Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18

Author Topic: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL  (Read 25619 times)

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #240 on: July 01, 2012, 01:51:54 pm »

Quote
Does the fact that they deliver lower prices while serving sicker and older populations mean nothing to you?  It's not medicare and medicaid that are driving up prices.  It's private insurance that is driving up prices because if the government controls medicare and medicaid prices too much then doctors go where the money is.  Or again, look at the rest of the world, the more the government runs the show the better costs are controlled.  When you find you are in a hole, stop shooting yourself in the foot and insisting that everyone else is doing it wrong.

(Sources of healthcare spending)


Your logic does not follow. Greater government control/government intervention results in an incredible increase in costs compared to other industries, so the answer is more government intervention?
Quote
YES IT IS!  I DENY IT!

Take a look at Ireland: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=irldebt2gdp&d1=20000101&d2=20120701
Or Spain: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/government-debt-to-gdp

In both countries there were low debt levels trending downwards.

Proving... what, exactly? That debt levels weren't always low? During good economic conditions, the government will of course gather far more revenue and thus won't be in debt despite higher spending rates. If you want to properly deny it, instead provide a tasty pie chart showing the percentage of government spending on individual sectors/departments. For example:

Quote
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg/450px-Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

shows us that the bulk of US debt is created from their insanely massive military budget alongside their unsustainable spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Were one to look at a similar chart of European spending habits, one would likely find many differences.
Quote
Then the real estate bubbles popped and the government had to make insanely expensive bailouts of the banks.

Uh, no they didn't. Insanely expensive bank bailouts were completely unneeded and, if anything, counterproductive for the purposes of reviving the economy. By giving the banks a hand when their bad lending decisions blow up, you also remove the bank's inhibitions against risk. Yes, you can control that with regulations regarding banks' lending habits, but that creates a whole boatload of new problems which would not be needed had the bank fallen in the first place.
Quote
Countries that did not have debt levels thus had debt crises overnight when coupled with ECB stupidity.

There are "news" organizations out there who plain hate a well functioning welfare state so they will relentlessly attack Europe on this front regardless of the facts.  But they're just using the crises as an opportunity to spread misinformation.

Yes, countries are having such major problems with debt because of stupid bailout decisions and because the ECB won't go to town and wreck the Euro, not because tax revenues are at all time lows due to tax evasion as European countries bleed their people for every last penny to pay off their banker buddies.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 01:59:41 pm by GreatJustice »
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #241 on: July 01, 2012, 02:36:54 pm »

GreatJustice, that's the total spending.  The total spending is higher because the federal government is paying for so much more care because it's serving the older, sicker population that get's more care.  While the cost of medical care is outpacing medical inflation it's outpacing it faster in the private sector then in the government sector.

Frankly the way you have been drawing conclusions to this point show me that I don't want to waste my time arguing with you anymore.  But if you actually want to learn the truth of the matter try finding an apples to apples comparison for yourself.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #242 on: July 01, 2012, 03:12:15 pm »

Quote
GreatJustice, that's the total spending.  The total spending is higher because the federal government is paying for so much more care because it's serving the older, sicker population that get's more care.

Your logic still doesn't follow. Yes, the federal government naturally pays more as it serves the elderly and those prone to sickness through Medicare. That has absolutely nothing to do with related price increases caused by the influence of the government on the market or any other related issues.
Quote
While the cost of medical care is outpacing medical inflation it's outpacing it faster in the private sector then in the government sector.

That isn't medical inflation, that's the total inflation as measured by the CPI. Besides that, as a percentage, the US government's share of healthcare spending has steadily increased since 1964, as has (heavily regulated and controlled) private insurance over out of pocket spending. The costs of Medicare and associated programs have also increased by leaps and bounds as a percentage of GDP. However, this incredible growth in healthcare expenses only really began to take off after US government interventions. Whether or not there is a difference in costs between heavily controlled private spending and government spending (which, by the way, I expect direct proof of) is ultimately irrelevant as to whether the government is more efficient or not.

Quote
Frankly the way you have been drawing conclusions to this point show me that I don't want to waste my time arguing with you anymore.  But if you actually want to learn the truth of the matter try finding an apples to apples comparison for yourself.

"Stop using charts, inferences and evidence you big bully! Unsubstantiated claims and allegations are the only things we accept on this side of town!"
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #243 on: July 01, 2012, 04:02:01 pm »

[quote author=GreatJustice link=topic=112341.msg3417229#msg3417229 date=1341173535
That isn't medical inflation, that's the total inflation as measured by the CPI. Besides that, as a percentage, the US government's share of healthcare spending has steadily increased since 1964, as has (heavily regulated and controlled) private insurance over out of pocket spending.[/quote]
Hold it.  I'd like to bring to your attention two problems with what you're saying:
1. Your graph for the percentage spent by the government stops in 1991.
2. The share done by private insurance has been increasing since 1968 according to your graph, and 1968 is around the time that the cost started to go up.  Surely by your own logic this would suggest private insurance is to blame.
Logged

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #244 on: July 01, 2012, 04:03:48 pm »

"Stop using charts, inferences and evidence you big bully! Unsubstantiated claims and allegations are the only things we accept on this side of town!"

Why did you mock me like this?  Are you so proud of the fact that you were able to find a whole three charts and then draw incredibly tangential and erroneous conclusions from them?

What you are arguing is that private healthcare is more efficient.  You do this through roundabout assessment of a bunch of completely irrelevant statistics and drawing a bunch of unsubstantiated inferances; i.e. government spending is rising so they must be doing something wrong.  But we already have an empiracle judge of exactly what you think you are so clever for leaping to massive conclusions to find.  We have the cross country comparisons.  We don't need your just so incredibly insightful opinion on this matter, we can look at the facts.

So let's stop being cute and look at how your theory holds up in the real world:



This is a vastly better test of what you are blathering on about then anything that you have said.  Here we see how your theories work in the real world.  And they are an abject failure.  The US is vastly, vastly overpaying for healthcare.

You, sir, are arguing for a turd.  A complete turd that is creating huge waste and suffering because people like you prop it up.  And then when I point out that your comparisons suck you say that I'm not going to empirical evidence.  But there is empirical evidence, it just shows how wrong you are.  Whine all you want about a bunch of ancillary statistics that you don't understand.  Just understand the main statistic.  And the main statistic is that what you are saying is dramatically, dramatically wrong.  I could point out all the many smaller ways that you are wrong but until you get that main big central issue I don't get the point.

I don't think I'm going to convince you.  The only way you would have learned is if you actually had an interest in learning about this subject.  Given the incredibly bad comparisons you have been making to this point I do not think you have such an interest.  But you mocked me so I just want to point out how incredibly bad your ideas are.

Your ideas are bad to the tune of $4,000 a person per year.  That means that for the average household they are bad to an extent of more then $10,000 a year.  $10,000 dollars a year out of the average american household wasted in inflated medical bills, wasted tax dollars and economic inefficiency affecting consumer prices and investment across the economy.  That's 1/5th of the median households income being pissed away because people like you who are so smug about how great that free market system is.  And rather then learn basic mico-economics you want to double down on this stupidity and insist that what we need is a more free market approach.  No, what we need is for people to actually look at how ideas hold up in the real world.

Why did you mock me?
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #245 on: July 01, 2012, 05:55:30 pm »

Quote
Why did you mock me like this?  Are you so proud of the fact that you were able to find a whole three charts and then draw incredibly tangential and erroneous conclusions from them?

What you are arguing is that private healthcare is more efficient.  You do this through roundabout assessment of a bunch of completely irrelevant statistics and drawing a bunch of unsubstantiated inferances; i.e. government spending is rising so they must be doing something wrong.  But we already have an empiracle judge of exactly what you think you are so clever for leaping to massive conclusions to find.  We have the cross country comparisons.  We don't need your just so incredibly insightful opinion on this matter, we can look at the facts.

So let's stop being cute and look at how your theory holds up in the real world:




I say: The American healthcare system is very bad because of a variety of factors (blah blah INSURANCE blah blah MEDICARE blah blah AMA etc) which in turn result in increased cost without associated increases in quality, but single payer systems are hardly the ideal solution as shown by the instances of X, Y, and Z

You say: But Justice, your charts detailing American healthcare costs are flawed because blah blah blah!

I say: No, you're misinterpreting what my charts say, it's pretty clear that my points are still valid

You say: PFAH! AMERICAN HEALTHCARE IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN HEALTHCARE IN MOST COUNTRIES! YOUR ARGUMENT HAS BEEN CRUSHED

Except you haven't proven that I'm wrong, you've erected a strawman of me crowing the benefits of the present quasi-fascist healthcare system the US has going right now, called that a "free market", and proven him wrong. That's a rather silly attempt right there, like comparing 1930s Italy with the 1930s Soviet Union and coming to the conclusion that Fascism is better than Democracy (since the USSR claimed to be "democratic").

Yes, the weird creature of American healthcare is far more expensive than it needs to be, no, it is not so because of "evil businessmen".

Quote
This is a vastly better test of what you are blathering on about then anything that you have said.  Here we see how your theories work in the real world.  And they are an abject failure.  The US is vastly, vastly overpaying for healthcare.

Oh man, you really beat me good. Please, have mercy, I can't handle this terrible intellectual beating you're leveling on my pitiful arguments.
Quote

You, sir, are arguing for a turd.  A complete turd that is creating huge waste and suffering because people like you prop it up.  And then when I point out that your comparisons suck you say that I'm not going to empirical evidence.  But there is empirical evidence, it just shows how wrong you are.  Whine all you want about a bunch of ancillary statistics that you don't understand.  Just understand the main statistic.  And the main statistic is that what you are saying is dramatically, dramatically wrong.  I could point out all the many smaller ways that you are wrong but until you get that main big central issue I don't get the point.
Quote
I don't get the point.

Well, you've certainly been missing it quite grandly so far, so I kind of see why.

Quote
I don't think I'm going to convince you.  The only way you would have learned is if you actually had an interest in learning about this subject.  Given the incredibly bad comparisons you have been making to this point I do not think you have such an interest.  But you mocked me so I just want to point out how incredibly bad your ideas are.

You have yet to point out an actual problem with my ideas, you've just basically copy and pasted an argument against the present American system in favour of a single payer system.
Quote


Your ideas are bad to the tune of $4,000 a person per year.  That means that for the average household they are bad to an extent of more then $10,000 a year.  $10,000 dollars a year out of the average american household wasted in inflated medical bills, wasted tax dollars and economic inefficiency affecting consumer prices and investment across the economy.  That's 1/5th of the median households income being pissed away because people like you who are so smug about how great that free market system is.  And rather then learn basic mico-economics you want to double down on this stupidity and insist that what we need is a more free market approach.  No, what we need is for people to actually look at how ideas hold up in the real world.

BLAH BLAH BLAH THE AMERICAN SYSTEM IS TERRIBLE BLAH BLAH BLAH

You're still going on a tangent as you clearly haven't bothered to read much about what I advocate. But, seeing as how you might want evidence, how much do you think the average household paid for healthcare before the mid 1960s, when the government was comparatively uninvolved in the industry?

Inflation adjusted, around $3,000 (source can be provided on request). Lower than the vast majority of those countries provided in your chart, and without any of the associated problems that come with single payer systems (waiting lists and so on). See, when you don't whip out a strawman, you have to actually put some effort into arguing point by point, rather than making a blanket statement.
Quote
Why did you mock me?

Because you aren't trying to argue with me, you're trying to argue with a caricature of my views and sliding past what I'm actually saying, which frankly annoys me. I put a fair bit of time into reading what other people have to say before blurting out my own opinion, so I expect others to treat me with the same courtesy.
Quote
Hold it.  I'd like to bring to your attention two problems with what you're saying:
1. Your graph for the percentage spent by the government stops in 1991.

Now here's more reasonable criticism.

Yes, I know my graph for the percentage of government spending in healthcare ends in 1991. That isn't an attempt to cherry pick data, that literally happens to be where the chart ends. If I find a nicer one going up to modern day I'll post it, though I seriously doubt that out-of-pocket spending has suddenly risen.

Quote
2. The share done by private insurance has been increasing since 1968 according to your graph, and 1968 is around the time that the cost started to go up.  Surely by your own logic this would suggest private insurance is to blame.

A good observation. A couple of things to keep in mind:

1. Private insurance rates were higher for a while, and from 1968 to 1974 or so were just recovering from a decline after 1965, and increases in private insurance have been comparatively slow and steady since then

2. As I said earlier, private insurance in the US healthcare industry for the past 60-70 years hasn't really functioned as insurance, it's functioned as a third party payment plan for healthcare due to various mandates, incentives, and so on. Because of the ways insurance functions in the US, it has little incentive to look for the cheapest or most cost-efficient option. What you get is people paying for insurance, and then they use insurance to pay for their doctor's visits/checkups/drugs, and then the doctor recommends the most expensive/"best" option (like the drug that increases your chance of survival by 1.5% more than another drug but costs 100x more) due to various other laws that hold the doctor responsible if he considers the cost over the success rate alone (so the guy who has a problem when the doctor could have prescribed him something way more expensive and infinitesimally more successful, that guy can sue and probably beat the doctor for absurd amounts of money). In turn, the insurance companies respond to increased need to spend by jacking up rates and denying payouts to everyone they can get away with. For all the problems single payer systems have, this is one they generally avoid outright, and likely a contributing factor as to why their expenses are presently lower.

So yeah, to a point private insurance is to blame. However, the problems caused by private insurance in the US are only possible due to US government intervention.
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #246 on: July 01, 2012, 05:59:37 pm »

So make incredibly tangental arguments, then accuse me of making strawmen arguments when I actually point out the center of the matter.  Then resort to 5 year old mockery.

Nice work.

Of course then you go on to blame every problem with the private healthcare costs on the government.  I.E. a "unfalsifiable proposition".  But remember it's me who refuses to back up my arguments.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 06:07:04 pm by mainiac »
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Descan

  • Bay Watcher
  • [HEADING INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #247 on: July 01, 2012, 06:01:08 pm »

THIS IS WHY I HATE POLITICS ON THE INTERNET.
Logged
Quote from: SalmonGod
Your innocent viking escapades for canadian social justice and immortality make my flagellum wiggle, too.
Quote from: Myroc
Descan confirmed for antichrist.
Quote from: LeoLeonardoIII
I wonder if any of us don't love Descan.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #248 on: July 01, 2012, 06:03:21 pm »

Also wasn't one of the major reasons why the current proposed Healthcare system being unconstitutional because it allows the government to basically tell you what you must buy?
Logged

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #249 on: July 01, 2012, 06:14:25 pm »

THIS IS WHY I HATE POLITICS ON THE INTERNET.
It's usually better on these boards. We do occasionally have people talk past each other though (you know, like right now) resulting in silliness.
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #250 on: July 01, 2012, 06:18:07 pm »

THIS IS WHY I HATE POLITICS ON THE INTERNET.
It's usually better on these boards. We do occasionally have people talk past each other though (you know, like right now) resulting in silliness.

Could you please tell me in what way I am talking past him?
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #251 on: July 01, 2012, 06:18:45 pm »

So make incredibly tangental arguments, then accuse me of making strawmen arguments when I actually point out the center of the matter.  Then resort to 5 year old mockery.

Actually, I have to give him this point. The chart you provided is all of jack-shit relevant to what he's arguing. I'm... honestly not sure why you brought it up. Actually, I'm not even sure who you are arguing against here, because as asinine as GreatJustice's arguments are, you either aren't reading them or you ARE strawmanning, near as I can tell. So... yeah. His "x and z is bad, but y is good" is not in any way related to "x and z are better in this country than they are in this other country thanks to different balancing", as if its remotely relevant for the point in question.

GJ - stop being a dick, and start making coherent arguments. Can you get us cost datas for comparable countries that DO use a privatized healthcare system, now? Can you source those graphs? Provide some additional data that supports your argument that a free market healthcare system would/could be better than a private healthcare system across a number of variables? (obviously, Somalia is doing great in dollars spent per person with their free market healthcare, but we also care about the efficacy of those dollars. Paying more for healthcare is okay if people want it more and get more out of it, for example.)

And again, just posting a graph isn't evidence, at least provide a link to your (presumably reliable) sources as well.
Logged

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #252 on: July 01, 2012, 06:23:25 pm »

Actually, I have to give him this point. The chart you provided is all of jack-shit relevant to what he's arguing.

Well I saw it as relevant.  I suppose I might have mistaken the point.  But it seemed to me like he was arguing that a system with less government intervention would be better.  He was doing this by getting into the specifics.  But I felt like we were arguing the proposition that less government = higher costs.  Maybe it wasn't what he was arguing, but if it wasn't then I want to know what the heck was being argued.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 06:25:39 pm by mainiac »
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Mr. Palau

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #253 on: July 01, 2012, 07:46:09 pm »

Actually, I have to give him this point. The chart you provided is all of jack-shit relevant to what he's arguing.

Well I saw it as relevant.  I suppose I might have mistaken the point.  But it seemed to me like he was arguing that a system with less government intervention would be better.  He was doing this by getting into the specifics.  But I felt like we were arguing the proposition that less government = higher costs.  Maybe it wasn't what he was arguing, but if it wasn't then I want to know what the heck was being argued.
He was argueing that the reason US healthcare costs have risen is because of increased government intervention, insurance, the AMA, FDA etc.  Ergo, showing that American Healthcare is more expensive than healthcare in other countries is somewhat irrelevent.  Also, he said this when I was bringing up cross country comparisions, on the topic of Singapore.
No country in the world has a fully private healthcare system (and that would be including the USA), so showing off how highly rated non-private healthcare systems are is a bit like a mid 17th century demographer coming to the conclusion that, because almost all of the richest/most successful countries are presently controlled by emperors or kings, the only way a country can be successful is to be ruled by an emperor or king. Ignoring that,
So since a fully private market does not exist now, we can not do modern comparisions, since there would be no country to compare single payer systems to. Now that leaves us with historical examples.
You're still going on a tangent as you clearly haven't bothered to read much about what I advocate. But, seeing as how you might want evidence, how much do you think the average household paid for healthcare before the mid 1960s, when the government was comparatively uninvolved in the industry?

Inflation adjusted, around $3,000 (source can be provided on request). Lower than the vast majority of those countries provided in your chart, and without any of the associated problems that come with single payer systems (waiting lists and so on). See, when you don't whip out a strawman, you have to actually put some effort into arguing point by point, rather than making a blanket statement.
Quote
Source requested. Also, information request on whether this is medical inflation, or general inflation.

Essentially the only way we can reasonably debate this is through historical cross country examples, like for a time when one country had socialized medicine and another had private medicine and comparing, or comparing the cost of healthcare in countries that had private systems with countries with other sytesm today, while adjusting for medical inflation.
Logged
you can't just go up to people and get laid.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: WHOOOO HEALTH CARE RULED CONSTITUTIONAL
« Reply #254 on: July 01, 2012, 08:43:25 pm »

I feel like that is a dodge.  While the private does not exist in isolation we do know that it has failed miserably as is.  Why does it make sense to not blame it for it's own failures?  If we compare to other countries we see that they are better at controlling costs.  If we look within this country we see that single payer (medicare, medicaid) is better at controlling costs then private and that socialized medicine (Veterans Health Administration) is better at controlling costs then single payer.  What reasonable reason would there to be to not blame the private market?  Where it is absent, costs are lower.  The rest of the market is better at controlling costs.  None of this is proof but it's as close as you can reasonably expect to get.  Strictly speaking the theoretical success of the private system in isolation is non-falsifiable like intelligent design or climate change denial.  But the real world evidence implies pretty heavily that it would be a horrible failure if tried.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18