I am not judging van Kemp. Not until I have some facts and that's why I want to know what kind of health care you would be getting. That is all.

That's the beautiful thing about the free market, ~Wornstrum~. I don't have to know where you're from to know that my superior freedoms and wealth provide for me things which your presumably socialist government healthcare does not provide for you.

How do I know this? Because your socialist government healthcare is bought with money. Inefficiently, because you have decisions made for you. You don't have the best doctors. They come here because we pay them much, much better. You don't have the best technology; your government can't afford it. We have it here because I'm willing to pay for it.

umad?

> V.Kemp wrote:

> That's the beautiful thing about the free market, ~Wornstrum~. I don't have to know where you're from to know that my superior freedoms and wealth provide for me things which your presumably socialist government healthcare does not provide for you.

How do I know this? Because your socialist government healthcare is bought with money. Inefficiently, because you have decisions made for you. You don't have the best doctors. They come here because we pay them much, much better. You don't have the best technology; your government can't afford it. We have it here because I'm willing to pay for it.

umad?

That's not proof.  That's called a tautology.

Free markets are the best because I have the best health care.
I have the best health care because I live in a free market.

Unless you provide some external evidence, that's not proof, because you're using what you're trying to prove as proof of itself when the thing you are using as proof has nothing supporting its truth value (as of this post, mind you... not that you're wrong, necessarily) except a statement which has yet to be verified because it relies on the truth of the statement of the former statement.  Translation: As of your post above, there's no reason anyone should say "hey, v. kemp's right" unless they're basing it on an argument you have not made. 

Um... that report means hardly anything new.

"The Congressional Budget Office has extended its cost estimates for President Obama's health care law out to 2022, taking in more years of full implementation, and showing that the bill is substantially more expensive -- twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag."

So... if it costs $900 billion over five years (original report)... we're supposed to be shocked that a permanent program would cost twice that when you double the timeframe?  SHOCKER!

US is a free market? Lolz? If it was, then it would be legal to hire new employees during a strike, or fire employees at will. Additionally, the US system protects monopolies and creates moral hazards.

But they did say it would lower dramatically and become more efficient. The first at least is not true by their own words now. I doubt the second.

~Wornstrum~,

I'm glad to hear that you have better healthcare than that of nations with socialized care. I responded hastily (and not seriously) presuming you were one of the endless citizens of nations with socialized care upset that anyone suggested their healthcare system sucked. My apologies.

I don't mean to claim that the US healthcare system is awesome. I strongly believe it's been gutted and, in some respects, made god-awful by Congress's collusion with the healthcare industry and medical providers. We still treat cancer the same way we did 50 years ago. (No, using new chemicals and newer radiation machines does not constitute different treatment) Spreading knowledge of natural prevention and treatments, often more effective, is not encouraged and, in many cases, outlawed. Natural cures don't make anybody with expensive chemicals and machines rich. This lack of rich people results in a lack of a lobby to bribe corrupt politicians. This lack of bribes results in more effective, less profitable methods being outlawed.

I think I've been clear with the vague description above, I think our healthcare system has serious flaws. Serious flaws as a result of government involvement. A government monopoly on covered procedures and treatments in a government plan results in even more of what I just described above--which is already killing people.

Your link no longer takes me any place, so I can't comment specifically on it. I know that the US is ranked low on MANY lists because these lists are rankings of "availability." Cuba and North Korea rank high on these lists because they have 100% coverage! So I don't give them any credence and tend to trash talk anyone who references them. Now I'm not accusing you of that--I don't even know what you linked!--I'm just pointing out that every list that ranks the USA 20-something invariably is a rating of "availability" and means nothing.

Furthermore, these availability ratings invariably ignore the US's state-programs, which account for virtually all (to my knowledge?) of the US's low-income healthcare assistance. These programs include massive amounts of federal funding, but are conveniently ignored by all of these rankings simply to dishonestly drop the US's ranking by pretending that the majority of low-income healthcare assistance in the country exists.

I'm glad you received better care than the middle-Chinese income is afforded. This is a fine example of my point, though it would appear it's a misdirected point when made to you.

Zarf BeebleBrix,

My point is more that I'm tired of disputing simple facts with small children who ignore the fundamentals I've discussed at length and repeatedly respond with "nuh uh!" because the facts and mechanics I've discussed are over their heads.

References to my healthcare are mockery of those repeating government propaganda that their socialized care is top-notch and rivals mine (or that of anyone with a job and priorities in a free market). My personal mocking references are irrelevant to the discussion, just like their "nuh uh!" statements of disagreement. I have explained at length (and in many threads previously, if 10 years ago) the mechanics by which my claims are realized and given examples of nations using those mechanics to achieve the results I've predicted.

"Translation: As of your post above, there's no reason anyone should say "hey, v. kemp's right" unless they're basing it on an argument you have not made."

This is true. I'm under no illusion that my last post was any sort of comprehensive rebuttal of anyone's objections to my claims. But insofar as objections have come in the form of "nuh uh!" or "my government says otherwise to keep me pacified!" or "this dishonest and worthless ranking disputes your claim!", there's not much to discuss or dispute.

It's called the "Affordable Care Act," yet it has 0 mechanics to decrease costs and [nearly] countless additional taxes, fees, and regulations which will certainly increase costs. 'nuff' said.