What do you think are scams?

[J N Winkler]

Health insurance is a scam.

In the US, where medicine is regarded as a field for free enterprise, there are few checks on provider lobbies, and the health care system has spawned its own ecosystems for medical billing--yes, absolutely.

With car insurance, I can try to find a friend to do the repairs, or I can try to do it myself, instead of filing an insurance claim and taking it to a mechanic.  Therefore, we consumers have some measure of control over the cost of car repairs.  In contrast, it's a felony to practice medicine without a license, and hospitals and drug companies are free to set whatever prices they want, leaving consumers with no measure of control over the cost of care.

However, cars and health are similar in that prevention typically yields much better returns than cure.  In that sense, performing oil changes regularly and driving defensively are comparable to adhering to a nutritious diet and staying physically active.

And lastly, health insurance should not cover routine checkups, just as most car insurance doesn't cover oil changes and tire rotations.  This is another way in which consumers are shielded from the true cost of care, which means they no longer have a free-market mechanism by which to keep that cost low.

I disagree on this one.  Failure to cover routine checkups creates a perverse incentive to postpone necessary care until it is more expensive, less cost-efficient to provide, leads to worse outcomes, and yet is still covered.  (If you are going to go with a car metaphor, I suggest routine maintenance is more comparable to grocery shopping than health care.)

[Bruce]

A nationalized single-payer healthcare system would cost less per person and have fewer complications than the absolute clusterfuck we deal with. I had to go through so many hoops to get Medicaid coverage for a relative, which should in theory be simple because it's all in-house...but nope, the private carriers lobbied their way into screwing up the public market.

[J N Winkler]

A nationalized single-payer healthcare system would cost less per person and have fewer complications than the absolute clusterfuck we deal with. I had to go through so many hoops to get Medicaid coverage for a relative, which should in theory be simple because it's all in-house...but nope, the private carriers lobbied their way into screwing up the public market.

In Britain, the NHS, which provides cradle-to-grave coverage free at the point of use (aside from modest copays for prescription drugs, dentistry, and vision care), allocates about 10% of GDP.  Our severely dysfunctional system allocates 20% of GDP yet struggles to provide good, worry-free care to patients who don't have goldplated insurance.  Life expectancy is longer in Britain than in the US.

[abefroman329]

I know of no non-intoxicating recreational uses for weed. You don't smoke it because you like the aroma. You smoke it to get high.

Nonsense - in fact, if you use medical cannabis as prescribed, you won't get high.

It's odd how you regularly brag about having no personal knowledge of cannabis, yet you seem to be an expert on it at the same time.

[kphoger]

CBD. I know this was mentioned already but it deserves its own spotlight.

Actually, of all the people I know who've tried CBD oil for various things, I can't think of a single one who had bad things to say about it.  Most of them reported positive results.

[US 89]

I smoked a cigarette once. It was disgusting and I have no desire to do it again.

[abefroman329]

I've never smoked anything in my life, and I've never really had a desire to either.  But I've considered trying out pipe smoking.  I just love the smell of a tobacco shop, and I'm curious to know if any of that comes through in the flavor of the smoke.

I tried getting into smoking a pipe in college.  The smell of burning pipe tobacco is heavenly, but it has a sickly-sweet taste when you smoke it.

[MultiMillionMiler]

CBD. I know this was mentioned already but it deserves its own spotlight.

Actually, of all the people I know who've tried CBD oil for various things, I can't think of a single one who had bad things to say about it.  Most of them reported positive results.

The only negative effects of marijuana are the consequences of it being illegal. So anti-legalization advocates use the circular argument: "It should remain illegal, due to how it destroys lives...because it's illegal".

[Rothman]

CBD. I know this was mentioned already but it deserves its own spotlight.

Actually, of all the people I know who've tried CBD oil for various things, I can't think of a single one who had bad things to say about it.  Most of them reported positive results.

Depends on what it's being used for:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/cannabidiol-cbd-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-2018082414476

[CtrlAltDel]

I smoked a cigarette once. It was disgusting and I have no desire to do it again.

That is definitely for the best.

[Scott5114]

Health insurance is a scam.

In the US, where medicine is regarded as a field for free enterprise, there are few checks on provider lobbies, and the health care system has spawned its own ecosystems for medical billing--yes, absolutely.

Health insurance being tied to employment is especially a scam. Suspending employer-paid health insurance is one of the go-to methods for an employer to attempt to break a strike. Employment-based health insurance also helps to disincentivize entrepreneurship (reducing competition in the workplace, natch) and forces some people to work when they'd otherwise not–I had plenty of coworkers at the casino who were well over the normal retirement age who were working because they needed the health coverage. And then there's the whole chicken-and-egg problem of what to do with those whose medical needs are so great they temporarily or permanently cannot work because of them.

[CtrlAltDel]

Health insurance is a scam.

In the US, where medicine is regarded as a field for free enterprise, there are few checks on provider lobbies, and the health care system has spawned its own ecosystems for medical billing--yes, absolutely.

Health insurance being tied to employment is especially a scam. Suspending employer-paid health insurance is one of the go-to methods for an employer to attempt to break a strike. Employment-based health insurance also helps to disincentivize entrepreneurship (reducing competition in the workplace, natch) and forces some people to work when they'd otherwise not–I had plenty of coworkers at the casino who were well over the normal retirement age who were working because they needed the health coverage. And then there's the whole chicken-and-egg problem of what to do with those whose medical needs are so great they temporarily or permanently cannot work because of them.

Sometimes I don't agree with you, but this isn't one of those times.

[kalvado]

A nationalized single-payer healthcare system would cost less per person and have fewer complications than the absolute clusterfuck we deal with. I had to go through so many hoops to get Medicaid coverage for a relative, which should in theory be simple because it's all in-house...but nope, the private carriers lobbied their way into screwing up the public market.

In Britain, the NHS, which provides cradle-to-grave coverage free at the point of use (aside from modest copays for prescription drugs, dentistry, and vision care), allocates about 10% of GDP.  Our severely dysfunctional system allocates 20% of GDP yet struggles to provide good, worry-free care to patients who don't have goldplated insurance.  Life expectancy is longer in Britain than in the US.

One thing to keep in mind is a profit to be made.
Significant cost and significant profit are associated with novel drugs treatment of hard to treat, deadly problems like HepC or oncology. Development costs are mind blowing, and patents don't run long. So the common strategy is to release in US at astronomic price, then later in Europe at huge price, then after few years drug becomes relatively affordable across the globe - but an even better one is released at astronomic price...
I am not sure about life expectancy, but given we are talking about WW2 generation expiring, and baby boomers reaching that point, demographics of Europe vs US may be part of the real. Would be interesting to look up data ..

[Scott5114]

I don't think there should be a right to make a profit in any given field. In fact, I'd say something like medicine is critical enough to the well-being of society that making a profit in medicine should be illegal.

[kalvado]

I don't think there should be a right to make a profit in any given field. In fact, I'd say something like medicine is critical enough to the well-being of society that making a profit in medicine should be illegal.

So what would make people work in those fields and try to work even harder for better outcome? Money is a universal carrot. What do you want to replace it with? Just bare stick?
It's an everlasting question, not limited to medical field....

[Scott5114]

I don't think there should be a right to make a profit in any given field. In fact, I'd say something like medicine is critical enough to the well-being of society that making a profit in medicine should be illegal.

So what would make people work in those fields and try to work even harder for better outcome? Money is a universal carrot. What do you want to replace it with? Just bare stick?
It's an everlasting question, not limited to medical field....

[MultiMillionMiler]

I don't think there should be a right to make a profit in any given field. In fact, I'd say something like medicine is critical enough to the well-being of society that making a profit in medicine should be illegal.

But they do deserve the highest salaries.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Let me get this interpretation straight. While I agree with you that medicine (and politics) should not be a profit driven industry, if we do that to all industries that would murder any interest in doing said jobs, resulting in massive unemployment for people cause there's no incentive to work. 45 years of slaving for capitalism just to be forced by law to break even, then we die. That's a disaster.

[kalvado]

I don't think there should be a right to make a profit in any given field. In fact, I'd say something like medicine is critical enough to the well-being of society that making a profit in medicine should be illegal.

So what would make people work in those fields and try to work even harder for better outcome? Money is a universal carrot. What do you want to replace it with? Just bare stick?
It's an everlasting question, not limited to medical field....

One altruistic person can make a difference. Modern drug development can take billions of dollars and thousands man years. Most of those hundreds and thousands people working don't get recognition beyond the paycheck....

[Scott5114]

Let me get this interpretation straight. While I agree with you that medicine (and politics) should not be a profit driven industry, if we do that to all industries that would murder any interest in doing said jobs, resulting in massive unemployment for people cause there's no incentive to work. 45 years of slaving for capitalism just to be forced by law to break even, then we die. That's a disaster.

By saying "there is not a right for you to make a profit in any given field", I simply mean exactly that. I am tired of policy decisions being made on the basis of "somebody makes money doing this so therefore it's untouchable". You could probably profit by killing people and selling their organs on the free market too, but somewhere along the line we decided the interest everyone has in not being killed and having their organs sold on the free market outweighs the interest in creating jobs doing that.

I think we should be more willing to re-evaluate whether allowing someone to profit on something is a good idea or not, and not just assume that because someone makes a profit doing it we should allow it because it creates jobs or whatever.

Thus going back to healthcare: one of the arguments against a single-payer system is "think of all of the people in the health insurance industry that will lose their jobs".

I don't give a damn about their jobs. I'd rather people live than health insurance people have jobs. The health insurance people can figure out other arrangements for employment. The dead people can't make other arrangements because they're dead.

[Roadgeek Adam]

But my point is that if you strip people of their "right to profit", there would be no incentive for anyone to work. No one takes a job expecting to not make some kind of profit/return on their time investment. At that point, there would be no one working and society would probably come to a complete halt. And even as a big government-welfare socialist myself, that's just asking to doom society.

As I said, I have no problem regulating profit out of medicals/political industries. It's a big no-no that people make profit over death. (We probably have the cure for cancer somewhere, but it's big money in keeping people sick.) But if we do it in all industries, the entire country would grind to a halt inevitably?

[kalvado]

Let me get this interpretation straight. While I agree with you that medicine (and politics) should not be a profit driven industry, if we do that to all industries that would murder any interest in doing said jobs, resulting in massive unemployment for people cause there's no incentive to work. 45 years of slaving for capitalism just to be forced by law to break even, then we die. That's a disaster.

By saying "there is not a right for you to make a profit in any given field", I simply mean exactly that. I am tired of policy decisions being made on the basis of "somebody makes money doing this so therefore it's untouchable". You could probably profit by killing people and selling their organs on the free market too, but somewhere along the line we decided the interest everyone has in not being killed and having their organs sold on the free market outweighs the interest in creating jobs doing that.

I think we should be more willing to re-evaluate whether allowing someone to profit on something is a good idea or not, and not just assume that because someone makes a profit doing it we should allow it because it creates jobs or whatever.

Thus going back to healthcare: one of the arguments against a single-payer system is "think of all of the people in the health insurance industry that will lose their jobs".

I don't give a damn about their jobs. I'd rather people live than health insurance people have jobs. The health insurance people can figure out other arrangements for employment. The dead people can't make other arrangements because they're dead.

Few people care about hospital CEOs and accounting offices.
Here is another dilemma, though: doctors are basically allowed to practice if they are qualified. Who can determine that? Of course other doctors.
Now that creates a negative incentive to keep competition away an limit influx of new professionals.
50 years later, lots of experienced baby boomers head to retirement....
Now, while we are at this,. What do you think about unions?

[Scott5114]

But my point is that if you strip people of their "right to profit", there would be no incentive for anyone to work. No one takes a job expecting to not make some kind of profit/return on their time investment. At that point, there would be no one working and society would probably come to a complete halt. And even as a big government-welfare socialist myself, that's just asking to doom society.

As I said, I have no problem regulating profit out of medicals/political industries. It's a big no-no that people make profit over death. (We probably have the cure for cancer somewhere, but it's big money in keeping people sick.) But if we do it in all industries, the entire country would grind to a halt inevitably?

You're reading something there that I didn't write. I'm saying you don't have a right to profit. In the same way nobody has a right to drive a car. It is a privilege that is extended on good behavior. Likewise, I don't think anyone should have a right to make money, I don't know, selling fossil fuels or killing rare wildlife or shooting orphans in the head or whatever else if we come to a collective agreement that we're worse off as a society with that being allowed.

As it is now, if you try to regulate most anything, people will fall down on the floor, begin wailing uncontrollably, snot all over their red, swollen face, choking back tearful sobs as they cry out in a high-pitched voice "but somebody makes money doing that!" I just think we should respond to that with "So what?"

Remember, I live in Oklahoma. We get a lot more of that profit tantrum behavior here than in New York, where they tell people like that to grow up and think of someone other than themselves.

What do you think about unions?

As I said not too long ago when the subject came up, "At my last job, I'd have gladly paid $20 a month to tell my boss to go fuck herself."

[Rothman]

But my point is that if you strip people of their "right to profit", there would be no incentive for anyone to work. No one takes a job expecting to not make some kind of profit/return on their time investment. At that point, there would be no one working and society would probably come to a complete halt. And even as a big government-welfare socialist myself, that's just asking to doom society.

As I said, I have no problem regulating profit out of medicals/political industries. It's a big no-no that people make profit over death. (We probably have the cure for cancer somewhere, but it's big money in keeping people sick.) But if we do it in all industries, the entire country would grind to a halt inevitably?

Hm.  You might look at the funeral industry and be horrified, then, especially since in most states, oversight boards are simply filled with funeral home directors.  It's little mystery why funerals are so expensive...

[kalvado]

But my point is that if you strip people of their "right to profit", there would be no incentive for anyone to work. No one takes a job expecting to not make some kind of profit/return on their time investment. At that point, there would be no one working and society would probably come to a complete halt. And even as a big government-welfare socialist myself, that's just asking to doom society.

As I said, I have no problem regulating profit out of medicals/political industries. It's a big no-no that people make profit over death. (We probably have the cure for cancer somewhere, but it's big money in keeping people sick.) But if we do it in all industries, the entire country would grind to a halt inevitably?

You're reading something there that I didn't write. I'm saying you don't have a right to profit. In the same way nobody has a right to drive a car. It is a privilege that is extended on good behavior. Likewise, I don't think anyone should have a right to make money, I don't know, selling fossil fuels or killing rare wildlife or shooting orphans in the head or whatever else if we come to a collective agreement that we're worse off as a society with that being allowed.

As it is now, if you try to regulate most anything, people will fall down on the floor, begin wailing uncontrollably, snot all over their red, swollen face, choking back tearful sobs as they cry out in a high-pitched voice "but somebody makes money doing that!" I just think we should respond to that with "So what?"

Remember, I live in Oklahoma. We get a lot more of that profit tantrum behavior here than in New York, where they tell people like that to grow up and think of someone other than themselves.

What do you think about unions?

As I said not too long ago when the subject came up, "At my last job, I'd have gladly paid $20 a month to tell my boss to go fuck herself."

It is fairly straightforward to ban everyone from doing something. A bit more tricky with "except for the government".. Think killing people. Everything is well defined in criminal code, including government's right for capital punishment where it exists.
Now, how do you force SOME people into doing something? Preferably doing it well?
Regulation of healthcare already exists - think about all those licenses and certifications. But how do you regulate the reward for someone who literally makes the living looking into people's shitholes? I mean proctologists....