Private health cooperatives

[Ice]

LJ it is sorry that you are offended.
  The Original post of this thread was about health care co-operatives. If you or anyone else wants to discuss or debate Socialism,Obama, or any other topic please be considerate of the rest of the forum members and start a new thread on the subject.

[LJRead]

Ice, apology accepted.

However, you should by now know that threads such as this rarely stick to the subject of the original post, but tend to wander as new thoughts come.  This is normal in human conversation and is as it should be.  Furthermore, the topic of health care, which is the subject of original post, is closely tied in with a) and attempt to destroy the Obama Presidency, and 2) strong implications of 'socialism' which, by the way, all societies are in one way or another.  So bringing in these two topics and combining them is in no way 'off topic' put simply part of the whole.

I realize in what I have read of your posts that you tend to be single minded, but that is you and not typical of this forum.

Ace: you no doubt live a healthy life-style and have had a degree of luck.  Many haven't had that advantage and sometimes drain the rest of the system because of it.

Furthermore, while I agree that people should have options, sometimes, as you if anyone should well know, it is more efficient to organize such things than to take the piece meal approach you are advocating.  The problem of course is the inefficiency and costs purposely added to such organized systems by people who are out to feather their own nests.  Knowing this, there should be ways to counteract such attempts.  I would say, though I can't verify this, that there have been many very good organizations set up in the past aimed at meeting social needs.  To take an entirely negative approach to such attempts isn't, I don't think, going to get the job done.

There was a case of a Colorado governor suggesting that older people need to know when to step aside (die?) when they have reached a point in their lives and not be a continual drain on the medical system.  AARP is strong on supporting a new health system.  While it is ok to suggest just living with whatever trauma we are faced with, it isn't realistic because, when all is said and done, we all cling to life tenaciously and are going to want to have someone there to meet our needs.  We may have good intentions of just 'stepping aside' but when the time comes, most are going to be reluctant simply to do so.

There was a recent case in England where a guy was complaining that the British health system wouldn't permit the extremely expensive drugs that would have extended his life by six months.  I think the amount was $100,000 pounds or so.  This would amount to rationing of services, a very difficult thing to do, but one which will sometimes have to be done either by the individual or his health provider.  But to fork over such an amount might have meant that some children's , for example, needs might not have been financially met.  The wealthy of the U.S. are well provided for, the poor take it in the butt.  I suppose the very poorest have access to Medicaid, but slightly above that are people who are stuck, caught in a hole so to speak, a black hole comprised of fear, defeat, and hopelessness, while others enjoy the good life.

[ace.cafe]

Ice, apology accepted.

However, you should by now know that threads such as this rarely stick to the subject of the original post, but tend to wander as new thoughts come.  This is normal in human conversation and is as it should be.  Furthermore, the topic of health care, which is the subject of original post, is closely tied in with a) and attempt to destroy the Obama Presidency, and 2) strong implications of 'socialism' which, by the way, all societies are in one way or another.  So bringing in these two topics and combining them is in no way 'off topic' put simply part of the whole.

I realize in what I have read of your posts that you tend to be single minded, but that is you and not typical of this forum.

Ace: you no doubt live a healthy life-style and have had a degree of luck.  Many haven't had that advantage and sometimes drain the rest of the system because of it.

Furthermore, while I agree that people should have options, sometimes, as you if anyone should well know, it is more efficient to organize such things than to take the piece meal approach you are advocating.  The problem of course is the inefficiency and costs purposely added to such organized systems by people who are out to feather their own nests.  Knowing this, there should way to counteract such attempts.  I would say, though I can't verify this, that there have been many very good organizations set up in the past aimed at meeting social needs.  To take an entirely negative approach to such attempts isn't, I don't think, going to get the job done.

That's perfectly fine with me LJ.
People setting up private organizations that meet their needs is great thing.
I'm all for it.
If a company is "feathering their nest" more than you prefer, then it's quite possible to choose another company or option. That's what competition is about.

The minute that it includes a "law" or a "tax"  or has "required participation, or face penalties if you don't", or uses power of gov't to slant the competitive playing field, is the minute that it loses ALL of my support.
And in fact, that gets my maximum opposition.

Here's why.
No matter how bad a company is, you can buy that product or service from somebody else, or don't buy it at all. Our option.
It cannot put you in jail. It cannot fine you. It cannot compel/force you to do something that you didn't contract for. It can't take your house. It can't kill you. It can't deduct your pay against your wishes. It can't put you in debt.
They have NO power over you.

On the other hand, gov't CAN do all those things, and it DOES.

So, do you want to be compelled by force to access a required set of goods and services, that you may or may not even want or need, and be taxed an amount that you cannot even have input about,  for it?
Or , do you want to buy what you want, at prices you select within your own means, without any coercion or threat of force involved, and you may take or leave what you choose, change your mind anytime you want, and live with your own choices, be they good or bad?

Personally, I don't see how there is even any question about that matter, but apparently there is.

[Ice]

LJ  just two of the many comments you have made about me,,,,
 
 if people like you have their way.  This "I'm independent and to hell with the rest of you" just won't work, in my opinion.

Notice the quotation marks you put in there??  This leads people to believe that you are quoting me.
That is an out right lie.  Never have I said or typed that comment.
An apology is in order here .

and another comment about me,

 you, who have done more to spread non-factual garbage on this forum than anyone, should be the last to talk.

This accusation is again, untrue. An apology is in order here too .

 Those comments plus infusing political rhetoric into this thread about Health care co-ops are in poor taste at the very least.

*modified to correct poor spelling, grammar and punctuation*

[Ice]

Now back to Co-Ops,
 Farm Co-Ops have a long history in America.
 Started, run ,tailored, tuned and responsive to the needs of the local members and over watched by the same members at the level?

 Has any one looked into the possibility of applying a similar template to local health care?
Is any one aware of if it has been don here in America ?
I am curious and would be interested in seeing the results.

[Eamon]

Those comments plus infusing political rhetoric into this thread about Heal care co-ops is in poor taste at the very least.

I'm not commenting about the rest of this dispute, but I would point out that it was LJ himself that started this thread, so it's not like he hijacked someones else's thread.

Eamon

[LJRead]

Ice, many comments made about you?  Come on - I have commented where you have attacked, never more.  You are the one who went on about the proposed health care act, much of which was debunked by other members.  You are the one who kept pounding at the Obama birthing issue which was clearly shown to have no basis in fact (except maybe the basis fraudulently posted on the internet, a faked birth certificate). 

As to your last post, I am quite sure there are ways to obtain good health care, but it seems that some sort of foundation must be mandated or people simply will not act.  We have had a health crises with us for how many years(?) and what has been done about it? It has only gotten worse.  People have pointed out that President Johnson and later Senator Kennedy at different times have tried to institute a national policy which, according to them, hasn't worked.  Does this then mean that nothing done nationally will work?  We learn by the past and keep trying for a better result in the future. I  can see where things like an ambulance service, emergency first aid care etc. could be undertaken by a small local co-op, but I wonder whether the higher priced medical necessities could be so handled.  Maybe a local clinic could be established paid for by subscription so that those needing its services wouldn't feel that the expense is too great. Then, on top of that, could be added a simple insurance plan, cheaper to pay for than existing ones because small needs are taken care of, but which could cover the expensive items just as auto insurance does.  In this regard smaller expenses could be paid out of pocket as Northshoe_Paul has suggested. People, like myself, are shy to commit themselves to seeing a professional, preferring to try to live with their ailments. We should have the freedom from worry about the expense to take care when needed.

So what part should the Federal Government play in all this?  I could see it setting up legal guidelines for the coverage of all citizen with minimal insurance and health services, yet not actually providing those.  Sometimes people just will not act unless there is legal necessity to do so.  Then, when they become ill, they will tend to moan and groan about failures higher up.

[Ice]

I apologize folks because here we go again,,,off the threads topic.

LJ ,
 Please search for any statements made by me at any time that could be construed as a personal attack on the members of this forum. (Disagreement with some one is not an attack.)  Report those statements to the mods.
.
 By my count in this thread alone you have made at leas three out right disparaging and/or demeaning comments about my person two of which are outright lies. 

  Please do not confuse this issue and then change the subject. Please do not side step this issue by including rhetoric or hyperbole in any response you may post to it. This is NOT an attack it is a polite challenge to stick to this issue.

Thank you.

[ace.cafe]

Well, that's interesting.

We should have freedom from worry.
I like it.

[LJRead]

Well Ice, I suppose what I consider an attack (aggressive challenge perhaps?) you consider normal discourse. Nothing I can or want to do about that.  You have from the start tried to drag this thread away by focusing on my statistics, my motivation,  my disagreement with you, my divergence from the opening post etc.  Seems you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and not a thing I can do about that.

"Freedom from worry" I guess means freedom from anxiety about how my family will be fed when I have a heart attack and need quadruple bypass surgery, itself a symptom, perhaps, of anxiety and stress.  I guess stress is the number one killer in America today, regardless of whether it takes the form of other ailments stemming from a run down condition.  Stress could particularly be prevalent when the income providers see themselves unable to provide for family needs because of medical expenses unplanned for.

Now I will grant you that costs are too high there because a system or systems were introduced which permitted aggressive capitalistic greed.  Things certainly were more moderate when I grew up and expenses hadn't skyrocketed into the absurd.  But then too, medical science was at a lower technological level,  Open heart surgery, for example, was rare, and survival from it was limited.  You had a heart attack and your prognosis was maybe five years.  Things were simpler then and cost much less. People weren't allowed to vegetate for years in a semi comatose state.

And here we have the wealthiest country in the world in terms of GNP (but not income levels) and a good proportion of those living in the U.S. are forced into stressful situations which could be handled by a rational national health care system. or something similar.

And I live in one of the poorer countries in the world, with good access to doctors, free medicine if I choose to use it (I choose to pay) and though not highly technological, it does cover all the essentials and partly because of it, people are relatively free of anxiety.  The system, such as it is, and it isn't at all bad, is paid for out of taxes paid to the national government. My wife went in the other day and had a toothache taken care of, postponing it while in the U.S. because of the high cost.  Ah socialism! Ironic, isn't it?

The wealthiest country in the world placed into gridlock because a few want to maintain their independence from society. Well fine, be independent, but don't come whining when things that could have been handled by a more rational system get tough.

But maybe this post too is off topic, and maybe it contains within in it too much disgust and hyperbole.. 

[ace.cafe]

Certainly, it's a more "rational" system, if one takes the basic premise that the fruits of everyone's labors are open to being removed by force of gov't without their consent.

But, I have another proposition to postulate.
Suppose nobody paid any income taxes at all, and no Social Security and Medicare taxes at all.
Would payments for health insurance policies be unaffordable then?

And suppose we had a sound monetary policy, which didn't erode people's savings via inherent inflationary spirals which are endemic in a fiat currency which is loaned into existence.
Would payments for health insurance be unaffordable then?

Considering the level of overall tax burden, many people  would see a doubling of their take-home pay.
Think that might free up some cash for insurance?

Are you aware that official CBO figures show that if gov't spending were cut to 1999 levels, that no income tax would be needed to balance the budget?
Are you aware that it takes $21.60 today, to equal the purchasing power of $1 of currency in 1913? 1913 was the year that the Federal Reserve Banking System was introduced, changing the monetary policy of the US permanently.

So, while it may be convenient(for this conversation) to attribute "aggressive capitalist greed"(capitalist pigs, Comrade) to the reason behind healthcare costs being unaffordable, it could easily be shown(and I just did) that gov't policies are actually behind the erosion of Americans' income, in the form of taxation and monetary policy taking totals of 50%+ in some cases of people's earnings.

With only about 4.7% of purchasing power left in the currency compared with about 100 years ago, and 40%-50%  of the remainder being confiscated by various forms of taxation, there would seem to be little left for the wage-earner, in terms of real purchasing power. And now they have us at least $10 Trillion  in debt on top of that, with unfunded future mandates soaring past $60 Trillion.

Do you think that might be where the real culprit lies?
Overburdening of the people by a vastly expansive and over-reaching government structure which has shrunk the purchasing power of the currency to mere 4.7% of what it was, and then taking half of what's left in taxes, and piling on tens of trillions of dollars of debt for good measure?.

What's the answer to that?
More taxes and more gov't debt?

That might cause me to "worry", LJ.
And I should be free from worry, you know.
With the national average $40k salary, that would mean $15k+ more disposable income to the wage-earner. Think he could get a policy for $15k? I think so.
And it really might do some good for getting us out of this recession, too.

I would be much more free from worry if the gov't would cut it's program spending back to 1999 levels, where people could take home twice the money that they take home now, be free of income taxation(and the spectre of IRS audits/penalties),  and have alot more money to spend on whatever they want to spend it on, including their healthcare insurance policies.
Imagine that! A solution which actually requires less gov't. Amazing.

[LJRead]

You have a good point, Ace, if we could get rid of the wasteful parts, like military spending, but have you figured in what sort of job losses there would be if the Gov. didn't spend, spend, spend?  It is probably still true that Gov. is the biggest labor employer.  All those congressmen oppose cuts in military (the industrial part) spending because it means job losses among their constituents.  Some of these jobs might be picked up by private contractors doing the same job, like some sort of private postal service (I'm pretty sure tax dollars are going to subsidize the P.O).  Is anyone going to go for a big cut in the military or military spending - another big employer.  It seems to me there has to be some form of taxation to keep the necessities running, though the waste is pretty horrendous and nothing gets done about it.

Then there are the spin off effects - like the government employees spending and the people who produce various things for military and other branches of gov.- those dollars being recycled through the economy and providing more jobs.  This occurs all the way from top to bottom, garage mechanics, gardeners, fast foods employees - all are dependent to some degree on tax dollars going into salaries and being spent. There is an attempt to ease fluctuations in the farming community, and without taxation, I doubt they could be maintained and overproduction might result with a dropping to unsustainablility in prices of farm produce, as occurred in the Great Depression.

There is a  lot of taxation, to be sure, and taxation at all levels from the township (property taxes) on up, and a large proportion of those tax dollars going to pay salaries.  Have you taken that into consideration?

Yeah, inflation is a real bugger.  Maybe the Federal reserve is to blame, but perhaps there are other market forces as well.

What it seems to me, Ace, is that what you are saying has a big grain of truth, particularly in and ideal world, but, as pointed out above, there are these extenuating circumstances.

[Ice]

Well Ice, I suppose what I consider an attack (aggressive challenge perhaps?) you consider normal discourse. Nothing I can or want to do about that. You have from the start tried to drag this thread away by focusing on my statistics, my motivation,  my disagreement with you, my divergence from the opening post etc.  Seems you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and not a thing I can do about that.

"Freedom from worry" I guess means freedom from anxiety about how my family will be fed when I have a heart attack and need quadruple bypass surgery, itself a symptom, perhaps, of anxiety and stress.  I guess stress is the number one killer in America today, regardless of whether it takes the form of other ailments stemming from a run down condition.  Stress could particularly be prevalent when the income providers see themselves unable to provide for family needs because of medical expenses unplanned for.

Now I will grant you that costs are too high there because a system or systems were introduced which permitted aggressive capitalistic greed.  Things certainly were more moderate when I grew up and expenses hadn't skyrocketed into the absurd.  But then too, medical science was at a lower technological level,  Open heart surgery, for example, was rare, and survival from it was limited.  You had a heart attack and your prognosis was maybe five years.  Things were simpler then and cost much less. People weren't allowed to vegetate for years in a semi comatose state.

And here we have the wealthiest country in the world in terms of GNP (but not income levels) and a good proportion of those living in the U.S. are forced into stressful situations which could be handled by a rational national health care system. or something similar.

And I live in one of the poorer countries in the world, with good access to doctors, free medicine if I choose to use it (I choose to pay) and though not highly technological, it does cover all the essentials and partly because of it, people are relatively free of anxiety.  The system, such as it is, and it isn't at all bad, is paid for out of taxes paid to the national government. My wife went in the other day and had a toothache taken care of, postponing it while in the U.S. because of the high cost.  Ah socialism! Ironic, isn't it?

The wealthiest country in the world placed into gridlock because a few want to maintain their independence from society. Well fine, be independent, but don't come whining when things that could have been handled by a more rational system get tough.

But maybe this post too is off topic, and maybe it contains within in it too much disgust and hyperbole.. 

No acknowledgment of the disparaging remarks made.
No appolgy.
More sidestepping and emotion.

LJ you are hemorrhaging respect and creditability at an exponential rate here.

[ace.cafe]

Okay LJ, well I think I can address that point by point.

The first thing that needs to be understood is that the government doesn't have any "money". ALL money in possession of the gov't and spent by gov't, has been TAKEN from the private citizens labors.
Government has no methods to be productive. Government is ENTIRELY PARASITIC. This is because of the previously stated basic operating premise of gov't.
So, this needs to be understood, or all follow-on discussions are founded on misunderstanding.
If you can point me to anything that is productive about gov't, where it isn't taking the people's money and spending it with somebody else, I'll defer.
Nobody can, so  I'm not worried about deferring.
Government gets ALL its money from the people. What it doesn't take directly, it borrows and hangs the debt on the people.
So, now that we have that understood, we can proceed.

The next thing is "jobs". Government doesn't create any jobs. Jobs are productive enterprises. All "government jobs" are parasitic, because they are paid by parasitic funds taken from the people. No "wealth" is created by any gov't job. It cannot contribute to the economy. All it can do is shuffle other people's money around. and decide who loses and who gets. It re-distributes, while carving off a good percentage for "administrative costs" that could have been much better spent with more efficiency and buying power, if the administrative costs(waste) weren't there..
Any "job" created by this method actually causes loss of real jobs in the private sector, because it competes with(or eliminates) private sector industry with money that doesn't belong to them, and can operate at a loss that it makes up with more forced taxation if necessary.
All "gov't jobs" are a drain on the economy. Not assets.
People may feel that those things are worth paying for, but they are not "productive" in the economic sense of the word. They are purely parasitic in the economic sense of the word.

Once it is understood that all these "gov't spending" and "spin-off jobs" related to government spending is actually confiscated individuals' money, and directed to gov't contractors via budgetary allotments, then we can see how gov't controls people and the economy, to be less productive than it would be in free market competitive conditions. And how the "political footballs" and lobbyists occur, to try to "steer" where all the people's stolen money is going to be directed. Winners and losers.
And the contractors and "winners" of this gov't largesse, are generally the major corporations which liberals typically say they dislike, and it is actually the gov't who is keeping these large corporations in "fat city" by awarding huge contracts which are poorly monitored and laden with massive amounts of overpayment, waste, fraud, and abuse.
The other programs may be operated by gov't agencies and bureaucracies, all parasitic, and are also rife with poor oversight, and laden with waste, fraud, and abuse.

As I pointed out in a previous post about the healthcare matter, these are the same reasons why it is imperative to restore a somewhat reasonable facsimile of the free market, where people can contract directly with the goods/services providers and make their own deals to purchase what they want at prices they agree to. And settle on an agreed-upon deal voluntarily.
The transaction agreement between seller and buyer is the foundation of a "good deal". Any 3rd Party taking the money from somebody and spending it for him, adds waste in terms of administrative layers at the very least, and suffers from the FACT that he doesn't care as much about YOUR money, as he does HIS money. YOU are the best steward of your own money. Not somebody else. If you want "good deals" for "good services" then you need to make that deal yourself, and be in agreement with the seller on what you want provided for the price.

As for "salaries" being paid by parasitic gov't funds, I think I already addressed that.
However, I think I've established now that all services provided by gov't, which are currently considered "necessary" by some, are able to be privately provided by purchasing power of people's money that isn't taken from them by taxation. The same amount of money is available to be spent, without gov't in the picture, because gov't gets the money from the people in the first place.
The concept that somehow there is "gov't money" that isn't stolen from the people is patently false. ALL that money is stolen. So, if gov't was kicked out of those sectors, the same, or more money would still be available to pay people for their work, maybe even the same kind of work, except $Trillions of it wouldn't be wasted by parasitic levels of useless gov't bureaucracy.
The faceless bureaucrats who live off this waste, would need to get new jobs.
Perhaps they might take some college level courses on re-training themselves about how to be productive.

Farm prices.
Farm prices are subsidized in many cases. This is waste.
As is the situation with ALL commodities, farm produce will fluctuate with market demand, and production will adjust, just like all commodities do.
We don't need to pay Ted Turner millions of dollars a year to have the largest buffalo ranch in the known universe.

Regarding "inflation".
There is one factor, and one factor only, in "inflation".
That factor is the size of the money supply.
It is decided by the Federal Reserve.
There are no other "market factors" The other "market factors" are known as "supply and demand", and if certain goods spike in price periodically, they also come down later, according to the demand curve. The only reason prices go up because of "inflation" is because of the increase in monetary supply eroding purchasing power of the currency. There is no other factor, regardless of what the propaganda may say. Everything else is market forces which fluctuate by supply and demand.
Federal Reserve monetary policy is 100% responsible for the loss of purchasing power of the currency thru inflation. ALL fiat currencies of this nature fail. That's where we're headed.
Interestingly, for the first 125 years of the US history, where sound money of gold and silver was used, there was NO inflation. The ONLY inflation was from the borrowing used for "Greenbacks" during the Civil War, which was correspondingly deflated back to normal during the deflation of the Reconstruction Period.

There are no "extenuating circumstances" when the facts are known.
But, there are "excuses". And those excuses are manufactured by those who wish to keep the oppressive hand of gov't on the people, so that they may be controlled and kept down,  so that the parasites in gov't may more easily control them and profit from their positions, and manipulate the population and economy for their preferred purposes.

It is precisely because gov't is parasitic and heavy-handed, that it's powers were intended to be few, and strictly limited in scope.
And it is directly correlated to this massive increase in scope of gov't, beyond its intended role, which can be attributed to the problems we face today.
More gov't isn't the cure. It's the poison.
While a small amount may be tolerated, those limits must be observed, or death results.

[LJRead]

Well Ace, you have suggested a basic thesis that governments are parasitic, and that may be where you err.  Government as it was established in the U.S. is by and for the people who, for the most part, pay taxes, complaining some in many case, but not in all cases, for which they receive some very good services.  In other words it is a huge co-operative made up of all who participate and most would be really pissed if you were take what you call non-productive services away from them. Participation is mandatory, but if it were not, then many people would become parasitic.  You can't have it both ways.

Without taxes you wouldn't have most universities and colleges, and while not all participate, all derive benefit from the education they produce.  Then there would be no space exploration and all the spin off inventions that have come out of it, you would have a lot less medical research, no National Institutes of Health, no National Science foundation, no national park system nor road system, no health standards for consumer protection of food stuffs, weather reportage, emergency services, defense services

Where you err too is in many of you statements including the idea that government doesn't earn money (isn't productive).  It provides services and many of those services are paid for.  I don't know what proportion of, for example, the postal service is paid for by its users, but i believe a fair percentage.  same with park services and others.  In the many cases where government services aren't paid for directly, benefit, sometimes much more important than money are derived from them.  Americans pay relatively little in taxes, and, if they were to pay more, they would get a lot more for their money.

You believe in this parasitic idea, but the huge labor force is evidence against this.  Those jobs, whether you think so or not, are in many cases very productive, serve the public good and are needed.  And when you get to all the levels of government, city, state, county etc.  then what we derive is even greater, the taxes relatively low.

Without going into a lot of detail, I believe a lot of what you have said here is far from true.  We differ in our starting points, our underlying premises.