Are You Concerned that the CBO Says the Trump Bill Will Cause 11.8 Million to Lose Health Care?

Are "things" like housing, education and healthcare a PUBLIC good and what is the best system to achieve a PUBLIC good? History has proven that no economic theory or system has been able to achieve universal/utopian basic needs for every person. If one accepts that universal/utopian goals are unachievable in reality, what system of policies/governance does best/better for the overall society. Are such public goods better arranged and administered on a micro or macro level? The larger the "state," the more opportunity for greater accumulation of wealth by a ruling class that has the power to dictate who does/does not share in the resources. Does the relative "success" of one group negate the resources or "successes" of another group?

In the post above, the statement that "capitalists . . . present . . . as zero-sum things" is contrary to economic theory. Accepting there are fair criticisms of capitalism, it is not a capitalist convention that it or any economic activity, particularly viewed from a governance standard, is zero sum. Some may gain or lose more than others, but there is not a finite "pie." Otherwise, we would still be discussing budgets/economies in terms of thousands, millions, or billions and not trillions.

 

What would be considered "catastrophic" and covered under a catastrophic plan? And what happens when a lower middle class family decides it can't afford a catastrophic plan because they are paying out of pocket for all their regular care, and still have to put food on the table, and someone in the family gets cancer? Will they be allowed to buy into a catastrophic plan after the diagnosis, or will pre-existing conditions come back into play?

Insurance only works when enough people pay into it and don't use it so that those that do need need it can be covered. If not enough people pay into insurance, then the costs become prohibitive for those who need it. The rest of the industrialized world has realized this and has made the decision the best way to cover everyone is to make everyone pay through their taxes and government coverage.

But we still have a have-assed system with private insurance that competes with other insurance while trying to turn a profit. The system Q is proposing would work fine if everyone was relatively healthy and nobody ever had anything catastrophic happen to them. Or maybe the government forces everyone to purchase catastrophic insurance, but then what difference does that make? You'll still have actuaries attempting to deny coverage in order to increase profit, and plenty of people complaining they are paying for things they will never use.

 

In a way sure. Do I wake up thinking about how to get their patients to leave them? Nope. We are so blessed!

 

There is definitely some agreement with this sentiment. End of life care is one that we do not want to talk about either. I watched my grandfather die in misery for 6 weeks at Osceola Regional when he should have been sent home to receive hospice care within a week. But Osceola Regional bilked Medicare for who knows how much!

 

Thanks for admitting that all this stuff about corporations was all BS on your part.

 

Correct, there isnt a 'finite pie,' which is why conservatives arguing that immigrants taking jobs, housing, healthcare, education, etc away from citizens is a BS argument. So like I said, capitalists and their media present it like there is only so much healthcare and the bad people are leaving you with less. It covers up their own refusal to provide public goods so they can keep more wealth for themselves.

 

And that's the other issue. The fraud and abuse are being perpetrated by hospitals and doctors offices. End of life should be entirely in the hands of the patient.

Our "representatives" do not really represent us, they are bought by corporations and industries. I think if there is a way to get both sides to unite, it would be a push to get money out of politics.

 

You're the one who said capitalists played the "zero sum" game, not me. I was just replying to that. Glad you've changed your position. As to the rest of the post, not really sure what the argument is.

 

Agreed. But the problem is they work with the government to unite in ways that abuse rather than provide care.

 

I said they presented things as zero sum to maintain their advantage and keep people fighting with each other when it comes to public goods. Never said they were honest about it being zero sum!

 

Yeah the aggressiveness of which they enforce seed patents is problematic.

I disagree that GMO in itself is problematic. I don’t know of any evidence that GMO is in itself harmful nutritionally. It has likely increased overall food output.

There could be secondary negative effects, such as certain weeds becoming round up proof requiring GMO modifications to tolerate even more harmful pesticides.

 

I'm talking about we the people, not the insurance, pharma and sugar industries. There are already groups out there of both dems and republicans that are working towards that. There is a big protest planned in DC this month. Both sides will be there in unity.

 

Nothing some Trump branded nutrition supplements and wellness pills cant fix

 

I am all for a push to get health care back to the doctor/patient and the food industry under control...

It is an uphill battle for sure. Because the insurance/hospital/pharma/food have way more clout than they should. We would surly be together on this one! Even though we have different ideas on how to move on it.

 

Let them receive what they voted for..

Less healthcare and services for extending a measly tax cut for the majority of citizens, and on the low end actually a tax hike.

Republicans seem hell bent on increasing wealth and income inequality.

 

the left screams about income inequality - If I make more money than you who's fault is that?

 

Obviously yours