Both of those can work. The other issue is why would you do to a doctor or buy meat from someone that doesn't have a reputation for providing good service?

Look at the chart on post# 631. First the histogram of deaths is NOT a normal distribution. Second the s.d. is over 20. Have you ever taken a course in stratified random sampling? You shouldn't put all Americans into a single group. 2/3rds are fatsos. The another 1/3 has a much longer life expectancy. There are also many other traits which affect longevity. Hence a small difference in life expectancy should be taken with a grain of salt.

Because some things work better by enforcing minimum standards vs. letting the free market sort it out and a few individuals learn the hard way - particularly when people's health or life is at stake.

How do you propose an unlicensed Dr. build up that good reputation? On poor people I guess, like hair-dressers?

Sorry but most humans prefer the idea of minimum enforced standards on food that can kill them, like meat - as opposed to learning which meat purveyor isn't going to kill them by trial and error.

In ACland, medical licensing still exists. There is just no government granted monopoly on licensing that artificially restricts the supply of medical practicioners and therefore inflates the cost of care and gives fewer choices to consumers. The cost of not letting the free market sort it out is enormous.

Deceptive marketing makes it very easy to appear to have a good reputation

LOL, yeah it's really easy for a single mother with a pre-existing condition to pack up her children and move 1100 miles from Georgia to Mass.

You know I would just love for one libertarian or conservative to convince me that their entire opposition to the idea of UHC isn't based 100% on their own greed. I mean, convince me that it's not just about the taxes you have to pay, or may have to pay one day if you become wealthy. Give it a shot.

I still can't figure out when or how "Screw the less fortunate. Screw everyone else. I made all this money 100% on my own in a vacuum, and I want to keep it all for myself." became such a virtuous rallying cry for many in this country.

Nothing better than a guy who can't understand basic statistics lecturing a guy getting a PHD in Math.

LOL, provided you're alive to try them.

Two 25-year olds. You can have the Japanese Sumo guy at 6' 300lbs. I'll take the 5'10", 160 lbs American who run 10 miles a week. Who do you think will have greater longevity?

Two diverse groups of say 100 million people. I'll take the 100 million Japanese and you can have the 100 million Americans. Who do you think will have the greater mean longevity?

The thing I find most weird about this is that this is a somewhat unique attitude to americans, which is especially odd seeing as so many americans claim that the most important part of their lives is following the teachings of some guy who basically walked around saying to give your money to poor people and where the early followers essentially lived in communities that would now be considered some some sort of liberal-hippie communes.

Im not claiming that the bible supports any particular brand of government (ie. you conservatives don't need to point out to me that the following was not related to government and was charity in nature, I can read).

I just find it ironic that it says stuff like

"No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. "



And yet for some reason american Christians are fiercely individualistic, while "those heathens" in scandinavia support collectivism.

She made that decision when she didn't move before these things happened to her. She gambled and lost. Her fault. If she had instead gambled away all her money at the poker table, would you insist that she be given it all back? Or do you just want to make poker illegal? I want to help this woman, but imposing something on millions of people that they don't want because she made some bad choices is pretty messed up.

More importantly though, if you don't live in Georgia, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Let the people of Georgia decide how they want to solve their problems and keep your busybodiness out of it. Do you also support invading every country that doesn't have UHC and making them have it too?

I don't oppose UHC... I support Georgia having UHC... but only if the people want it and not if others want to force it on them. That's called DEMOCRACY. Sorry that you hate democracy.

And...

You know I would just love for one socialist or "liberal" to convince me that their entire support of the idea of UHC isn't based 100% on their own greed. I mean, convince me that it's not just about the the free stuff you get. Give it a shot.

Seriously, wtf. Your inability to understand beliefs different from your own is no excuse to apply evil motives to others. It just makes you look petty.

Also, I'm mostly arguing the position of the Green Party here. Which are they, libertarians or conservatives?

Never?

Turn and turn about...

I still can't figure out when or how "Give me free stuff. Screw everyone else. I don't want to earn things for myself, and I just want everyone to give me everything I need." became such a virtuous rallying cry for many in this country.

When it's so easy to turn such statements back on you, you should maybe consider that your understanding of the beliefs you're talking about is severely flawed.

Well the people nationwide support the idea, so at what point is it okay to force it on those who don't? Like if Georgia voted to have it, but Carroll County didn't, is it okay if they are "forced" to take part?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the majority getting their way pretty much the basic tenet of this "democracy" thing you claim to believe in.


That's easy. See, I'm rich and can easily afford whatever screwed up free market system you want to implement. I still believe in UHC though, because it's better not for me, but for everyone in the country. In fact, I can't think of too many people, if any at all, who would actually be worse off if a UHC system were implemented. Can you?

So if I could wave a wand and create free, high-quality UHC for everyone you'd still be against the idea for some philosophical reason? Explain that one to me, would you?

I see, so a ******ed woman who was raped by her stepfather and now has a couple of kids and a few chronic health conditions just made bad choices? Interesting. How about the children born addicted to crack, or with fetal alcohol syndrome? How about the millions of people who didn't even know they had a preexisting condition until they were denied health insurance, what did they ever do?

Tell me again how it's ME that has trouble empathizing in this discussion.

It's only easy because you mischaracterize "the poorest and most downtrodden should have a safety net" as "give me free stuff".

I think the POV used here is very telling. I'm coming from the POV of "who can we/should we help?'. You're coming from the POV of some mythical person who you think is after your money.

No one gets everything they need from social safety nets. They get healthcare, keep from starving, get need-based scholarships to college. They get a chance to pull out of poverty.

Yeah there will always be some bad apples. But I choose to look at all the people helped by social safety nets. You choose to look at the people who you think are living the good life, as if hanging out at the welfare office with the dredges of humanity and begging them not to cut you off, or waiting in the emergency room at the local ghetto hospital for 6 hours to get some medicine is a cushy existence. Meanwhile you ignore all the people who are legitimately being helped, not to mention the stabilizing influence on society as a whole.

Agreed, additionally even when you consider bad apples, one bad apple businessman (a Madoff for example) does way more economic damage than 500 folks getting welfare checks that maybe could be holding down a steady job if they wanted to.

dino i have multiple issues with uhc.
1. just because other govs can run it successfully i dont have confidence in our gov doing the same.
2. im worried at some point that it would end up causing a drop in quality.
3. i think it could bankrupt our gov or lead to taxes so high that it would be a drain on economy.
4. i dont want the gov to have any more control over my life than is absolutely necessary.
5. i want freedom of choice. the ability to change my dr when i want the ability to get rid of my insurance company if i want.

Obviously the runner.

Calvinist Christianity and Anglican influence are the start of the blame. Creative destruction among American denominations as well. Scholastic, established churches in Europe, the fear of Bolshevism, and the destruction of WWII all helped setting up a sane society with much more textual Christian bases.

Not really, no, but I don't live in GA, so it's none of my business.

You are wrong.

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

Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Whether or not you can get UHC in your community is a decision that affects your life. Whether or not people in Georgia can get it is not, but you are most definitely overruling them having an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives when you impose it on them.

Reminds me of these quotes:

Source.

Well that's a convenient view. Let's pretend that you did, though -- can you answer the question then?


Yeah yeah, by democracy I meant the political and governance system in the USA. Call it what you will.

Well what if my "community" is the USA?

Since we are already getting hosed in per capita HC spending compared to similarly wealthy nations, I don't see how it can get much worse? Plus the big industries (insurance, ect) making huge profits with nearly untouchable growth numbers over the last decade compared to most other industries, are hugely opposed to it. I think you can guess why?

If you have means i doubt this would be much of a real concern. It's not like you will be outlawed from paying for better more advanced covered compared to joe blow.
Doesn't it concern you that we are already paying so much more per capita than other comparable nations, with no statistically significant better healthcare outcomes, in fact most being worse? Does it concern you that the status quo is increasingly terrible for small business?... the so called "backbone and job creators of our economy" said by nearly all the talking suits running for political office in this country.

Btw I was originally pretty skeptical about UHC, but seeing how increasing terrible it is for small business was one the main things that freaked me out about how things are trending with the status quo.
Usually the conservatives that say this are full of ****. They could care less when the government makes direct repeals of our actual rights, like the patriot act or the NDAA, or spends trillions on wars and nation building/ corporate welfare for defense corporations. But when it's to provide a basic level of health care for all citizens, then all of a sudden it's "The government has no right!!"
People with medicare can't change their doctors? can't find additional private insurance for increased care or coverage?