House Votes to Repeal Obamacare Provision

[Aimless]

As long as proper checks are in place, why not? Last I checked, American prisons, a vast majority government-operated, have rampant assaults and rapes. Not exactly a great model, is it?

I forget, which ones are the slavers and torturers?

[Khendraja'aro]

It has everything to do with public support for the provision of public goods.

And, again, de facto, you already have public health care. Only the most expensive version of it. Or where do you think the money for emergency room treatment for those who can't pay comes from?

[Aimless]

It's bizarre, they should in fact have the BEST healthcare system in the world for their 300 million people, considering what they're paying for it

[Nessus]

As long as proper checks are in place, why not? Last I checked, American prisons, a vast majority government-operated, have rampant assaults and rapes. Not exactly a great model, is it?

If you consider prisoner on prisoner assault and rape a bad thing, then it's not a very good model, no. But even Old Munchkin wants "bad people" assaulting and raping each other, ie. where the public idea of justice is somehow served. But once you start having similar feed-back loops for having more and more people assaulted and raped in prison, just as you have loops for growing more and more corn, it is in my opinion possible that these loops of money, lobbying and legislation-purchasing will at some point start to go against the public idea of justice.

Now, I realize that Americans really, really love prisoners (and prison officers) assaulting and raping prisoners, but I posit that it's possible for the prison industry to reach a point where it inhabits such a large sector of the economy that the sheer number of people required for the raping and the assaulting means that it will in some way touch almost everyone. That could be a breaking point, but the soft sciences are more your field than mine!

On the other hand, is the argument then that with the proper checks in place (how could they be put in place if the government is fundamentally unable to govern?) the private sector could produce the most efficient centers for rehabilitation? How would this be incentivized? Ostensibly you still wouldn't actually have private parties buying verdicts to put other private parties behind bars; there'd be some kind of external justice system that'd be funded by taxes. (Or would there?) And then the government would buy this prison service from the private sector, like it does with Black Water and what have you. How do you set up the funding so that it'd actually make the facilities genuinely rehabilitate as many people as possible? (I am assuming you would prefer this over the rape and assault factories, I apologize if that's rude.) Would the government also purchase some kind of evaluation system from the private sector? How do you make sure these two industries don't form a cartel? Especially since a vast majority of capital is accumulating in a smaller and smaller number of hands, it might even be logistically impossible to keep the two industries' leads apart.

If you can show that this would be the cheapest and most rehabilitating system out there, I would be really interested in seeing that. And before you say it, no, I'm not suggesting by some long con that, say, the Norwegian system would carry over well to the US. I guess the way I see it, it's the path of least resistance for the citizenship to try and stop its own government from operating rape factories, rather than just throwing their hands in the air, shoving the whole thing off for the private sector to have a go and hope for the best. (Or it would be, if the citizenry had any way of influencing its own government; this doesn't seem like a "thing" these days. Damn kids, get off my lawn!) It's entirely plausible to me that this would cost the tax payers some extra money, but I wonder what the price tag is on rape factory removal? How much is too much? I haven't a clue.

[Lewkowski]

So is that an argument for private for profit prisons? I'm sorry, I'm honestly this dense today, I think it might be a better idea to watch moving pictures...

Because government employees tend to be lazy, inefficient, overpaid and almost impossible to fire?

When the government controls something there is no incentive for cost containment. When the private sector is running something you introduce the most wonderful force in the world, competition.

[GGT]

Because government employees tend to be lazy, inefficient, overpaid and almost impossible to fire?

When the government controls something there is no incentive for cost containment. When the private sector is running something you introduce the most wonderful force in the world, competition.

Your comment about gov't employees aside do you see all Laws or Regulations as "government control"?

[Lewkowski]

Your comment about gov't employees aside do you see all Laws or Regulations as "government control"?

Of course. Laws and regulation are a form of control by the government. *Some* are necessary but not most.

[GGT]

Of course. Laws and regulation are a form of control by the government. *Some* are necessary but not most.

Then you'll admit even the private sector has necessary laws/regulation, and continues to be competitive.

Out of curiosity, which would you prefer, given a choice? Regulating the insurance industry differently when it comes to health insurance, or regulating healthcare-related industries (pharmaceuticals, hospitals, physicians)?

[Lewkowski]

Then you'll admit even the private sector has necessary laws/regulation, and continues to be competitive.

Out of curiosity, which would you prefer, given a choice? Regulating the insurance industry differently when it comes to health insurance, or regulating healthcare-related industries (pharmaceuticals, hospitals, physicians)?

What?

[Loki]

If you consider prisoner on prisoner assault and rape a bad thing, then it's not a very good model, no. But even Old Munchkin wants "bad people" assaulting and raping each other, ie. where the public idea of justice is somehow served. But once you start having similar feed-back loops for having more and more people assaulted and raped in prison, just as you have loops for growing more and more corn, it is in my opinion possible that these loops of money, lobbying and legislation-purchasing will at some point start to go against the public idea of justice.

Now, I realize that Americans really, really love prisoners (and prison officers) assaulting and raping prisoners, but I posit that it's possible for the prison industry to reach a point where it inhabits such a large sector of the economy that the sheer number of people required for the raping and the assaulting means that it will in some way touch almost everyone. That could be a breaking point, but the soft sciences are more your field than mine!

On the other hand, is the argument then that with the proper checks in place (how could they be put in place if the government is fundamentally unable to govern?) the private sector could produce the most efficient centers for rehabilitation? How would this be incentivized? Ostensibly you still wouldn't actually have private parties buying verdicts to put other private parties behind bars; there'd be some kind of external justice system that'd be funded by taxes. (Or would there?) And then the government would buy this prison service from the private sector, like it does with Black Water and what have you. How do you set up the funding so that it'd actually make the facilities genuinely rehabilitate as many people as possible? (I am assuming you would prefer this over the rape and assault factories, I apologize if that's rude.) Would the government also purchase some kind of evaluation system from the private sector? How do you make sure these two industries don't form a cartel? Especially since a vast majority of capital is accumulating in a smaller and smaller number of hands, it might even be logistically impossible to keep the two industries' leads apart.

If you can show that this would be the cheapest and most rehabilitating system out there, I would be really interested in seeing that. And before you say it, no, I'm not suggesting by some long con that, say, the Norwegian system would carry over well to the US. I guess the way I see it, it's the path of least resistance for the citizenship to try and stop its own government from operating rape factories, rather than just throwing their hands in the air, shoving the whole thing off for the private sector to have a go and hope for the best. (Or it would be, if the citizenry had any way of influencing its own government; this doesn't seem like a "thing" these days. Damn kids, get off my lawn!) It's entirely plausible to me that this would cost the tax payers some extra money, but I wonder what the price tag is on rape factory removal? How much is too much? I haven't a clue.

Nothing in your post addresses the fundamental question of why the government would be any better at running prisons than the private sector. Any rule that you'd want the government to follow can equally be imposed upon the private sector. The difference is that the private sector can be punished for violating that rule, while the government is generally not in the business of punishing itself. We know for a fact that most maximum security, government-run prisons are rape factories. Sure, there are privately-run prisons that go too far in cutting costs, but that could be easily rectified by creating a regulatory body that creates reasonable standards, regularly checks for violations, and has the capacity to impose substantial fines/closures for violators.

As for whether the regulator is a private company or part of the government, again, what makes you think the latter is any better than the former? Are public regulators not equally likely to get co-opted by the industry they regulate? Many of the regulatory bodies in the US are non-governmental, including the Bar Association and the Medical Association. Am I to take it that it's possible to trust private entities to regulate lawyers and doctors, but not prison guards?

And if you're going to make some argument about the potential political influence of private prisons, prison unions already have significant influence in many states (especially California). If anything, allowing a privately-run, non-unionized company to run prisons would lead to it having less influence over politics.

[Lewkowski]

Your wasting your time Loki... do you not understand the liberal mindset? Private = Bad. Profit = Bad. Public = Good. Government = Good. That's as far as the thought process goes.

[Being]

Your wasting your time Loki...

Lazy Texan vernacular?

... do you not understand the liberal mindset? Private = Bad. Profit = Bad. Public = Good. Government = Good. That's as far as the thought process goes.

Private needs government, profit is good, public is good, government is what you make it.

[Lewkowski]

Private needs government, profit is good, public is good, government is what you make it.

Your false hoods can't hide your true feelings.

[Being]

Your false hoods can't hide your true feelings.

Which part of the quote do you deem false?

[Lewkowski]

Which part of the quote do you deem false?

Being a liberal your suspicion of the private sector is deeply ingrained. Or are you saying you think Private Prisons are a good thing?

[Being]

Being a liberal your suspicion of the private sector is deeply ingrained. Or are you saying you think Private Prisons are a good thing?

I'm not sure I understand what you are insinuating. Ingrained suspicion of the private sector is typical in the private sector, the label of liberal has no meaning here. Or maybe you believe that espionage is just a liberal thing?

[earthJoker]

Because government employees tend to be lazy, inefficient, overpaid and almost impossible to fire?

When the government controls something there is no incentive for cost containment. When the private sector is running something you introduce the most wonderful force in the world, competition.

But your healthcare system isn't effitient, not at all.

[Aimless]

Your wasting your time Loki... do you not understand the liberal mindset? Private = Bad. Profit = Bad. Public = Good. Government = Good. That's as far as the thought process goes.

Jebus glod the irony

[Lewkowski]

But your healthcare system isn't effitient, not at all.

Of course it is. Now how many regulations are on the healthcare system?

The market is distorted as well by government programs, special tax breaks (which is why we have an employer driven health insurance system btw) and other acts of big government.

[GGT]

What?

Out of curiosity, which would you prefer, given a choice? Regulating the insurance industry differently when it comes to health insurance, or regulating healthcare-related industries (pharmaceuticals, hospitals, physicians)?

What's complicated about that question? As an example, how about lifetime hospitalization caps? Should that be up to insurers or providers to regulate? Knowing that both will punt high or excessive costs to public tax payers.....what's the role for government regulation?

The market is distorted as well by government programs, special tax breaks (which is why we have an employer driven health insurance system btw) and other acts of big government.

Those 'acts of big government' are a result of special interest lobby groups and campaign funding. The insurance industry loved the employer as co-payer, the employer loved the income tax breaks, accountants loved more complicated tax forms, and legislators loved their campaign war chests. Big Insurance can be just as distorting as big gov't.

[Aimless]

Of course it is. Now how many regulations are on the healthcare system?

Your healthcare system is inefficient because it's a system full of unnecessary diagnostic procedures, unnecessary/ineffective treatments and care, unnecessary administrative complexity from having to deal with too many insurance plans, and unnecessary serious emergencies that would have been avoided if your people had better coverage. These are not the only reasons but every single analysis I've seen over the past few years identify the above as the prime drivers of waste in your healthcare system. You can blame the government all you like but it's not usually the government that forces doctors to take money from patients for doing unnecessary things, and atm it's not the government who wants to keep denying basic primary care to the fraction of the population that cost you the most in emergency care.

You have your ideals where people are more productive at work when they're sick and broke, and that's all right. But the causes of your healthcare-system's lack of efficiency have been thoroughly investigated, and government regulations don't pop up as the main causes. Some might argue that they are the most important indirect causes, but the most important contribution of your government to your wasteful healthcare system seems to have been the willingness to pay for it.

[Loki]

It's much better to have the English system where getting expensive diagnostic treatment is virtually impossible and waiting lines of over a month for any non-life threatening treatment are the norm.

[Aimless]

It's much better to have the English system where getting expensive diagnostic treatment is virtually impossible and waiting lines of over a month for any non-life threatening treatment are the norm.

That's a slightly different issue from efficiency and effectivity. That being said, you're welcome to defend the first statement and relate that to the disparities in access to healthcare one sees in the US. You hadn't forgotten that part had you?

[Loki]

A system that can get timely access to proper tests for 85% is better than one that grants such access to 1%.

[Aimless]

A system that can get timely access to proper tests for 85% is better than one that grants such access to 1%.

And yet the problem in the US is the "timely access" to unnecessary tests and treatments; much of the remaining expenses arise due to disparities in "timely access" to basic care. So, look, you really don't have a leg to stand on, any more than you did when you were muttering about gamma knives. Now the NHS isn't exactly flawless, but it's doing a far better job with its money than you are. The US is wasting its money and it's bizarre to see you trying to justify that waste by insinuating that waste is value

[Loki]

If by efficient, you mean regularly refusing to provide necessary tests, then sure, the NHS is more efficient than the American system.

[Aimless]

If by efficient, you mean regularly refusing to provide necessary tests, then sure, the NHS is more efficient than the American system.

By efficient I mean not wasting a third of its money on unnecessary tests and treatments and insurance administration, and even more on cleaning up the mess that arises from not giving people adequate access to basic healthcare. I'll say it again: you don't have a leg to stand on. And your insurance won't cover prosthetics.

You can rail against the imagined failings of the NHS all you like, but, at the end of the day, the inexcusable and preventable problems of your own system remain. It's so weird that you really seem to believe the US healthcare system is that much better than that of other western countries when in reality it's mostly just average despite the amount of money that goes into it probably because of the money that goes into it.

[Aimless]

I look forward to the day you guys learn about being cost-effective

[Loki]

I find it amusing that you consider overtreatment to be inexcusable but undertreatment to be a non-issue.

[Being]

I find it amusing that you consider overtreatment to be inexcusable but undertreatment to be a non-issue.

Not so funny if you look at the undertreatment in our system that ends in emergency room visits that cost you money even though you aren't the one making the visit. Preventative care could eliminate many of those unnecessary emergency room visits. I call that underteatment. What do you call it?