 |
|
|
|
Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 04:20 am  Let me introduce you to this new phenomenon, a film about our world and the root problems that can be changed, if YOU will... ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
| |
| Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 10:21 am The human nature segment was okay for the most part aside from an unsupported opinion on altruism, but after that . . . I can see this is clearly neo-Marxist, technocratic propaganda (recalling biopower) using, at turns: hasty generalization (altruism is assumed to be good), false concept (capitalism as exploitation rather than freedom, also freedom as free lunch rather than free choice), genetic fallacy (regarding the origins of capitalism), false dichotomy (individualism versus cooperation), and package-deal (essentially a special case of false concept mixing in a little straw man, every second or third concept: capital/fiat currency [this is a big one], capitalism/corporatism, exploitation/free trade, selfishness/self-interest) arguments. The rhetoric is undoubtedly that of the Left Libertarian variety and heavily Behaviorist. However, my main complaint is that it only has unoriginal rhetoric. I mean how difficult is it to come up with new rhetoric? Segment 4 did have a few instances of decent rhetoric, very subtle package-dealing and bait-and-switch. Unsurprisingly, I saw some Argument by Intimidation, associating ignorance, herdishness, etc. with disagreement . . . but this is the nature of rhetoric. Why can't we get original rhetoric now and then? Rhetoric that is more subtle, more artistic, more convincing. God, our standards low if this passes as halfway decent rhetoric. It's nothing more than a compilation of various cliches, about a fourth of which is stolen from the Communist Manifesto. I like the part where they promote centralized control by a computer. I guess there is the essence of technocracy. So . . . I'm looking forward to being ruled by a computer, are you? I'm also looking forward to not owning anything, not striving for anything, and living happily among my scientifically, "rationally" conditioned fellows. Anyway I'll get right to the point: I would oppose that system with every thought, word, and action available to me. I would not live in such a system and, if necessary, I would die opposing it. "Without property rights, no other rights are possible." - Ayn Rand
| |
| Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 01:51 pm Scarlet, thanks for writing that so I don't have to...but, I'd say that it's not so much that our system is perfect, it's just that those who are proposing this Zeitgeist stuff have their own agenda and do not state their case in a dispassionate way. Btw, I'm not a money hungry capitalist...more of an ascetic if anything (an escatic who likes the internet). So, I don't oppose efforts to improve things, but I see nothing in Zeitgeist worthy of obtaining. Anyway, Scarlet...no need to die. But, yes...I agree almost entirely.
| |
| Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 03:24 pm I dont know any other attempts than the Zeitgeist movies, to force people to think about our present system. The ideas expressed in this new film and the other one (Zeitgeist: Addendum), will sure not be possible and if we all should be ruled by a computer, people who controlled that computer, would sure be deeply corrupt. But I love Zeitgeist for its ability to get people thinking... Why live in, and accept, an ego-society when we all could work together towards common goals? But this dream is impossible and the world must be destroyed totally (I think), before that kind of ideas would have a change to manifest. See the two other movies here: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
| |
| Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 04:01 pm The overblown rhetoric regarding the ills of capitalism are hardly new. You are entirely correct, John, and there is much historical evidence to support your position. Utopianism has been around at least since Plato and has been the source of some truly horrific disasters whenever implemented. I particularly enjoyed the computer notion as well. As a great believer in our technical progress, I find it curious how ignorant some in society still are in that reagrd. As if computers do anything which human designed software does not instruct them to do? However, Adam Smith, himself, warned about the dangers to the market and economic liberty posed by the overconcentration of wealth in private hands. You mentioned many of the areas where there is legitimate cause for concern. Of course, the Left sees Marxism, an undisputedly failed philosophy, as the only alternative to the flaws we have willfully created in our in our economic system. Whereas, the Right considers any criticism, no matter how obvious and clearly in violation of fundamental principles, as an attack on free markets and private ownership. Remove the notion of the corporation as an independent legal entity with civil rights, A product of the 14th Amendment unforseen by its crafters, and we eliminate 90% of the abuses so common to the mega corporations of today. Freedom and liberty must be balanced by responsibility and legal accountability, hardly a novel concept. We, as a society, have been dismantling many of our safeguards over the last few generations in a misguided notion of libertarianism, however. Private and public institutions run amok are, of course, a natural result. I recall something Noam Chomsky once said about Captalism being a great thing... if only we had it.
| |
Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 07:10 pm
I live not for my fellow man, and my fellow man lives not for me. If our goals are indeed common, then voluntary cooperation is the rational, egoistic choice. If our goals are not common, then cooperation is not in one person's interest. In the latter case, cooperation is not possible except through fraud, coercion, or both. Given that a fully capitalistic society is predicated upon voluntary exchange and voluntary associations among individuals: if working together in an ego-society is not possible, then perhaps it is because the "common" goals are not so common.
I never thought of that. Not a bad idea at all if you ask me.
If you're talking about strict laws against fraud and coercion, and protecting life, liberty, and property of individuals from other individuals (and government), I'm with you. If you're talking about the expropriation of private property for compulsory altruism, I'm not with you.
| |
| Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 07:52 pm General Jeremiah... these responders are comfortable in the system as it is. In a new system, those who are comfortable and have more, have more to lose in any event of change. They will oppose any equality and won't feel any different until they have been forced into a box by the present system. For example free and universal health care is opposed by Scarlet, and others because it is their view that they shouldn't have to pay taxes to pay anyone else health care bills. They won't readily acknowledge that the tax revenue that is collected is already spent before it is collected and we have a shortfall for services. The issue of health care is not a tax issue it is a humanitarian issue. But their stance would quickly reverse if one of their loved ones had cancer and received the bottom of the barrel care because they don't have or can't afford premium health insurance. This is just one example of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own well being. A disgusting trend. It also highlights the need for changes because by and large more and more of the American people subject to the system are becoming victims inevitably of the same system. You can't expect selfish people to want to listen to anything that proposes helping others while handicapping their perceived advantages. Anyway, thanks for sharing, for every one of you there will be 10 in opposition.
| |
| Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 08:06 pm Wendy, I don't have any health insurance. As I've said before, if anyone wants to voluntarily pay for someone else's healthcare, that's perfectly fine. If nobody wants to, nobody else has the right to force them to . . . no majority, no government, no individual. It's a freedom issue.
| |
| Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 08:59 pm *"The issue of health care is not a tax issue it is a humanitarian issue."* Being a 'humanitarian' is a good thing, but you shouldnt force others to be a humanitarian.
| |
| Friday, January 28, 2011 - 01:43 am Having ignored the block of words and jumped to the last two (short) responses.... Scarlet - Thumbs up! Serpent - Thumbs up! (because I know what you mean) Wendy - Panning your comments, as they are utterably predictable. And #&@! "humanitarians"
| |
| Friday, January 28, 2011 - 02:48 am Thats a real convincing argument Border C. Let me jump off the cliff if you tell me to!
| |
| Friday, January 28, 2011 - 04:29 am Compassion, understanding, not feeding into the nonsense tax argument against health care, is predictable? For me, yes it is. You all are like lambs to the slaughter, you'll take any quick one liner from fox noise and run with it. Serpent, how does offering every American citizen free and universal health care force you to be humanitarian? You perceive the 'forcing' of humanitarianism upon you by feeding into the silly notion that 'your' tax dollars will pay for it. The argument is not even an argument. It is a joke. Your tax money is absorbed before you spend it. Any service that is proposed or implemented now is paid for not by taxes but through borrowing. Now if we announced war with Iran, North Korea, or China using x amount of excuses you would not jump up and down yelling about your taxes paying for the wars. It amazes me how many of us are eager to contribute and support actions that create death, while opposing things that promote health, well-being, and life. That is utterably predictable, and... pathetic.
| |
| Friday, January 28, 2011 - 05:18 am "It amazes me how many of us are eager to contribute and support actions that create death, while opposing things that promote health, well-being, and life." Good point. "Why live in, and accept, an ego-society when we all could work together towards common goals? But this dream is impossible and the world must be destroyed totally (I think), before that kind of ideas would have a change to manifest." Bad point. Hope you're a teenager; the other options are asshole and lunatic. "General Jeremiah... these responders are comfortable in the system as it is." Missing the point. On the one hand, yes, many of us humans are somewhat comfortable with this system of civilization that has been evolving for many generations. It's healthy... right?... to be comfortable with the civilization your ancestors have built. More healthy than, say, wanting to destroy it. On the other hand, many of us same humans are not complacent, and work to change things, for the better. And we try to be careful and think about the consequences changes may have, and make wise decisions. Difficult, sometimes, when people who could be allies for positive change rant and rave with such vitriol and willful ignorance that it becomes more important for rational people to defend what exists than to focus on improving it.
| |
| Friday, January 28, 2011 - 05:42 am This arguement is as old as time is. Im all for people being healthy and having the right to a good education, house, children etc.... But it is wrong to expect others in society to provide it for those who cant/don't/wont work for it themselves. They do have the right to obtain it themselves. It does not take a genius to understand that the GREAT majority of social programs are abused and only enable further bad actions. You gotta realize tho, things like social programs, health-care, bad economy etc... all these things are just part of the big picture that is all screwed and messed up. So debating things like this is really trivial, because its like painting the door on your house when the rest of the home has paint chipping off, roof leaks, floor is falling in, plumbing leaks, electrical wiring causing random fires and a plethora of other problems. Gotta go back to the basics, stop trying to put a band-aid on a slit jugular.
| |
| Friday, January 28, 2011 - 07:13 am #1 It's such a simple argument to say that people can't/don't/won't work for themselves. Are there people out there who abuse the system and are just lazy? Of course. Is that the vast majority? Not at all. Just like the vast majority of wealthy Wall St types aren't walking around thinking about how to Madoff everyone while wearing monocles and smoking pipes filled with dollar bills. #2 We put way too much emphasis on people's 'individualism', 'get it done' attitudes and 'rags to riches' stories. Success has far more to do with social class and luck than we generally give credit. So instead of accepting that some people started off in a far better position than others which *gave* them opportunities, we pretend like those people did something special and those that weren't *given* opportunities don't deserve support. #3 It's easy to say that because people haven't 'earned' the right to things as necessary as healthcare, in real life it's much more difficult. I don't care how conservative you claim to be, if you see a CHILD who fell from a slide and broke their neck who has parents that happen to be too poor to afford the thousands in medical bills, there is no way you could possibly say: too bad, should have worked harder. I know that is an extreme example but it illustrates the overall issue. #4 We live in the wealthiest country in the world, we can afford to cover the healthcare costs of all people in this country. #5 We already do cover the costs of all people in the country, except we stupidly pay far higher amounts than we need to because those who can't afford care get it at the last minute and in the most expensive places. #6 We panic way too much, we have problems but if you look at the overall health, wealth and future of this country it is positive. We have difficulties, but it is time to stop pretending like the world is falling apart and start working on our problems in a rational state, not a panic state. We don't have a slit-jugular, we have a small tumor that is malignant but has been caught early on and needs focus and intelligent management.
| |
| Friday, January 28, 2011 - 07:17 am I agree, the health care solution as is doesn't go far enough. Canada has free universal health care. They pulled out of the economic downturn before we did, reduced unemployment faster than we did, and their money isn't falling vs the 100 other currencies in the world. Somehow universal health care would be bad? No one is asking Serpent for example to pay for anything. Convincing yourself that you actually would be paying for anyone is delusional. The government is not Serpent, and Serpent is not the government. Free Universal health care would be provided by the government and NOT Serpent Is it wrong for you to contribute to the Social Security fund... Serpent? According to your logic it is... "But it is wrong to expect others in society to provide it for those who cant/don't/wont work for it themselves." The sad thing is that you place Can't with won't and don't in that sentence. If someone cannot, would you treat them the same as someone who will not? Getting away from that now, your other feeling "all these things are just part of the big picture that is all screwed and messed up." Exactly, Exactly, exactly, that brings us back to the top of the thread. I'm glad you see that the entire picture is screwed and the video General Jeremiah shared at least begins a discussion on it. It is sad that for lack of a better solution all opponents will do is bash the only solution presented instead of their one of their own, or offering an improvement to the solution presented.
| |
| Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 03:31 am I agree 100% that there are those who for whatever reason CANT afford health-care or the other necessities of life. For those, it should be provided. I do not lump all into one category, hence why I said "GREAT majority". Because I do think that MOST take advantage of the situation as a lifestyle and not an assistance as it should be. WB you are correct in that many of peoples success isn't an example of a 'how hard I worked mentality'. There is a good book on that subject written by Malcolm Gladwell called 'Outliers', its a good read. But that's not what I'm saying. But what I am saying is that most... MOST, not all... people can provide for themselves. there is a place for charity and humanitarian deeds, but it should even then be on a necessity, not luxury basis. True 'Serpent' is not the government, no ONE person is. Hopefully no ONE person would be as corrupt as the government. I just think the universal health-care system is just a further deterioration of the system. Even if it was an improvement, the resources could be spent much better in other places.
| |
| Sunday, January 30, 2011 - 02:28 am I know where you're coming from Serp and you're right about "Outliers", it's a great book. I really just think that some perspective needs to be added to this issue. It's easy to stand back and assume that most people getting assistance are manipulating the system, it's another when you actually know people that do need it. When my brother and wife lost their jobs and then 6 months later I lost mine, my entire family including my daughter went from fully covered HMO insurance for a couple of hundred dollars a month to insurance costs in excess of $1000 a month...with no job. If it wasn't for the stimulus covering 70% of our Cobra healthcare costs we would have been screwed. Buying individual healthcare is ridiculously expensive for no valid reason. Someone buying care for themselves shouldn't have to pay double the rate of what a company pays for their employee health plans. I'll again say, as the wealthiest country in the world, we can afford to provide every citizen with the most important need they'll ever have, health care. Do we need to provide welfare, Social Security, subsidies, etc...I don't know...probably not as much as we already do if at all. But we do need to provide healthcare to everyone, it doesn't make us less free...it will make us more free. Free to leave 'safe' corporate jobs that provide healthcare to take risks on new innovative ideas on our own...that's a freedom that could make this country a lot better.
| |
| Sunday, January 30, 2011 - 05:47 am I think we try to tackle the same problems, but in a different way. You said ***"Buying individual healthcare is ridiculously expensive for no valid reason. Someone buying care for themselves shouldn't have to pay double the rate of what a company pays for their employee health plans."*** And I agree 100%. THATS what needs to be fixed. The WHOLE system needs to be fixed in order for people to (as the constitution says) have the RIGHT to obtain those things for themselves. Of course there are some extreme cases it does not apply, and total care has to be issued for a select few individuals. The WHOLE system would include things like the cost of a visit to the hospital, if you break a bone the cost is astronomical! Why? Is it because the cost of the tools and materials needed to fix a broken bone is so expensive? Thats prolly part of it. What about the big dollars that doctors make? Sure they should be paid well, for they perform an important role. Is it because the cost to become a doctor is so great? Several years of college and then graduate school? How old is the avg doctor when they actually begin to make money? And this is just a few of the many points that can be argued about health-care alone. What about everything else? I just think universal health-care is the wrong way to go about tackling the problem. Just like most other government run programs, to much waste and to much abuse. Of course not in every case, but in most.
| |
| Monday, January 31, 2011 - 12:48 am I think there is confusion between the terms 'universal health care' and 'government run healthcare'. Universal healthcare simply means that all citizens should be guaranteed a minimum level of health coverage. In many ways we already have 'universal' healthcare in that no person who walks into an emergency room with a life threatening injury can be denied. Unfortunately, this means that people must have possibly curable/non-life threatening injuries/sicknesses turn into life threatening before they are guaranteed care, this causes excessive costs and horrible outcomes. That system isn't 'government run', it's privately run and that is part of the excessive costs that those with health insurance pay ALREADY to cover the costs of the uninsured. Anyway, a universal healthcare system does not have to be government run, it can be a single payer system in which the government is the single payer of all health costs to a variety of different providers (private corporations, non-profit corporations, government programs, i.e. the public option). A person would then have the choice of many different plans, there would be several that were completely covered by the government and some that people could choose to come out of pocket for in order to gain additional coverage. That would be a universal system that isn't government run. I believe Sweden and Switzerland have systems that are similar to what I've described...used to know but I haven't looked into it in a while. Anyway, point is 'universal' does not equal 'government run'.
| |
| Monday, January 31, 2011 - 01:40 am Exactly. Government subsidized insurance plans, contracted through private vendors. All 50 states are doing it now. The programs in most states focus on children, but are being expanded to low income adults. Low-cost, comprehensive insurance plans available by means testing. NOT National Health Care. We DO NOT need the Federal Government further feeding the Health Care Industry. Better to have the Sates negotiating for themselves and providing multiple systems of audit and review, Not just the GAO. Forget the political rhetoric and hype. This problem, at least, is an easy fix.
| |
| Monday, January 31, 2011 - 06:32 am Okay, WB, and FB too, as both of you are reasonable, rational people. First question: How is it that, while food is an absolute necessity for life, we don't feel the need to have "universal food service," let alone "government run food service". Yes, I realize government is entangled in food production and distribution. It is entangled in virtually every commercial activity. And yes, sure, there are food stamps, as well as charity. And yes, some Americans go hungry. Though starvation is rare, and newsworthy. But there really is a network of food producers and of food distributors, not government owned or operated, setting largely their own prices. And it's easy enough, for me anyway, to imagine taking away the gov't penalties and gov't supports and gov't price regulations where they all exist, and still having a functioning system. Why can that happen with food, but not with health care? The last time I asked this Wendy gave an incoherent response, which I took to mean she had no good answer. Can either of you, or anyone else, do better?
| |
| Monday, January 31, 2011 - 07:06 am Massive food distribution programs were implemented all over the world during the Great Depression. Should needs arise, they will be again. Our "Health Care Crisis" is simply a matter of rapidly shifting demographics, coupled with difficult economic times. Again, not a Gordian Knot by any stretch of the imagination. ......unless of course, the overiding principle is not reasonable solution to peoples' demonstrated needs, but rather adherence to political ideology? The market could, of course, provide a solution. We have it now. Pay the premiums or do without. Or accept the care via Emergency Room, and declare bankruptcy. If you are speaking of private charity, such could help; but, the hundreds of billions per annum? Question of scale. Food is relatively cheap. An internist is not. The Market is not the "be all, end all", just as government is not. The free market enterprise system has wrought medical miracles on the supply side of the equation. Using a single payer supplemental for low income on the demand side hardly compromises that. The average American household simply does not posess the resources to shoulder their costs in addition to the retiring boomers. Government taxation will be used to spread the burden, just as it always has. Not the end of the world. Though our Derivatives Markets, churning away in the Neverland of imaginary money, just might be...
| |
| Monday, January 31, 2011 - 07:40 pm Exactly FB, I believe if necessary a person could probably eat an acceptable diet, not particularly tasty or filling, but nutritionally sufficient, for a couple of dollars a day. $2 x 365=$730 a year. But for example, the cost of stepping on a rusty nail (according to this document http://www.mnhealthplans.org/consumers/documents/HowMuchDoesItCost2005.doc which I'm sure is not perfectly accurate but looks about right to me) is $1030. That isn't a particularly crazy injury to have, maybe an hour in an ER without wait times, but it exceeds the minimum cost of food for a year. A minimum amount of food for every person in America would be around $220B per year, compared to $2.3T on healthcare in 2008. The other reason that healthcare is much different than food is that food is an expected expense, I can tell you right now how much food I'll need to live 10 years from now. However, I can't tell you that tomorrow I won't sprain my ankle, cut my hand, catch the flu or find out that I have cancer. As an intelligent person what I should do is assign some probability to each of these things and plan for costs accordingly but that is pretty much impossible to do and the .1% probability that I place on having cancer within the next year at an assumed cost of say $200K for treatment means that I would save $200. It looks stupid when you put it on paper but that is exactly how one should plan for contingencies and if I get cancer, well $200 isn't going to do me much good. Insurance companies spread the risk and are more capable in determining accurate probabilities and costs than I am as an individual consumer. They provide a valuable service in doing so, I would argue a necessary service, even a person in the 90th percentile in income would likely be bankrupted by a serious cancer without health insurance. Finally, people don't die in the U.S. from a lack of food, it's a broad statement and I'm sure some do, but a quick search yielded me no results and I've never heard a story of someone losing their life to hunger in the U.S. Frankly, if it got that far a person wouldn't have to look much further than a garbage can for enough calories to survive, we throw out a lot of food. I don't think the government would need to set healthcare prices, just a minimum coverage level that all plans would have to meet. Then let the market determine how to reach that level of service at their minimum cost to maximize for-profit or non-profit goals. As far as food subsidies go, I'm with you on that...get rid of them...they ultimately do nothing to lessen the cost of food as we just pay for the subsidy in taxes and they have all kinds of negative spillovers the biggest of which is making the food that is the least healthy for us the cheapest which in turn increases our healthcare costs!
| |
| Monday, January 31, 2011 - 08:42 pm Excelleny points, WB. Of course, JO does point the direction of the need for limitations to governmental intervention. Such is why I prefer the many states and counties competing, as opposed to one fix all by the Feds.
| |
| Monday, January 31, 2011 - 09:30 pm Agreed FB, I'd be perfectly happy with a federal mandate that all states cover their citizens with the states figuring out the best way to get it done in their state...no reason it has to be a nationally run program instead of state managed. Under such a system many different solutions could be tested and discovered best practices could be copied to attain maximum efficiency. Many other programs currently run by the federal government should probably be done the same way, more state managed so that there are multiple solutions tested. That's something I do like about programs like 'Race to the Top', set a goal and let independent parties like states figure out how to best achieve them. Companies like Google and Netflix use this kind of strategy to innovate all the time...it's clever and utilizes what we do best, compete for financial rewards.
| |
| Monday, January 31, 2011 - 09:55 pm Why can that happen with food, but not with health care? The last time I asked this Wendy gave an incoherent response, which I took to mean she had no good answer. Can either of you, or anyone else, do better? Again, Jojo, "your mouth would be put to better use if you learned to give good blo(w) jobs..." I thought that would be coherent enough for even you to understand.
| |
Monday, January 31, 2011 - 11:28 pm
You are comparing the incomparable. They are different markets. Suppliers possess greater power, consumers behave differently and the goods/services are significantly different. You eat everyday, you only resort to healthcare every n years; you spend $0,05 for a piece of bread, you spend $100 for a single x-ray. You spend your running budget on food, you spend your savings on healthcare; bla bla bla. You won't discover the gunpowder in this issue.
| |
| Tuesday, February 1, 2011 - 01:58 am Damn LG you are lucky to get a $100 X-Ray Specific X-Ray Procedures and National Cost Averages Body X Ray Cost Average $1,100 Bone X-Ray Cost Average $1,400 Facial X-Ray Cost Average $280 X-Ray of Brain Cost Average $1,450 Skull X-Ray Cost Average $290 Eye X-Ray Cost Average $650 Mastoid X-Ray Cost Average $850 Sinus X-Ray Cost Average $190 Nasal X-Ray Cost Average $180 Jaw X-Ray Cost Average $310 Teeth X-Ray Cost Average $675 Salivary Duct X-Ray Cost Average $1,250 Neck X-Ray Cost Average $280 Pituitary Saddle X-Ray Cost Average $340 Chest X-Ray Cost Average $370 Breastbone X-Ray Cost Average $210 Rib X-Ray Cost Average $220 Mammary Duct X-Ray Cost Average $2,325 Abdominal X-Ray Cost Average $240 GI Tract X-Ray Cost Average $400 X-Ray Guide for Stomach Tube Cost Average $2,475 Small Bowel X-Ray (Small Intestine) Cost Average $250 Colon X-Ray Cost Average $550 X-Ray for Atherectomy Cost Average $9,900 X-Ray of Vein in Liver Cost Average $6,200 Gallbladder X-Ray (Cholecystography) Cost Average $825 X-Ray of Bile Duct or Pancreas Cost Average $12,700 X-Ray of Bile Duct Cost Average $4,600 Spine X-Ray Cost Average $280 Sacroiliac Joint X-Ray Cost Average $300 Tailbone X-Ray Cost Average $250 Pelvic X-Ray Cost Average $350 Bladder X-Ray Cost Average $850 X-Ray of Urinary Tract (Urography) Cost Average $470 Shoulder X-Ray Cost Average $210 Forearm X-Ray Cost Average $190 Elbow X-Ray Cost Average $240 Wrist X-Ray Cost Average $190 Hand X-Ray Cost Average $180 Finger X-Ray Cost Average $100 Hip X-Ray Cost Average $260 Leg X-Ray Cost Average $210 Thigh X-Ray Cost Average $280 Knee X-Ray Cost Average $200 Ankle X-Ray Cost Average $180 Foot X-Ray Cost Average $170 X-Ray of Toe Cost Average $110 X-Ray for Atherectomy Cost Average $13,000 X-Ray of Blood Vessel (Angiography) Cost Average $31,200 Transcath Therapy X-Ray Cost Average $8,500 Aorta X-Ray (Aortography) Cost Average $15,100 X-Ray of Artery - Head and Neck (Angiography) Cost Average $16,200 X-Ray of Vein in Neck Cost Average $18,100 X-Ray of Artery - Adrenal Gland (Angiography) Cost Average $6,000 X-Ray of Vein in Trunk (Venography) Cost Average $7,100 X-Ray of Artery - Chest (Angiography) Cost Average $4,800 X-Ray of Artery - Abdominal (Angiography) Cost Average $30,800 X-Ray of Artery - Kidney (Angiography) Cost Average $18,000 X-Ray of Artery - Spine (Angiography) Cost Average $17,800 X-Ray of Artery - Pelvis (Angiography) Cost Average $20,300 X-Ray of Vein in Arm or Leg (Venography) Cost Average $16,200 X-Ray of Artery - Arm (Angiography) Cost Average $4,700
| |
| Tuesday, February 1, 2011 - 06:27 am Okay, so you guys and psychos have all made the point of health care costing more than food. Point #1. Then, health care costs are more erratic than food expenditures, and more importantly have a long tail (small probabilities of very large costs). Point #2. There are other arguments you've mentioned but not developed much. Those seem to be your big arguments as to why health care can't be provided for by the free market, while food can. Point #1, high cost: I don't think the cost of health care affects how well the free market can function. We spend more on another necessity, housing, for example, and the free market works pretty well. In fact, government interventions seem to mess things up as much as they help, maybe more. I don't see any particular reason why a higher cost should mean that the free market can't provide it. Just as a side note, I think health care costs are more on the order of twice food costs, not ten times them. My sources say average household food expenditure in the US is more like five or six thousand per year, and household health care costs maybe eight to ten thousand, if you include employer's costs of providing insurance. Point #2, erraticness: The underlying reason for insurance in general is to average out risk. Costs from automobile collisions are erratic, and can run to high numbers if you are liable for damages and injuries, yet the insurance system handles it pretty well. Insurance handles lots of high cost/low rate of occurrence expenses just fine. It would handle health expenses similarly, if it were allowed to function as real insurance. Instead, gov'ts have distorted the insurance market in numerous ways. We don't have a free market in health insurance. You can't buy the product that you might want, you're restricted in what companies you can buy insurance from, and some people's insurance is subsidized by the public (employer provided health insurance is income tax exempt). Do any of you have better reasons for why health care is such a unique service that it requires government intervention? Something better than that it costs a lot (more than food but less than housing) and that the expenses are erratic (as are auto collision expenses and other things that insurance handles). To give you a better target: what is the fundamental reason why we can't we have a health care system where we pay for most routine expenses out of pocket, and also pay for insurance that covers non-routine aka catastrophic events, and only have governments involved by taxing us a small amount and then offering "health care stamps", like food stamps, for poor people?
| |
| Tuesday, February 1, 2011 - 08:16 am You answered your own question, Jo. "Routine expenses" are copays. Full cost for even routine services equals many peoples grocery bill for the week. Catastrophic policies with high, several thousand $, deductibles are scarcely worth the premiums. They cost 25-50% as much as regular policies, not to mention that a lawyer is frequently required to get these companies to honor claims. You hit the nail on head without realizing it, Jo. Third party insurance is all about spreading risk. What makes health care unique is that for many, if not most, it is a routine expense. The boomers have been driving up demand for services for a generation. Thus, the pressure on the supply side driving up costs. Simple economics. Demand rises, prices rise. Further complicating the math is the fact that more and more of the young and healthy are forgoing coverage as policy costs rise. Thus the costs are being spread over a smaller base of policy holders. Prices rise again. I know its hard to accept that the market does not provide for a solution to the problem that will be socially palatable for our society, but there you have it. The market does not care about social equity or morality of any kind. Those values are the responsibility of society as expressed through our political system and government. Taxation, by its very nature, is about redistribution of resources. It will be used to address our health care shortage and it makes sense to do so. Collective purchasing power helps to control costs. The insurance and healthcare industries may scream bloody murder about it, but those are market forces at work. Just in favor of the consumer in this case. We may temporize ad nauseum about how demand should be reduced by lifestyle changes, but what freedom do you value most? A little higher taxes or Big Brother, Government or Business, playing nanny and forcing you to eat, sleep, breathe, exercise, etc. according to their agenda?
| |
| Tuesday, February 1, 2011 - 09:08 am A nanny state that say . . . forces you to buy health insurance?
| |
| Tuesday, February 1, 2011 - 10:18 am What i find curious is that the complete thread has derailed into "pro and cons of universal health care in the USA", while the thread was basically made for responses to the Zeitgeist movement and a different view as humanity as a whole. Can we get back on topic ?
| |
| Tuesday, February 1, 2011 - 11:01 am I doubt anyone wants to step Beyond Freedom and Dignity.
| |
| Tuesday, February 1, 2011 - 11:39 am I personally am a supporter of zeitgeist. So your doubt is invalid 
| |
Tuesday, February 1, 2011 - 02:46 pm
Read again.
| |
| Tuesday, February 1, 2011 - 11:04 pm Not quite true Laguna, I personally have cost the NHS over 100,000 GBP in the last year (NHS = National Health Service of Great Britain), that (do your math) equates to 200 GBP a week ish, and not a one off, that is for the last YEAR alone. And you know where the vast majority of that money goes? well, I'll tell you... The Pharma companies. Private companies driven by market forces on a monthly, yearly whatever basis, they dont equate for one offs costing people their savings, its a constant demand and because the NHS has to achieve certain targets set by the govvernment it has no alternative than to pay these companies what they demand for their patented drugs. PS. Having lived in the US and the UK and having had need of both health systems, you can all demand choice and the right not to pay for societies (someone elses) health care, but remember your stance now when your Grandad or Mom or, God forbid, you, need more than someone to fix your broken leg.
| |
Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - 04:52 am
Stop right there! You're just saying in a different way that we pay as much or more for health care as we do for food. So what? Why does that mean that health care is different? We pay for our own food. Why can't we pay for our own health care? "What makes health care unique is that for many, if not most, it is a routine expense." Please explain why we can pay all of our routine expenses except for health care. It's not at all obvious to me why that should be so. "Catastrophic policies with high, several thousand $, deductibles are scarcely worth the premiums." Explain! I mean, if it saves you from exposure to bankruptcy, and/or saves your life by making you able to pay for very expensive health care, than maybe it is worth it. Why wouldn't it be worth it?? It's not at all obvious to me. And Crafty, why is it that the private companies invent new pharmaceuticals, and the government health services don't? How can you possibly be mad at the private company that charges lots of money for something that saves your life, if the alternative is that the drug would simply never exist? Is having the choice so terrible? Why won't the NHS invent new drugs, then sell them cheap...why? And why aren't you mad at them for not doing so?
| |
| Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - 08:03 am Good for you, Jo. Not laying down without a fight.
We can shop for food, diet, purchase large qualities at sales, control our needs to a large degree, etc. In other words... shop. No such realistic options exist for healthcare. There are many reasons for this, but the situation is highly unlikely to change.
Same answer to previous query with the addition of scale. Have you heard of insurance companies now offering policies for auto repair coverage? Same principles at work. If you wish to decry the existence of third party health insurance, blame the after effects of WWII. Regardless, medical costs exceed most individuals ability to pay for anything even moderately serious. We do, in fact, pay for our truly routine costs. Over the counter products and medications. As my friend, the Cockney demonstrated through his own experience, costs in later life come hard, fast, and heavy. I scarcely ever sought medical attention for the last 20 years.....until my bad leg needed to come off. VA picked up the tab for that.
Human nature. They are overpriced and simply very unattractive to most consumers. The consumer pays full price for all services of routine sort, likely several thousands of dollars for a family and pay for insurance that never gets used, or so it seems. Furthermore, they have also acquired a poor reputation for being consistently honored without a legal battle. The issue for the Pharmaceutical Industry is cost vs retail price. Yes, the company is recouping developement costs; but again, human nature chafes at paying $500 for 17 cents of chemicals. You are entirely correct, that the drug companies have worked miracles, but our society has expectations of the medical industry. The Hippocratic Oath comes to mind. Poor track record there. We seldom have anyone to blame, besides ourselves, for our reputations. We need them but don't have to turn a blind eye to unsavory practices. One other point begs consideration, Jo. The fact that schools demand medical attention at levels they dictate for parents. Parents who fail to provide for their children such medical attention, for whatever reason, can find themselves dealing with Youth Services. You are dancing around the main question: Is a modern, just society reponsible to provide for an individuals health? Most of the modern world has said "Yes, it is" Again, Jo. helping subsume the costs on the demand side does absolutely nothing to impede innovation, entreprenurial initiative, or succesful private enterprise on the supply side.
| |
| Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 03:18 am Okay, I wanted to see if anyone else had something to say before I attempted to argue my piece.
Okay, you made the good point about demand rising => prices rising and a good point about people forgoing coverage as prices rise. This would naturally make coverage for those that need it more expensive. However, you also make the point that "society" should be rosponsible for controlling costs through government . . . and you also made the point that we could argue about how demand can be reduced by lifestyle change and compared that to a nanny state. Now, here is the twofold implicit meaning of your points: 1. By your own expression, "redistribution of resources," along with previous statements, you seem to partially acknowledge what "society's" solution entails: namely, it means the healthy paying for the sick. It means those with money paying for those without money. At this point, I'm just going to say that you shouldn't forget this. This isn't "society" paying for "society". This is one group of individuals paying for another group. You mention "collective purchasing" helping control costs. Whose costs are being "controlled," the cost of the sick or the cost of the healthy. The answer is invariably the former and not the latter. Why should the healthy be mandated to pay for the sick? 2. Now, we arrive at the second implicit point found in the idea that arguing for reduction in demand is tantamount to a nanny state controlling your decisions. Taking this allegation seriously (not as rhetoric), we look at the assertion that the choice is between higher taxes and a nanny state. I ask, "is the alternative to higher taxes a nanny state?" The answer I invariably come to is No for three reasons. First, the market cannot and does not prevent you from eating unhealthily, not being careful, drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc. The absence of resource redistribution does not imply any behavior enforcement. Second, the consequences of the aforementioned behaviors are INEVITABLE. No amount of resource redistribution can prevent someone from developing cancer from smoking OR diabetes from obesity/high-sugar OR cirrhosis from drinking, etc. Third, the absence of resource redistribution does leave everyone on their own with dealing with these circumstances. This was your point. This is also not a nanny state. "There is freedom in choices, but there is never freedom in consequences. Therefore, if you would have good consequences, you must make good choices." This is a paraphrase of a little aphorism that I was taught as a little boy. This concept is absolutely essential for differentiating between a nanny state and the lack of resource redistribution. You CANNOT escape the consequences of your choices. This is not control, this is a fact of life. To argue otherwise is to deny reality. Holding individual's responsible for their own care does not prevent them from making bad choices, it merely does not save them from the consequences of those choices. At this point, I have still not come to a reasonable basis for challenging the point that society should provide healthcare for needy individuals. I have merely brought up the points that the reality of the situation is that the healthy are paying for the sick (or the low-risk are paying for the high-risk, the rich are paying for the poor . . . all of which are inessential to my main point that one group is paying for another group) and that lack of resource redistribution is not synonymous with a nanny state. In fact, a nanny state is highly unlikely in the opposing system (where one group is supporting another group). Why? There is no reason to regulate the behavior of others when you're not responsible consequences of their actions. The corrolary: there is reason to regulate the behavior of others when you're responsible for the consequences of their actions . . . it becomes your business in this case because you are paying for their decisions. This would lead to the shocking conclusion that a nanny state is the natural result of a welfare state. (Society is providing for you; therefore, society has a right to regulate your behavior.) It's not a mystery. "My house, my rules." as my mother used to say. I'll summarize them in two sentences right now. 1. The reality is that you are arguing that one group should support another group. 2. The reality is that the alternative to resource redistribution does not result in a nanny state.
As far as the Pharma companies charging a lot of money, I would like to point out that the alternative is that they do not produce the drugs. If there is no profit in creating drugs, why would they create them? Anyway, the real thing I intend to peel off this quote is the last argument that implies that I would change my mind when I or someone else I know needs care. As it stands, this really isn't a rational appeal. My being sick in no way provides the means of getting well. My parents being sick in no way provides the means for getting well. This is apparent off the bat. I would like to put forth the bold thesis that "Each person is responsible for taking care of themselves." Now, now, before you get all worked up and believe that I have ignored the fact that I or someone else may need help sometime, I would like to put forth a corollary thesis "Each person has the choice to take on the care of others." What we have here is two bold claims that hinge on the ability and willingness of the actor in such claims to provide care. I could voluntarily pay for the healthcare of my parents. I could voluntarily pay for my own care. I could do neither because I am unwilling or unable. In all situations, I am free to make my decisions based upon my abilities, and I am solely responsible for the consequences of the decision that I have made. If I cannot afford to provide care for myself or my parents, I can seek help from others . . . who can voluntarily decide to help or not help based upon their abilities. I cannot emphasize ability and voluntary choice enough. The simple fact is that if I cannot pay AND I cannot convince someone else to pay, I cannot recieve healthcare because somebody needs to be able to pay. The only difference between this and government-funded care is that in government care voluntary choice is disregarded and ability to support everyone is assumed . . . it's easy to get enough money when the people funding it don't need to be willing. Tying this into the earlier statement that being sick does not provide the means of getting well, I should not expect to get well if I cannot pay for it or convince someone else to pay for it. Whose problem is this? Mine, not society's. Who is responsible for solving it? Me, not society. Who should help me? Anyone who chooses to . . . and nobody that does not choose to. I would help out parents and they would help me out, but this fact, that you seem to imply justifies government healthcare, does not imply any justification. There is a massive difference between people voluntarily helping each other out and using taxation (involuntary by nature) to pay for the care of myself or the people I care about. If someone is unable to fund their own healthcare and nobody will voluntarily fund that person's healthcare (directly or through charities), this means that they cannot recieve care . . . and they should not. The alternative can only involve coercion. I can summarize my points here with these statements: 3. Each person is responsible for taking care of themselves. 4. Each person is only entitled to that which the are capable of providing themselves or is voluntarily provided by others.
Now, your argument starts here hinging on the perception of usefulness versus the actuality of usefulness. As far as that goes, it doesn't matter. If somebody feels that the policy is not worth the price or the drugs are not worth the price, nobody is forcing them to buy either. They are subject to the consequences of their decisions in either case. I'm not sure what your point about society's expectations is. There are rational expectations: that insurance companies honor their contractual obligations. There are irrational expectations: that insurance companies provide unprofitable policies, that drug companies produce unprofitable drugs. Two classes of expectations. Don't blur the two. If somebody finds the cure for cancer, they have a right to charge whatever they damn well please for it. Why? Without this person's work, no cure would be possible. If they found a cure for cancer (or produced any drug curing or treating anything) and could not charge whatever they wanted for it, they could just as well not to offer it to anyone. If forced to offer it, they could destroy it. Just because "human nature" chafes at paying for something doesn't mean anything. I chafe at exercising 30 minutes a day, does that mean that I shouldn't do it? No. Exercising 30 minutes a day is healthy in the long run, does that mean I must do it? No. The result of each decision has consequences that are inescapable. The point of schools demanding medical attention by parents is an irrational demand anyway . . . you can demand all you like, but that doesn't provide the parents with the means for paying for it. My point is that the demand is irrational and an irrational demand is not evidence for or against any solution. You can demand care for everyone, that doesn't provide the means of paying for it. I'll summarize this section with: 5. The reality is that medical care costs money. 6. Irrational expectations are meaningless. Now, I should be equipped to answer your final question. 1. The reality is that you are arguing that one group should support another group. 2. The reality is that the alternative to resource redistribution does not result in a nanny state. 3. Each person is responsible for taking care of themselves. 4. Each person is only entitled to that which the are capable of providing themselves or is voluntarily provided by others. 5. The reality is that medical care costs money. 6. Irrational expectations are meaningless. I'm going to focus on this: "Is a modern, just society reponsible to provide for an individuals health? Most of the modern world has said 'Yes, it is'" The reality that needs to be faced is threefold. First, medical care costs money. Second, you're arguing not that "society" is responsible for providing anything, but that one group should support another group. Third, the alternative to one group supporting another group is not a nanny state: in fact, this state of affairs is more likely to create a nanny state. I think it's fairly obvious that you understand the first point and have an idea of the second. I've explained the third earlier. This doesn't yet answer your question, but challenges the implicit assumptions. The alternative that I'm proposing is that each person be responsible for themselves. This is where your answer comes into play. If most people believe that "society" is responsible for taking care of individuals, then most people will have no problem donating voluntarily to charities or supporting others without requiring government involvement. This is where the idea that each person is entitled to that which they provide themselves or is voluntarily provided by others. Saying that each person is responsible for providing for themselves is not inconsistent with charities, helping others, asking for help . . . all of which are ways of helping out others voluntarily. The only thing this is inconsistent with is the idea that someone is entitled to care that cannot be voluntarily funded. You're arguing that one group should be required to support another group involuntarily, whether they want to or not. This is where you're ignoring reality with the appeals to society. Don't operate under the illusion that what you're advocating doesn't involve coercion. If it's all voluntary, then government involvement is not needed and charities are more than enough. To expect people to provide for the care of others when they have no reason to do so voluntarily is an irrational expectation . . . as such, it is meaningless. Now: Is a modern, just society reponsible to provide for an individuals health? If it ceases to be just, then sure. On the contrary side: Is an individual person responsible for their own health? Most rational people have said, "Yes, I am."
| |
| Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 03:39 am /me Vomits
| |
| Saturday, February 5, 2011 - 04:35 am As always, John, an intelligent and extremely rational counterargument. My reply will likely not be received well by your very logical mind.
1. That is exactly my argument. The notion theat every man is an island and that we are completely responsible for ourselves is a centerpiece of Conservative and Libertarian Ideology. It is also a utter fallacy and arrogant illusion. We are a cilvilization, society, and culture that is utterly dependent of the contribution of the individual actors, the institutions (public and private) that we have evolved, and the continued functional existence of the whole. What does that really mean in a practical sense? We support each other directly and indirectly. Taxation is a primary source of that support as it is and always has been the reallocation of resources to other purposes. EVERY society in history found is necessary to tax in one way or another to meets its collective needs and expectations. Therefore, all groups are always supported by others directly or indirectly within any functional society. To believe otherwise is simply to ignore reality. 2. You are, of course, correct. My assertion was illustrative rather than determitive. A commentary, given current and past political trends, rather than argument. 3. IN YOUR OPINION. The historical data points in exactly the opposite direction. I will not even attempt to make that argument in detail in this forum. Volumes could be devoted to the subject. I will add this friendly advice and observation: As you age and exerience more of life and the world, I expect that you will find your notion of personal independence to be more indicative of personal pride than reality. Think of how many people that you depend on today for your life and lifestyle. 4. Again, a personal value statement in direct conflict with reality. By illustrative example, move to some deserted island, alone, and that statement may hold water. Make it as a member of Western Society....... 5. EVERYTHING costs money. Your point? 6. Irrational expectations are meaningless unless, of course, those that hold them decide to take action upon them. This goes to the heart of civilization, its functioning in modern times, and the value of its continued existence. This is a supremely complex topic, that can't possibly explored in depth in this venue; however, my belief is that the provision for subsidizing the health care costs of everyone is, in fact, a modern expectation of modern societies. What price are we prepared to pay to preserve a civil, functioning society? You may believe that we can function as a nation just fine without addressing the shortage of health services at prices the majority of Americans can afford, and you may be right, for now. But perhaps you might study the history of revolution for some insights. A bit of an extreme thought, but societies require attentive maintanence if they wish to survive. Rational or not, when a large group of people's expectations go unfulfilled for long enough, there will be a price to pay eventually.
| |
| Sunday, February 6, 2011 - 02:02 am The part that you're stretching here is that I'm saying that "every man is an island." I'm not saying this at all. I perfectly understand that we live in a society that exists as an extraordinarily complex of relationships. I did not invent the drugs, I did not produce the chemicals, I did not conduct the science, I do not offer the insurance, I do not conduct the operations, I do not create the wealth, etc., etc. I'm saying that because this is true I do not have any right to dictate how those that do these things should use them. If someone offers a drug for sale, I have no right to it . . . except that right which is gained by agreement to voluntary exchange. If someone offers a health insurance policy, I have no right to it . . . except that right which is gained through voluntary exchange. If someone out of their kindness offers me something for free, I have no right to it . . . except that right which is granted by voluntary charity. If I do not produce something, I do not have any right to it. If a life-saving drug is offered for sale, I should thank god that somebody produced it and is offering it for exchange and pay what they ask. The fact that it exists does not grant me a right to it. The fact that I need it does not grant me a right to it. My point is that I have no rights to the property of others. Zero. If someone or some group produces this drug, I am still utterly incapable of producing the drug. If I cannot afford to pay, you may recommend taxation . . . this suffers the same pitfall. I have not produced the wealth required to pay for the drug. My need does not in any way generate the wealth required to compensate the producer of the drug. Of course, you're not advocating that these producers work for free. You're advocating that I take the wealth of others to pay for the drug. I'm drawing a distinction between voluntary means of acquiring the wealth to pay for the drug and involuntary means. That is what I am doing. In citing individual responsibility, I'm saying that I have no rights to the wealth or the labor of others because without their work, their money I am helpless . . . if they refuse to help, my situation is exactly the same. How on God's earth could I justify someone else working for my sake? (1) I'm also working for their sake. (2) They don't mind that I'm not working for their sake because they have chosen to support me. Otherwise? I would say that I cannot. If you argue that I should donate voluntarily, then you may use the no man is an island cliche. I'm all for helping out my fellow man insofar as I am able. I have absolutely no problem with charities, helping out family and friends, etc. I have full knowledge that I owe a lot to many people for helping me out, but I understand they are not required to help me. I understand that I do not have a fundamental right to their help; this only increases my gratefulness. In addition, I think I've done a lot to help out others, but I've never done so "for the benefit of society," but rather, the benefit of the person I've helped. If you argue that I shouldn't have a choice in the matter, then you are making a completely different argument. I'm not saying that we shouldn't help out other people. I'm saying that this help is a benevolent kindness, it is not a right. There is nothing that gives you the right to the wealth or work of others. The ONLY proper way of interacting with others is through voluntary means, both benevolence and exchange. "What price are we prepared to pay to preserve a civil, functioning society?" If I cannot produce something and cannot pay for something and cannot convince somone to voluntarily give it to me, what's left? I can steal the money to pay for it or I can coerce someone into giving it to me. That's what you imply at the end: people will revolt, steal, and coerce into getting what they want. Thus, fear of violence is one reason for justifying the involuntary support of others. I believe it, but it is a bad reason. Counter-argument: I have guns, and I know how to use them. Why shouldn't those with the money and the healthcare resent supporting others if they don't have a choice in the matter? The logical conclusion of a system based upon involuntary coercion is violence in a way that a system based upon voluntary exchange and charity is not. One group is fighting to get what it didn't earn and wasn't given freely. The other is fighting to keep what it did earn and was given to them freely . . . and it's needs are better served without violence. If the choice is appeasing the demands of thugs to maintain a civil society and killing the thugs at the price of an uncivil society, I think you can guess what choice I would make. I'd like to avoid an uncivil, but not at any price.
| |
| Monday, February 7, 2011 - 05:28 am John, You are absolutely correct. I could put up any number of quotes here about the confiscatory stupidy of taxation over the last millenia. The problem is , my friend, that we have simply traveled too far down the path to socialistic government and society. We may decry it, but not deny it. Therefore, the issue is what to do about pressing problems that are politically acceptable to our populace and political system. Ideological arguments about the rightness, wrongness, or shoulda, woulda, coulda of how we can't tax our way to prosperity are just so much wasted time. This is the system we have inherited from the thieves in government and big business that have long enriched themselves from other's labor. That is simple reality. So when it comes to getting health care to those who can't afford it, as well as keep the lid on social unrest, I will shut up and pay my taxes. I have seen barbarism up close and personal. It is well worth avoiding. But I might add here that the middle always pays the bills. If you think the wealthiest in our society benefit from the current system any less than the politicians, or the despised poor who benefit from the largess, you would be greatly mistaken. The majority of taxes are, directly or indirectly, consumption taxes.
|
