Health Care Summit Live Video Feed C-Span

[TheSenator]

http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Health-...Town-Hall.aspx


I wonder how much shit is gonna get done....


Single payer health insurance is the only way.

[Vendzilla]

This is going to be a circus
I would be surprised of anything comes from this except some name calling and placing blame, no real solutions and no leadership

[TheSenator]

Its not about Republicans/Independents/Cons vs Democrats, its about mainstreet vs the corporations.

America has the best a brightest doctors in the world. The problem is access to doctors. The rich have no problem with getting access. Its the middle class who are getting fucked hard. The poor have access to the doctors because of Medicaid.

The core of the problem are these private health insurance companies. Its literally the big corporations who have bough our politicians versus the people.

[Vendzilla]

I had surgery a few months ago, I talked to the Doctors about this
Nothing wrong with our health-care system, it's the insurance, that's a fact
Every time someone sues a doctor or a hospital, they get millions
The insurance companies to protect themselves make the doctors run every test that's available, so that in court, the lawyers can't ask why didn't you run this test , These tests cost a lot of money to run.
This is the biggest cost of the insurance companies, they have to pay for all these tests to keep from being sued
Ask a doctor, I did

Tort reform would lower the insurance companies cost, but instead of limiting how much a lawyer can sue for, the president wants to limit how much the insurance companies can charge, does this make sense? Wait, Obama is a lawyer, most of his contributors are lawyers, why would they vote to limit how much they can sue for? It would be like them not voted for themselves to get a pay raise.

[TheSenator]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I had surgery a few months ago, I talked to the Doctors about this
Nothing wrong with our health-care system, it's the insurance, that's a fact
Every time someone sues a doctor or a hospital, they get millions
The insurance companies to protect themselves make the doctors run every test that's available, so that in court, the lawyers can't ask why didn't you run this test , These tests cost a lot of money to run.
This is the biggest cost of the insurance companies, they have to pay for all these tests to keep from being sued
Ask a doctor, I did

Tort reform would lower the insurance companies cost, but instead of limiting how much a lawyer can sue for, the president wants to limit how much the insurance companies can charge, does this make sense? Wait, Obama is a lawyer, most of his contributors are lawyers, why would they vote to limit how much they can sue for? It would be like them not voted for themselves to get a pay raise.

Tort reform is a moot point. Tort reform is about 1.5% of the problem. Tort reform is what the Republican use to distract the real issues.

The real issue here is that health insurance companies are fucking us.

[Wizzo]

My friend Joe came up with a solution, pull the congress and president's Cadillac healthcare plans and I bet that would become a much more productive 6hours...lol

[TheSenator]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Tort reform is a moot point. Tort reform is about 1.5% of the problem. Tort reform is what the Republican use to distract the real issues.

The real issue here is that health insurance companies are fucking us.

Here is a good article about tort reform as it relates health care costs.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...th-care-costs/

[TheSenator]

The Republicans are now calling "tort reform" to extortion. They are dropping key words and phrases that have been market tested. They are extremely slick when it comes to rally the base.

==============

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...th-care-costs/
.
Q.

A lot of people seem to have taken up the cause of tort reform. Why isn?t it included in the health care legislation pending on Capitol Hill?
A.

Because it?s a red herring. It?s become a talking point for those who want to obstruct change. But [tort reform] doesn?t accomplish the goal of bringing down costs.
Q.

Why not?
A.

As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it?s part of the medical price inflation system, but it?s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.
Q.

But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.
A.

That?s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That?s a rounding error. Liability isn?t even the tail on the cost dog. It?s the hair on the end of the tail.
Q.

You said the number of claims is relatively small. Is there a way to demonstrate that?
A.

We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up ? and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.
Q.

Do you have numbers on injuries and claims?
A.

The best data on medical errors come from three major epidemiological studies on medical malpractice in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Each found about one serious injury per 100 hospitalizations. There hasn?t been an epidemiological study since then, because people were really persuaded by the data and it?s also very expensive to do a study of that sort. These data were the basis of the 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, ?To Err Is Human.?
Q.

And what percent of victims make claims?
A.

Those same studies looked at the rate of claims and found that only 4 to 7 percent of those injured brought a case. That?s a small percentage. And because the actual number of injuries has gone up since those studies were done ? while claims have remained steady ? the rate of claims is actually going down.
Q.

So the idea that there are lots of frivolous lawsuits is . . .
A.

Ludicrous.
Q.

In those cases that are brought, are jury awards excessive?
A.

There are already caps on awards in many states. These tend to be on non-economic damages ? not medical expenses or lost wages, but typically on pain and suffering. The first was in California in the 1970s. There is pretty good research on that, showing it reduced medical liability payments. These caps vary from state to state, but they?re generally set around $250,000 to $500,000.
Q.

Many people would think that a quarter-million to a half-million dollars is a lot of money for pain and suffering.
A.

When California adopted its cap in the mid-1970s, it set it at $250,000. That doesn?t mean everyone got that much. It was the maximum. But that was considered a fair amount at the time. Since then, think how much inflation has eaten into that. These caps typically don?t index for inflation.
Q.

So a patient can get reimbursed for medical costs, but they?re limited for pain and suffering.

A. They get reimbursement of medical costs in principle. But in fact, they don?t, because the lawyer has to be paid. These cases can cost $100,000 to $150,000 to bring, so the patient has to deduct that amount from any award.
Q.

Why are these cases so expensive?
A.

You need expert witnesses who must be compensated for their time, which is valuable. You need depositions, which are expensive. You have to hire investigators. You have to pay your junior staff. It?s not worth bringing a suit if the potential award is less.

Imagine you go to the emergency room with appendicitis. For whatever reason, they fail to diagnose it. Your appendix bursts, and you spend a couple weeks in the hospital. I?ve had lawyers tell me they would not take a case like that, even if it?s a slam-dunk. The damages wouldn?t be enough ? medical expenses, maybe a month of lost salary, although the patient might have short-term disability insurance that would cover a large part of that. It?s not enough to justify going to court.
Q.

So you?re saying that a case has to be serious to be worth trying.
A.

The medical malpractice system only works for serious injuries. What it doesn?t work for is more moderate ones. Lawyers discourage people from bringing suits if their injuries are not serious in monetary terms ? a poor person or an older person who can?t claim a lot in lost wages. That?s why obstetrician-gynecologists pay such high premiums. If you injure a baby, you?re talking about a lifetime-care injury. Gerontologists? premiums are exceedingly low.

That?s the reason I say if people are serious about tort reform, they should improve compensation for moderate injuries. Nobody likes that idea, by the way. They say it would make the system more expensive, not less expensive. More people would bring claims. That says to me that the critics are not serious about tort reform.
Q.

But it?s not just the cost of premiums and litigation. What about the charge that it causes doctors to practice ?defensive medicine,? ordering tests that are expensive and unnecessary?
A.

A 1996 study in Florida found defensive medicine costs could be as high as 5 to 7 percent. But when the same authors went back a few years later, they found that managed care had brought it down to 2.5 to 3.5 percent of the total. No one has a good handle on defensive medicine costs. Liability is supposed to change behavior, so some defensive medicine is good. Undoubtedly some of it may be unnecessary, but we don?t have a good way to separate the two.
Q.

Tell me more about the 1996 study.
A.

It was published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics by Stanford economist Daniel Kessler and Dr. Mark McClellan, who was head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under President George W. Bush. For two types of heart disease ? heart attacks and ischemic heart disease ? the authors found that 5 to 7 percent of the additional costs in Florida, compared to other states with lower medical malpractice liability, could be attributed to defensive medicine. This was based on 1980s data.

Using that estimate, some politicians used to say that medical malpractice cost the system $50 billion a year. But you can?t blindly say that all diseases are the same as heart disease, and if you want a nationwide estimate, you can?t say every state is the same as Florida. Furthermore, the second study, published in 2002 in The Journal of Public Economics, found that much of the difference disappeared as managed care took hold in Florida in the 1990s.
Q.

But many doctors complain about having to practice defensive medicine.
A.

Doctors will say that. But when you dig down, you find that what?s really happening is that doctors tend to do what other doctors around them do. They go along with the prevailing standard of care in their region ? which in many cases isn?t even a state, but a city or county.
Q.

If medical malpractice doesn?t explain the high costs of our health-care system, what does?
A.

A variety of things. The American population is aging. We?ve had advances in technology that are expensive. We?re also a rich nation, and the richer you get, the more money you spend on health care. And compared to other countries, we have heavy administrative costs from the private-insurance system.
Q.

If it?s not true that medical malpractice is driving the high cost of medical care in this country, why won?t the argument go away?
A.

It makes sense to people intuitively ? in part, because they?ve been told it so often. And it?s a convenient argument for those who want to derail the process. Maybe it?s a deep political game. Maybe they?re raising it to say, we?ll back off tort reform if you back off the public option.
Q.

What about former Senator Bill Bradley?s idea that medical courts with special judges should be established?
A.

Mr. Bradley has been backing tort reform for as long as I can remember, so this is hardly a compromise for him. I?m not saying medical courts would be a bad idea, as long as they?re not set up in a way that insulates medical providers from responsibility. That?s a big caveat.
Q.

What about Senator John Kerry?s assertion that it?s ?doable? to rid the system of frivolous lawsuits?
A.

I guess it?s doable because there aren?t very many frivolous suits.

[Vendzilla]

Again, I talked to a doctor
Tort reform would lesson the amount spent on excessive testing, I see what you're saying, but it has to be part of the solution and having the government go in and screw with our insurance scares me, when clinton tried for healthcare, the rates jumped, now that Obama is trying, the rates have jumped again

[Tom_PM]

The rates jump when the clock turns. Political party means nothing to how much money thieves steal.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I had surgery a few months ago, I talked to the Doctors about this
Nothing wrong with our health-care system, it's the insurance, that's a fact
Every time someone sues a doctor or a hospital, they get millions
The insurance companies to protect themselves make the doctors run every test that's available, so that in court, the lawyers can't ask why didn't you run this test , These tests cost a lot of money to run.
This is the biggest cost of the insurance companies, they have to pay for all these tests to keep from being sued
Ask a doctor, I did

Tort reform would lower the insurance companies cost, but instead of limiting how much a lawyer can sue for, the president wants to limit how much the insurance companies can charge, does this make sense? Wait, Obama is a lawyer, most of his contributors are lawyers, why would they vote to limit how much they can sue for? It would be like them not voted for themselves to get a pay raise.

The insurance companies make them run every test they can??? thats a joke.

They run the tests like that so they can get paid a fraction of what they are asking for.

If you see a doctor and he says it was 100$ the insurance company says they will pay 12$. If he draws blood and sends to the lab and says it was 75% for that the ins company says they will pay 14$

ask any insurance biller.

[TheDoc]

Insurance companies do not tell Doctors what tests they can and can't run... when you have a problem and a doctor says I think you need a *blah* no phone calls are made for approval - unless it's high risk and you may not be covered. When 10 doctors walk into your room and pickup your chart, the insurance companies didn't order that. When doctors find the issue, insurance companies don't tell doctors to test more.

The person, 100% in control of all tests, is you... and only you.

[TheSenator]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Again, I talked to a doctor
Tort reform would lesson the amount spent on excessive testing, I see what you're saying, but it has to be part of the solution and having the government go in and screw with our insurance scares me, when clinton tried for healthcare, the rates jumped, now that Obama is trying, the rates have jumped again

Tort reform even if it were fixed is only 1.5% of the problem.

I don't want a private "for profit" company to screw with my health care. I would rather have an elected bureaucrat that can be removed from office then a CEO who is elected by the board.

The health insurance company is screwing you, not the government.

[Wizzo]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Tort reform even if it were fixed is only 1.5% of the problem.

You keep quoting that, yet Doctors and Hospitals largest expense is insurance to protect against lawsuits. I met a cardiologist a few weeks ago at a party and he said that he spends more on insurance than he does on office space and his staff of 5 people which seems like a major issue.

[Tom_PM]

1.5% is still the quote, even if it represents a lot of money to your doctor. I dont see how those are contrary at all.

I read a stat a while back that tried to average all the awarded money in medical malpractice cases, and it came out just over $200,000. To listen to some people, you'd think judges were throwing million dollar bills at every claim like candy. It's not so.

And I'd like to ask what your body part is worth when a doctor actually does fuck up completely and maims you by mistake? $200k? What amount? This is not an arbitrary thing. Real people really do get really maimed in real mistakes in real hospitals. Really.

[Tom_PM]

Freudian slip of the morning.

Eric Cantor(R) - "We have a difficult bridge to gap here."

You said it pal, we all know that.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by Wizzo

You keep quoting that, yet Doctors and Hospitals largest expense is insurance to protect against lawsuits. I met a cardiologist a few weeks ago at a party and he said that he spends more on insurance than he does on office space and his staff of 5 people which seems like a major issue.

In lots of states now they have the option of the ins..

Sadly its often the Jurys that are at fault for that shit.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Tort reform even if it were fixed is only 1.5% of the problem.

I don't want a private "for profit" company to screw with my health care. I would rather have an elected bureaucrat that can be removed from office then a CEO who is elected by the board.

The health insurance company is screwing you, not the government.

Even at that rate, if you fix it, the insurance companies don't have that to blame.
And why doesn't the Dems want it, I mean they were going to tax tanning salons to get the money for this, why not knock down that 1.5%?

I agree that the insurance companies are geting way to fat on the healthcare system, but why doesn't the dems want us to get insurance from other states?

those are the two things the gop are pushing right?

Maybe I'm wrong, but having the government take over the healthcare system is not the right thing to do. I know a person thats a senior analyst for the California State medical Board, she doesn't even have a high school diploma or a GED. This is our government at work!

[Fire]

Originally Posted by pornguy

The insurance companies make them run every test they can??? thats a joke.

Yes they do. The poster just didn't specify which insurance company.
Obviously your health insurance providor doesn't want the doctor to run any expensive tests.
But the Doctors Medical Malpractice Insurance wants him to run every test known to man in hopes that they will win the malpractice suit.

[The Demon]

having the government take over the healthcare system is not the right thing to do

I completely agree. The government stuck its nose in the free markets, and look at the destruction they're causing.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Fire

Yes they do. The poster just didn't specify which insurance company.
Obviously your health insurance providor doesn't want the doctor to run any expensive tests.
But the Doctors Medical Malpractice Insurance wants him to run every test known to man in hopes that they will win the malpractice suit.

The only influence they have is a set of standards to use based on the problem. This is created based on the history of the issue, and clearly logical.

Other than some extra xrays... I don't know anyone that had a bunch or any 'extra' tests done on them, that they didn't actually need. I'm sure it happens, but it isn't something that anyone but doctors are responsible for and yourself, being your body you can say no.

[TheSenator]

Originally Posted by The Demon

I completely agree. The government stuck its nose in the free markets, and look at the destruction they're causing.

There is no such thing as a "free market".

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

There is no such thing as a "free market".

Open an economics book. And ideally, a completely free market is the way to go. What we've had over the past century was a somewhat free market with some form of government manipulation, whether a lot or a little. When it was a lot, we were screwed. When it was a little, we were better off.

[TheSenator]

Originally Posted by The Demon

Open an economics book. And ideally, a completely free market is the way to go. What we've had over the past century was a somewhat free market with some form of government manipulation, whether a lot or a little. When it was a lot, we were screwed. When it was a little, we were better off.

uggg....

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0312-08.htm

========================
Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class
by Thom Hartmann

Here are a couple of headlines for those who haven't had the time to study both economics and history:

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative belief in "free markets" is a bit like the Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong.

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

[TheSenator]

continued...... "NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET"

=====
Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush.

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop corporations from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself.

Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business.

If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

Which requires us to puncture the second balloon of popular belief. The "middle class" is not the natural result of freeing business to do whatever it wants, of "free and open markets," or of "free trade." The "middle class" is not a normal result of "free markets." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs."

The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws.

When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions just as capital can organize into corporations, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.

When conservatives rail in the media of the dangers of "returning to Smoot Hawley, which created the Great Depression," all they do is reveal their ignorance of economics and history. The Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation, which increased taxes on some imported goods by a third to two-thirds to protect American industries, was signed into law on June 17, 1930, well into the Great Depression. In the following two years, international trade dropped from 6 percent of GNP to roughly 2 percent of GNP (between 1930 and 1932), but most of that was the result of the depression going worldwide, not Smoot-Hawley. The main result of Smoot-Hawley was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans.

Smoot-Hawley "protectionist" legislation did not cause the Great Depression, and while it may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy ("1.4 percent at most" according to many historians) its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America.

The fact that the "marketplace" was an artifact of government activity was well known to our Founders. As Thomas Jefferson said in an 1803 letter to David Williams, "The greatest evils of populous society have ever appeared to me to spring from the vicious distribution of its members among the occupations... But when, by a blind concourse, particular occupations are ruinously overcharged and others left in want of hands, the national authorities can do much towards restoring the equilibrium."

And the "national authorities," in Jefferson's mind, should be the Congress, as he wrote in a series of answers to the French politician de Meusnier in 1786: "The commerce of the States cannot be regulated to the best advantage but by a single body, and no body so proper as Congress."

Of course, there were conservatives (like Hamilton and Adams) in Jefferson's time, too, who took exception, thinking that the trickle-down theory that had dominated feudal Europe for ten centuries was a stable and healthy form of governance. Jefferson took exception, in an 1809 letter to members of his Democratic Republican Party (now called the Democratic Party): "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

But, conservatives say, government is the problem, not the solution.

Of course, they can't explain how it was that the repeated series of huge tax cuts for the wealthy by the Herbert Hoover administration brought us the Great Depression, while raising taxes to provide for an active and interventionist government to protect the rights of labor to organize throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s led us to the Golden Age of the American Middle Class. (The top tax rate in 1930 under Hoover was 25 percent, and even that was only paid by about a fifth of wealthy Americans. Thirty years later, the top tax rate was 91 percent, and held at 70 percent until Reagan began dismantling the middle class. As the top rate dropped, so did the middle class it helped create.)

Thomas Jefferson pointed out, in an 1816 letter to William H. Crawford, "Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association." He also pointed out in that letter that some people - and businesses - would prefer that government not play referee to the game of business, not fix rules that protect labor or provide for the protection of the commons and the public good.

We must, Jefferson wrote to Crawford, "...say to all [such] individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens [like corporations], on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."

Most of the Founders advocated - and all ultimately passed - tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. Seventy years later, Abraham Lincoln actively stood up for the right for labor to organize, intervening in several strikes to stop corporations and local governments from using hired goon squads to beat and murder strikers.

But conservative economics - the return of ancient feudalism - rose up after Lincoln's death and reigned through the Gilded Age, creating both great wealth and a huge population of what today we call the "working poor." American reaction to these disparities gave birth to the Populist, Progressive, and modern Labor movements. Two generations later, Franklin Roosevelt brought us out of Herbert Hoover's conservative-economics-produced Great Depression and bequeathed us with more than a half-century of prosperity.

But now the conservatives are back in the driver's seat, and heading us back toward feudalism and serfdom (and possibly another Great Depression).

Only a return to liberal economic policies - a return to We The People again setting and enforcing the rules of the game of business - will reverse this dangerous trend. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

If the remnants of that modern middle class are to survive - and grow - we must learn the lessons of the past and return to the policies that in the 1780s and the late 1930s brought this nation back from the brink of economic disaster.

[The Demon]

I'm going to go ahead and call your source "bullshit", as it doesn't seem like anything resembling reputable. Not to mention, after reading this, the guy pushes his own liberal agenda without providing actual facts. So yea, nice source. A liberal, keynesian moron..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Market

Please don't tell me free markets don't exist, because that's just too funny.

[TheSenator]

There has never been a "free market". The "free market" is just a theory and not practiced anywhere in the world. All markets in the world have regulation from the government hence no such thing as a "free market".

[TheSenator]

Originally Posted by The Demon

I'm going to go ahead and call your source "bullshit", as it doesn't seem like anything resembling reputable. Not to mention, after reading this, the guy pushes his own liberal agenda without providing actual facts. So yea, nice source. A liberal, keynesian moron..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Market

Please don't tell me free markets don't exist, because that's just too funny.

Go live in Somalia where a real "free market" is at work.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

There has never been a "free market". The "free market" is just a theory and not practiced anywhere in the world. All markets in the world have regulation from the government hence no such thing as a "free market".

You said there was no such thing as a free market, I'm glad you finally amended that. I think you are misunderstanding though.

Although no country has ever had within its border an economy in which all markets were absolutely free, the term typically is not used in an absolute sense. Many states which are said to have a market economy have a high level of market freedom, even if it is less than some parts of the population would prefer. Thus, almost all economies in the world today are mixed economies with varying degrees of free market and planned economy traits. For example, in the United States there are more market economy traits than in the Western European countries (an exception being the UK, which is considered, even by Greenspan, to be a freer market than the US).

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

There has never been a "free market". The "free market" is just a theory and not practiced anywhere in the world. All markets in the world have regulation from the government hence no such thing as a "free market".

Good article above...

Correct the Free Market is a theory... the base underline that people/demand, etc determine the market price of goods is true. The theory is that it will balance out, which I think is proven now that it won't balance out, I guess that kind makes the free market, a bad theory.

This forces regulation by government for more than fraud/protection, to balance out 'parts' of the markets, and without influence would have killed us, which kills the entire idea of a free market.

We don't live in a true free market, not sure we ever did, we lived under the theory of a free market, regulated by our Government. So I guess it is a free market, but not really at all, maybe it's a mixed market?

[TheSenator]

Originally Posted by The Demon

You said there was no such thing as a free market, I'm glad you finally amended that. I think you are misunderstanding though.

and to further my point a "free market" will not save health care.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

and to further my point a "free market" will not save health care.

How does this further your point when there was no such contention to begin with?

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Good article above...

Correct the Free Market is a theory... the base underline that people/demand, etc determine the market price of goods is true. The theory is that it will balance out, which I think is proven now that it won't balance out, I guess that kind makes the free market, a bad theory.

How can you state that it's only a theory and we've never had it, and then claim that the theory has been proven wrong? How does that even make any sense? And then to base a ridiculous conclusion on ridiculous premises. You sir get a big fat "LOL".

This forces regulation by government for more than fraud/protection, to balance out 'parts' of the markets, and without influence would have killed us, which kills the entire idea of a free market.

This again, is as ridiculous as your previous statements and has no factual backing whatsoever. Moreover, government regulation is subject to as much fraud and corruption as the private sector, if not MUCH much more.

We don't live in a true free market, not sure we ever did, we lived under the theory of a free market, regulated by our Government. So I guess it is a free market, but not really at all, maybe it's a mixed market?

It's a mixed market that gets screwed up every time the government sticks its nose and tries to manipulate and regulate it.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by The Demon

How can you state that it's only a theory and we've never had it, and then claim that the theory has been proven wrong? How does that even make any sense? And then to base a ridiculous conclusion on ridiculous premises. You sir get a big fat "LOL".


This again, is as ridiculous as your previous statements and has no factual backing whatsoever. Moreover, government regulation is subject to as much fraud and corruption as the private sector, if not MUCH much more.


It's a mixed market that gets screwed up every time the government sticks its nose and tries to manipulate and regulate it.

Sucks being on my touch, I can see your posts...

It's really simple but your really stupid, so I will try. The free market was crushed by corporations then crushed by the government regulation. The "basic" idea of the free market, is around.. demand/people, etc... but it's not actually a free market when it's regulated to death and controlled by a few hands.

Who cares if it's the corps or gov doing the damage, either way.. they killed the actual, free market.

The only reason the gov stuck it's nose in, is because corporations abused the powers they had due to free market ideas.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Sucks being on my touch, I can see your posts...

It's really simple but your really stupid, so I will try. The free market was crushed by corporations then crushed by the government regulation. The "basic" idea of the free market, is around.. demand/people, etc... but it's not actually a free market when it's regulated to death and controlled by a few hands.

Who cares if it's the corps or gov doing the damage, either way.. they killed the actual, free market.

The only reason the gov stuck it's nose in, is because corporations abused the powers they had due to free market ideas.

So you're basically hoping people ignore the stupidity and contradiction of your posts(which is all you ever add), in hopes of diverting attention? Classical TheDoc. You truly are the dumbest person on this forum
Btw, I can argue that private sector expansion occurred as a result of government corruption and overstepping its boundaries. But please, BFT3K is gone so I'm left with someone even dumber to amuse me.

And btw, according to you there was no "free market" to kill. Jesus christ this is easy.

Owned

[Tom_PM]

Seriously? It makes no sense to argue with a rock. Trying to do so is all they want.

[The Demon]

Hey Tom, I'm glad you've added something valuable to this discussion

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by The Demon

So you're basically hoping people ignore the stupidity and contradiction of your posts(which is all you ever add), in hopes of diverting attention? Classical TheDoc. You truly are the dumbest person on this forum
Btw, I can argue that private sector expansion occurred as a result of government corruption and overstepping its boundaries. But please, BFT3K is gone so I'm left with someone even dumber to amuse me.

And btw, according to you there was no "free market" to kill. Jesus christ this is easy.

Owned

Dude, you truly have real mental issues... wow.

When something is a theory, it means it can have more than one supporting fact / situation.

But please, be your typical self douche bag, and point out my contradictions in how I view the free market and how wiki, the source you posted, says it works.

"A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud"

Do you actually really add to topics/debate the subject, or simply argue with 99% of the people that post?

[dav3]

Nothing will get done. They will act like they are doing something and try to stall until campaign time so they can take, yet another, break from their duties.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Dude, you truly have real mental issues... wow.

When something is a theory, it means it can have more than one supporting fact / situation.

But please, be your typical self douche bag, and point out my contradictions in how I view the free market and how wiki, the source you posted, says it works.

"A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud"

Do you actually really add to topics/debate the subject, or simply argue with 99% of the people that post?

Thank you for making me support abortion. You claim that a free market economy is only a theory. You THEN claim how this theory has been proven wrong. Let me treat you like a retarded child and simplify.

1. If it's only a theory and has never been put into practice, HOW has it been proven wrong?
2. WHEN has it been proven wrong?

I don't argue with 99% of the people on this forum, just idiots like you and BFT3K, who don't really have anybody's backing.

[TheSenator]

Originally Posted by The Demon

I completely agree. The government stuck its nose in the free markets, and look at the destruction they're causing.

back to the topic of health care reform....

Get rid of the "for profit" health insurance companies.

Expand Medicare for all which has a 1% overhead compared to 31% that is currently being subsidized by the taxpayers. Expanding Medicare will also get rid of Medicaid and SCHIP.

The system would not be perfect but at least there would be accountability.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by The Demon

Thank you for making me support abortion. You claim that a free market economy is only a theory. You THEN claim how this theory has been proven wrong. Let me treat you like a retarded child and simplify.

1. If it's only a theory and has never been put into practice, HOW has it been proven wrong?
2. WHEN has it been proven wrong?

I don't argue with 99% of the people on this forum, just idiots like you and BFT3K, who don't really have anybody's backing.

I don't claim it's a theory, I'm just calling it what's it called. And from my research, as posted as well, the theory part about the free market is: "that it will balance out, which I think is proven now that it won't balance out."

Everything else about the free market, is part of the free market, just another part. People buy or not, supply/demand, prices, labor costs, etc all... the 'theory' and problem, is it doesn't balance itself out to stay fair for everyone, which is very clear.

It continues to require the Gov to step in and regulate, because the market can't stay balanced. It was first corporations that through the balance off, the gov didn't regulate something it didn't know about, that isn't logical.

No reason to argue if the Gov stepping in is bad or not, they still stepped in because of what was taking place. One way or the other, it was screwed.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

back to the topic of health care reform....

Get rid of the "for profit" health insurance companies.

Expand Medicare for all which has a 1% overhead compared to 31% that is currently being subsidized by the taxpayers. Expanding Medicare will also get rid of Medicaid and SCHIP.

The system would not be perfect but at least there would be accountability.

I'm really more interested in getting rid of the pre-existing conditions problem. Not really sure how well your idea would work.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I don't claim it's a theory, I'm just calling it what's it called. And from my research, as posted as well, the theory part about the free market is: "that it will balance out, which I think is proven now that it won't balance out."

Correct the Free Market is a theory... the base underline that people/demand, etc determine the market price of goods is true. The theory is that it will balance out, which I think is proven now that it won't balance out, I guess that kind makes the free market, a bad theory.

Are you really this stupid? You don't remember what you said an hour or two ago?
And your "research" means dick to everyone on this forum seeing as how you NEVER back up any of your hilarious bullshit. But please, humor the rest of us. I'm sure we'd like to know how you've tested an untestable theory.

Everything else about the free market, is part of the free market, just another part. People buy or not, supply/demand, prices, labor costs, etc all... the 'theory' and problem, is it doesn't balance itself out to stay fair for everyone, which is very clear.

No, it's not very clear. Here you go again embarrassing yourself with passing off stupid assertions as facts.

It continues to require the Gov to step in and regulate, because the market can't stay balanced. It was first corporations that through the balance off, the gov didn't regulate something it didn't know about, that isn't logical.

Ahhh when failing miserably, just make shit up and hope people take you seriously. Yet another Epic Fail by thedoc.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by The Demon

Are you really this stupid? You don't remember what you said an hour or two ago?

And your "research" means dick to everyone on this forum seeing as how you NEVER back up any of your hilarious bullshit. But please, humor the rest of us. I'm sure we'd like to know how you've tested an untestable theory.

Which made up thing in your head do I need to remember from two hours ago? What part of my view of the free market did you not get?

Anyway, even Wiki calls it a theory, "...which according to free market theory causes markets to be less efficient." And Google returns 324k results with the phrase 'free market theory'

Just because you haven't heard of it... doesn't mean it isn't talked about.

Originally Posted by The Demon

No, it's not very clear. Here you go again embarrassing yourself with passing off stupid assertions as facts.

Ahhh when failing miserably, just make shit up and hope people take you seriously. Yet another Epic Fail by thedoc.

Typical spew from trolls.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Which made up thing in your head do I need to remember from two hours ago? What part of my view of the free market did you not get?

Anyway, even Wiki calls it a theory, "...which according to free market theory causes markets to be less efficient." And Google returns 324k results with the phrase 'free market theory'

Just because you haven't heard of it... doesn't mean it isn't talked about.



Typical spew from trolls.

Translation: I just got my ass handed to me because I'm too stupid to remember what I said an hour or two ago so I'm going to try to play it off and redirect the conversation in hopes that people don't think i'm a total moron who never knows what he's talking about.

[TheSenator]

Originally Posted by The Demon

I'm really more interested in getting rid of the pre-existing conditions problem. Not really sure how well your idea would work.

Pre-existing conditions is a complicated issue with the current state and the proposed state of health care reform.

Medicare for all would take care of pre-existing conditions.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Pre-existing conditions is a complicated issue with the current state and the proposed state of health care reform.

Medicare for all would take care of pre-existing conditions.

Clarify how we would keep the costs down with your idea.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Pre-existing conditions is a complicated issue with the current state and the proposed state of health care reform.

Medicare for all would take care of pre-existing conditions.

Yup and being the smart capitalist I am, I will refuse to buy health insurance for my family and pay the 2% fine, errrrm tax, then when someone gets sick in my family I let you pay for it by having them get on medicare. That should work out great!

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Yup and being the smart capitalist I am, I will refuse to buy health insurance for my family and pay the 2% fine, errrrm tax, then when someone gets sick in my family I let you pay for it by having them get on medicare. That should work out great!

Hahaha good observation.