SC Primary elections tomorrow
- Thread starter ClemOpie
- Start date
SC House district 32 candidate Max Hyde was my divorce attorney. He was strategic behind closed doors but he was scared and sweaty in the courtroom. Pretty good guy but definitely seemed like a politician.
With that said, taxation is theft. At least fix the damn roads with the money they steal from me.
With that said, taxation is theft. At least fix the damn roads with the money they steal from me.
Stop using words as if this is a possibility, it isn't . Socialized anything has NEVER worked, what makes you think medical care is any different? Funding these programs is not sustainable, we can't pay for them, they are consuming the budget, how many other ways does it need to be presented before people realize this does NOT work? If you are familiar with it, you should know the math doesn't add up.
The people we are putting most at risk with this charade is our kids, grandkids and so on, they are the ones who are going to be strapped with the burden we are presently gift wrapping them, i.e. worse medical care + expanding debt load.
There are senior citizens that are deserving of it. Sorry but I see how our seniors are treated daily. I saw a time where it wasn’t like that...
It was once a viable program that’s turned into a socialist charity. Medicare/Medicaid for our seniors and people who truly cannot work because of a disability is a worthy program.
I’m not for government hand outs entitling people but I am for them if they are used to assist those in true need and there are a lot of those. Walk through nursing homes and assisted livings that are under funded...it’s sad. Medicaid assisted living reimbursement is nowhere near enough to properly care for a patient and Medicare reimbursement is awful now thanks to cuts and competitive bid.
Horrible for patients and horrible for business’ that try to supply the services
"It was once a viable program". This is the fallacy perpetuated in our society, people actually believe this type of medical care (level of funding) can actually work for the simple reason/fact that "they" saw it work during its inception or sometime in the past. Well, that type of logic can work for any socially engineered program, take your pick, they ALL always work in the beginning and then they ALL always fail. Problem is, reality soon sets in that we can't afford it and so does denial and then refusal to change course. Now, we have not just put our elderly at risk with declining healthcare/funding, more importantly (us and) our posterity at a greater risk of nothing at all.
Society has allowed and will continue to allow their emotions dictate so-called solutions, i.e. throw more money, elect the next guy, etc.. at problems in hopes of a miracle.
Well I would love to hear what your solution would be...just throw out retired senior citizens onto the streets when their retirement and savings runs out?
I mean essentially we are doing that now when their money runs out. Lots of seniors at home in home health that need skilled 24 hour care. It’s sad
The solution, never expect government to solve non-government issues. The ending is and will forever be sad, this is only one more example in the long list of human ignorance of expecting something from nothing.
Rule #1.
The amount government can spend (via taxes) is directly proportional to the production of the society it resides in. If production goes down, i.e. we lose all of our jobs overseas, then so does government spending.
Rule #2.
Production, and ONLY production (not services) allows every other aspect of a society to exist, including government.
Since the "New Deal" with President Roosevelt, the US has been on a "social" reconstruction mission, socializing any and all aspects of society that should have remained private for the simple fact (proven over and over in history) that once they become socialized, failure will eventually follow, it isn't a matter of if, its only a matter of when.
Since our government can monetize debt (borrow with no theoretical upper limit) without raising taxes, it has allowed massive sums of debt to build and now, approx. 80 years (roughly longer than one generation) after the experiment started, the end is in sight. Or as some say, its "time to pay the piper". There is no one to blame but ourselves (the very people who are suffering now and will suffer) and our so-called "leaders" in government. In all seriousness, I admire people who provide honest well intended care, as many in TI I have lost loved ones and these people are a God send.
You have yet to address the coverage gap in any post you've made.
We have a segment of the population that isn't getting health care. That's obviously bad for them but it's also bad for the rest of us as it makes our prices go up as well.
Look at what Kasich and the R's in Ohio have done with their Medicaid program. If states want to make it work, they can. If they want to play partisan games and use Medicaid as a Boogeyman for the poor, then people will continue to suffer.
"You have yet to address the coverage gap in any post you've made"
Sure I have, it is my very first sentence in my last post, i.e. private doctors, not government officials/bureaucrats inserted into the relationship(s).
If there is a legitimate need for a service and a profit can be made, it will be provided and prices will inherently go down based on available (how much demand grows) competition. If government inserts themselves within said service via subsides, regulations, requirements, etc.. the price will inherently go up. If government takes over (as is today) said service, the price will not only go up as you mentioned, it will eventually cease to exist (in the near future for many people and then eventually everyone will follow) because it becomes impossible to service while simultaneously be efficient and or make a profit.
Its not up to a "State to make it work" when it was never the role for the State to take care of you, me or anyone else. It is up to us to take care of ourselves along with our local doctor/hospital. Medicaid isn't a boogeyman, Medicaid is another defunct social program with a false promise of an illusory utopia.
Sounds great.
Can you provide a healthcare model where this practical? A model where all segments of the population have affordable access to care?
Yeah sure, the model is called supply and demand, the oldest "model" that exists in human civilizations throughout the world.
Not to sound like an ass or being sarcastic, but any service, healthcare included, no matter what segment of population or business it covers, is best suited to survive by the most simple model man ever unwittingly created, supply and demand. You (rhetorically speaking) create a product or service and based on the risks you take through research and investment and the reward (demand) may pay off or not. If the investment becomes profitable, the service will continue, simple as that. If it becomes noticeably profitable, competition will arrive as well and the service will become cheaper over time to some lower limit of profitability.
Any and all service sector businesses have a relatively simple business model. Production models can become somewhat complicated (usually many more inputs) and another animal altogether.
Keeping old people alive isn't profitable at an affordable price and the free market ain't going to change that. The market doesn't magically solve all problems. So do you have a specific solution (other than government support) or are you ok with old people dying of treatable illnesses because health insurance isn't profitable for them?
You have a concept, not a model, for an incredibly complex health care delivery system.
Health care resists free market solutions because a free market does not allocate treatment effectively.
Which is why I asked you to provide an example. Supply and demand is not a model. Single payer is a model. Insurance is a model. Without heavy governmental regulation the patient lacks an advocate and the insurer has every reason to game the system and chase profits. There isn't an example of a hands off health care system in the world because of this.
You are implying that a service, i.e. health care (me visiting a doctor), somehow does not follow the rules of economics. In other words, you are telling me I am not willing to pay a doctor to "fix" me and a doctor is not willing to accept my payment as reimbursement. Do you really believe that? I don't think you do. You are wrapped up in the idea that health care (again, just a service) is only possible if the government "allows" it to be possible because the doctor I am going to visit wants to "game the system" of providing me a service. Well, I am here to tell you, if our business operated as you say one does (gaming the system), we would quickly go out of business. So would the doctor, no difference.
This is called making a living, its the one and only model that honestly works and WILL provide the best service at the cheapest price once the service becomes mature. Which is how all services provide a large swath of the human population a wage. The free market is the ONLY way to efficiently allocate treatment. You are "correcting" me as if you have an example(s) where government health systems work, name one, ONLY one that is not underfunded and relies on government life support to keep it going. There isn't any. All current government health care plans are NOT sustainable, have incrementally demanded more of the budget Y to Y to date, with our system demanding more than our education and pensions combined. More than one and a half that of our military budget. You call this a "model" of success?
Ask yourself one question. If this is the correct health care model, why haven't governments been doing this 100 years ago, 200 years ago or more? Are you implying we are just smarter now and have found the elixir to our health care system? I don't buy that logic and our budget/debt and history supports the free market position.
If you go back and read the previous posts, all of your concerns/questions were answered. But to your point, your right, the market won't solve ALL of our problems, only the problems where people can make money. In other words, if the problem isn't big enough for people to pay money to fix it, then the market won't solve it.
Didn't realize until yesterday but Nelson Faerber ran for SC Secretary of State as a GOP candidate. May remember he blocked a punt against SC back in the Tommy Bowden years
Similar threads
