Aileron Posted May 8, 2008 Report Posted May 8, 2008 ???? I think you misunderstand me. Supply was one of the control variables. I'm not stating an opinion on the overall health care system. All I am stating is an economic fact of the differences between wants and needs. Everything else constant, making a want into a need will change how the Law of Supply and Demand affects the price of that item in a manner which in layman's terms means higher prices. Hypothetically, if the government passed a law requiring everyone to buy a new baseball hat every week, the price of baseball hats would go up. Eventually new suppliers would show up and bring the cost back down, but as long as the law would be in place, the Demand vs Price curve for that supply will always be higher than the Demand vs Price curve for the same supply had baseball hats not been a requirement. The effect is greater when supply is low, but the price for a need is always higher than the price for a want.
NBVegita Posted May 8, 2008 Report Posted May 8, 2008 Directly from her website: If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums. So you must get health care, the government will help (medicare) if you don't want a public plan and the rich will pay for the poorer's health care. What the !@#$%^&* about that is not socialized? Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage. Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans. Create a New Small Business Tax Credit: To make it easier-not harder-for small businesses to create new jobs with health coverage, a new health care tax credit for small businesses will provide an incentive for job-based coverage. Strengthen Medicaid and CHIP: The Plan will fix the holes in the safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive affordable, quality care. Launch a Retiree Health Legacy Initiative: A new tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans will offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures, so long as savings are dedicated to workers and compe!@#$%^&*iveness. I mean call a spade a spade.
Aceflyer Posted May 8, 2008 Report Posted May 8, 2008 If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums. It would only be socialized for those people who opt into a public plan like Medicare. Tax credits have nothing to do with healthcare being socialized or not. Private plans, including current plans, will continue to be supported. While this system would likely result in more people using public plans like Medicare than there currently are, private plans will continue to plan a significant role.
Aileron Posted May 8, 2008 Report Posted May 8, 2008 The problem with national health care is simple. The supply of medical personnel is low. Currently most non-outpatient doctors work 16 hour shifts. The simple solution would be to increase the number of doctors, but due to the Law of Diminishing returns, if we try to increase the number of doctors in the country, we get lower quality out of those additional doctors, causing an emotional response to 'the poor don't get as good a doctor as a rich person would'. This emotional statement is a rallying cry for lawyers/insurance companies to meddle, and those groups continually cut into the supply of doctors by lawsuits which decrease the profitability of the profession. Essentially, the problem is emotional lawyers. Hillary Clinton can't solve it, because she is an emotional lawyer herself and thus is part of the problem. Obama can't solve it either. McCain has a shot, but his track record is strong with compromising with the emotional lawyers, so I'd doubt it from him too.
Aceflyer Posted May 8, 2008 Report Posted May 8, 2008 The problem with national health care is simple. The supply of medical personnel is low. Currently most non-outpatient doctors work 16 hour shifts. The simple solution would be to increase the number of doctors, but due to the Law of Diminishing returns, if we try to increase the number of doctors in the country, we get lower quality out of those additional doctors, causing an emotional response to 'the poor don't get as good a doctor as a rich person would'. This emotional statement is a rallying cry for lawyers/insurance companies to meddle, and those groups continually cut into the supply of doctors by lawsuits which decrease the profitability of the profession. No, the problem with national healthcare is the lack of sufficient medical training capacity (i.e. lack of sufficient medical schools). There are plenty of people who are qualified to attend medical school and who want to be doctors but can't due to a simple lack of capacity of our system to train them. Increasing the number of doctors would not necessarily lead to lower quality of healthcare as long as we had sufficient facilities to train them all. If we attempted to increase the number of doctors with the existing training infrastructure, though, I'd agree that the quality of healthcare would suffer as a result (since the current system for training doctors is running at or near capacity as is).
Aileron Posted May 9, 2008 Report Posted May 9, 2008 As I was saying, supply. Medical schools are the supplier of trained doctors. Well, the ability difference will be negligible. However, the rub is that the 1001st candidate in line will always be slightly less qualified than the 1000th. It will still be enough for some lawyers to go on a lawsuit though, because they target perceived incompetence.
Aceflyer Posted May 9, 2008 Report Posted May 9, 2008 Well, the ability difference will be negligible. However, the rub is that the 1001st candidate in line will always be slightly less qualified than the 1000th. It will still be enough for some lawyers to go on a lawsuit though, because they target perceived incompetence. Not necessarily. Medical schools don't always eliminate candidates on the basis of qualifications (or lack thereof). It is sometimes a matter of personal preference (on the part of the interviewers and admissions committees), sometimes a matter of 'balancing' their (limited-sized) entering classes, often a combination of both. Make no mistake, I'm not trying to claim that everyone who applies to med school is qualified to train to become a doctor. But it is commonly accepted that many, many entirely qualified candidates get turned down not because they aren't as qualified as the next guy but due to a simple lack of resources to train all qualified and willing candidates.
Aileron Posted May 9, 2008 Report Posted May 9, 2008 Wait, let me re-phrase it. The new doctors wouldn't be less capable in reality. The problem is that lawyers would think the new doctors are less capable and would throw a fit if those doctors ended up working on poor people.
Aceflyer Posted May 9, 2008 Report Posted May 9, 2008 Wait, let me re-phrase it. The new doctors would be less capable in reality. The problem is that lawyers would think the new doctors are less capable and would throw a fit if those doctors ended up working on poor people. They would have to prove that, in fact, their 'belief' that the 'extra' doctors are less capable is correct. This would be rather hard to prove unless it were, in fact, true. Furthermore, how would anyone be able to tell who is a 'new doctor' and who isn't? If medical schools were to expand their facilities and start admitting larger classes, no one would be able to tell who the so-called '1001st candidate in line' is. There is also no reason to suspect lawyers would be dumb enough as to just blindly believe this. It is far more likely that lawyers, as well as the public in general, would simply see medical schools expanding their facilities and resources and hence training more capable doctors. There is no logical reason to simply assume that training more doctors would be attendant with a compromise in quality of training.
No_Remorse Posted May 10, 2008 Report Posted May 10, 2008 Presidential election? More like publicity stunt. It's pretty convenient that of the 3 main candidates, as far as I know, being McCain(older dude than the other old dudes who were previously president), Clinton(scary bug-eyed woman?) and Hussein(wtf? Obama, Hussein? Barrack? kidding right?), are all demographics that have never been voted in before... As much as I don't give a !@#$%^&* about this election, this baffles me.
Aileron Posted May 10, 2008 Report Posted May 10, 2008 He's basically saying that Obama got in for being black and Hillary got in for being female despite the fact that both suck. He's also accusing McCain of getting it for being old, but I'd say he's not quite right on that one. Old guys have been president before. Former multi-generational military people have been president before too. I'd say McCain isn't really an unusual demographic for a presidential nomination. I'd say McCain got it because there were about four candidates divvying up the conservative vote and he was the only relative liberal.
SeVeR Posted May 10, 2008 Report Posted May 10, 2008 I thought Obama got where he is for being an eloquent and powerful public speaker who, in stark contrast to the current President, is intelligent and well-read. People are stupid and will vote for stupid reasons. Obama can't help being black and can't stop people voting for him on that alone; but what really tells me Obama is a good candidate is that he's got the vote of the educated class. !@#$%^&* people vote for the Republicans because they're more Christian and Patriotic (apparently)... the Democrats need a bunch of stupid people voting for them for a change, and if they can get the black vote or the women vote, then good on them.
AstroProdigy Posted May 10, 2008 Report Posted May 10, 2008 I disagree that Hillary got where she was because she's a woman. It's the name recognition that did it. Also with Obama if he got it simply for being black then the Democrats would have already taken Al Sharpton a while ago as their nominee. Your opinion that both suck is just that; an opinion. Your own conservative background and lifetime Republican status have made it so that no Democrat could ever not suck unless they took on the principles of Republicans and became Republicans.
darkhosis Posted May 13, 2008 Report Posted May 13, 2008 I disagree that Hillary got where she was because she's a woman. It's the name recognition that did it. Also with Obama if he got it simply for being black then the Democrats would have already taken Al Sharpton a while ago as their nominee. Your opinion that both suck is just that; an opinion. Your own conservative background and lifetime Republican status have made it so that no Democrat could ever not suck unless they took on the principles of Republicans and became Republicans.jesse jackson won 30% of dem vote and like 10+ states in democratic primaries in 1988 despite being horribly unqualified. just about the same mold as al sharpton. of course, im sure some people think jackson and sharpton are paragons of society, so shrug.
AstroProdigy Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 Yet Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama come from completely different backgrounds and whereas Jesse Jackson couldn't get the nomination because he generally only supported the interests of African Americans despite there being a lot of turmoil and no front runner in his primary, Barack Obama has tried, quite successfully, throughout his candidacy to represent all Americans and defeat the heavily favored front runner to become the nominee (I'm forecasting that has 99% of occuring).
Aileron Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 Hey, No_remorse said it. All I did was the translating. In my opinion, Hillary got this far for being queen, and Obama got where he is because of the people hand-selected by the Democratic party leadership to lose to Hillary, he was the most qualified. There is something to be said to the claim the the majority of blacks are racist and will vote for Obama because he is black. Still, the Democratic party knows they could get the black vote in the main election anyway, so they don't nominate people for being black because it doesn't help. Astro, this election has been rigged since the early 90s. You can pretty much count on all of the super-delegates voting Hillary. Don't plan on it being over until its over.
Aceflyer Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 You can pretty much count on all of the super-delegates voting Hillary. Don't plan on it being over until its over. Actually, Obama leads Clinton in superdelegates now.
FMBI Posted May 15, 2008 Author Report Posted May 15, 2008 True, I know (and am related to) several people who have insisted for the past 3 years that Hillary would rig the race, and now that it's almost impossible for her to win (1884-1718), they're convinced that she'll have him !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inated or become a shadow vice president. Anyway, I just hope he continues being at least fairly independent of the mainstream. He isn't Ralph Nader or Ron Paul, but he has resisted several of the most gimmicky things the other candidates have backed. ^.^
AstroProdigy Posted May 16, 2008 Report Posted May 16, 2008 Hey, No_remorse said it. All I did was the translating. In my opinion, Hillary got this far for being queen, and Obama got where he is because of the people hand-selected by the Democratic party leadership to lose to Hillary, he was the most qualified. There is something to be said to the claim the the majority of blacks are racist and will vote for Obama because he is black. Still, the Democratic party knows they could get the black vote in the main election anyway, so they don't nominate people for being black because it doesn't help. Astro, this election has been rigged since the early 90s. You can pretty much count on all of the super-delegates voting Hillary. Don't plan on it being over until its over.Aileron there is also something to be said about all the racist whites who will never vote for Obama. I agree people never expected Obama to actually win and were trying to make it easy for Hillary, but now that Obama is already way too far ahead of her with too little time to make up the votes there's nothing the Democratic Party leadership can do, but nominate Obama.
Aceflyer Posted May 16, 2008 Report Posted May 16, 2008 Aileron there is also something to be said about all the racist whites who will never vote for Obama. I agree people never expected Obama to actually win and were trying to make it easy for Hillary, but now that Obama is already way too far ahead of her with too little time to make up the votes there's nothing the Democratic Party leadership can do, but nominate Obama. How were people trying to make it easy for Clinton? Obama had already emerged as a serious threat to Clinton by all measures since he fought Clinton to a stalemate in early February (on Super Tuesday), way before he got way too far ahead of Clinton.
AstroProdigy Posted May 16, 2008 Report Posted May 16, 2008 I meant before Iowa. Of course after Super Tuesday he emerged as a serious threat. The point I was making was that everyone was actually expecting Hillary to take the nomination from years ago, but they wouldn't rig the election for Hillary if Obama has such a big lead.
Aceflyer Posted May 16, 2008 Report Posted May 16, 2008 I meant before Iowa. Of course after Super Tuesday he emerged as a serious threat. The point I was making was that everyone was actually expecting Hillary to take the nomination from years ago, but they wouldn't rig the election for Hillary if Obama has such a big lead. It seems to me that there is no evidence the powers that be ever tried to rig the nomination for Clinton. There was plenty of time to start pulling strings between Iowa and mid-February (up until around early- to mid-February, IIRC, Clinton still had a lead in pledged delegates); clearly no strings were pulled, as Obama steadily caught up to and then overtook Clinton first in pledged delegates and more recently in superdelegates as well. If strings had been pulled one would have expected Obama to never have overtaken Clinton in pledged delegates; he would've been stopped by rigging after Iowa or, at the latest, after Super Tuesday.
Recommended Posts