary to be paid to the State." -Frederic Bastiat, 1850 http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#intermediates

The government can't eliminate the middle man. It only makes itself the middle man (with unreasonable numbers of politicians and bureaucrats and politics/bureaucracy consuming funds).

And for reasons I gave above and many, other, the profit motive, as a rule, produces superior results. The profiteer is motivated to serve the consumers better, and to economize. The government has no motive to do either, and usually has incentives in the opposite direction. If I hire someone (e.g., a doctor, or insurance company) I'm their boss. A government bureau serves its political masters, rather than the customer (who is then only a cost, instead a source of revenue). Government programs are as a rule much more wasteful. They become fixed and stagnant. They are coercive, rather than voluntary.
A free market is much better able to incorporate vast amounts of decentralized information. A government office cannot know or utilize anywhere near as much of the relevant information. With profit signals, economic calculation is possible. Without them, acting economically is impossible.

"Directed by the comparison of prices, [merchants in the free market] distributes food over the whole surface of the country, beginning always at the highest price, that is, where the demand is the greatest. It is impossible to imagine an organization more completely calculated to meet the interest of those who are in want; and the beauty of this organization, unperceived as it is by the Socialists, results from the very fact that it is free."


That having been said, lobbying should be eliminated by abolishing the government intervention. If the government is barred from intervening on behalf of the large corporation, then lobbying is pointless. It is big government that causes lobbying.

And the current market in health care and insurance is not free (has not been for a long time). It is cartelized and subsidized, etc., by the government. This creates these high prices, restricts competition, keeps them and the government in bed together. It is government intervention that has resulted in nearly all health care dollars being funneled through insurance companies. And, from what I understand, modern corporation law imposes artificial divisions/distinctions between shareholders and their company. And these, I think, are the major reasons for "outlandish CEO pay." It is not the result of a free market.

Also in a free market, insurance wouldn't be nearly as involved in health care as it is. If the government incentives in health insurance existed for, say, food, then everyone would be having insurance pay for their daily food (which is stupid, since that is guaranteed to cost more than paying for the food directly), and would result in massive increases in food prices. There would be a crisis of most people not being able to afford food or food insurance. Insanity. Get the government out, restore sane (free market) incentives, and insurance would go back to being just for unexpected catastrophic events.

Then clearly the health care system needs an overhaul.

Indeed. I am no supporter of the status quo. But Obamacare was a move for the even worse, attempting to address symptoms, while increasing many of the things that are the underlying problems.

For the most part, the overhaul needed is to get the government out of it, and restore a free market.

But it is, and unless you can provide a scenario where it's not, you're not going to have much of an argument -- only wishful thinking.

I thought I did give some possibilities.
I'll be more explicit.

Scenario 1) Alice buys insurance from Bob against the occurrence of event X. In the event of X, Bob is obligated to pay $Y, no more no less. End of story. No "cost effectiveness" involved. After receiving the $Y, Alice is free to select what she thinks is the most cost effective use of it.

Scenario 2) Alice buys insurance from Bob, and they have both agreed upon Charlie as a third-party assessor. The contract stipulates that in the event of X, Charlie will judge the fair market value of Alice's loss and Bob is obligated to pay that amount to Alice. Alice is then free to use that money as she pleases.

The day a kidney transplant becomes an out of pocket expense, we'll have something there.

No thanks to modern government intervention.

It's because you are blaming the motivation of "cost effectiveness" which is certain to be the motive for a government payer. (And only may be the motive for private payers.)

We'll never know, will we

We do know. As I said, the government would only have finite resources and would have to make triage decisions: which services to pay for and which not to pay for. Who is worth saving and who is not. To think that putting the government in charge will magically make the economic problem disappear is foolishness. It would be the government monopoly making such decisions as whether to let one person die to give his organs to others.