Will Ferrell and Pals: 'Save Our Health Execs'

SilenceDogood, please let me know (I really am curious): Why do you WANT to pay $400 for a $4 shovel in Iraq? And why do you WANT to make "healthcare" moguls even richer without decent coverage? And "pharmacare" billionaires richer? Why do you fight any suggested improvement? Why do you fight an end to the robbery of taxpayers? Why do you vote against your own interests?? (I assume you're not the CEO of Blackwater or Pfizer? - Hey, maybe I assume incorrectly?).

Well put. So many people don't understand this point. I have no problem with rich people having mini zoos in their backyard as long as they got it by working hard and smart in a fair competition in a capitalistic system. Government regulations have hindered competition, and have caused all our healthcare problems.

So you're saying that in order to be viable, a corporation MUST rake in billions of dollars in profit? What about non-profit organizations? Are you suggesting that non-profits should not be allowed to compete with for-profit corporations for services?

Just as private universities remained in existence after state universities were allowed to exist (even though Conservatives screamed that state universities would eliminate Yale and Harvard), private insurance will continue, but in a much more competitive manner. By refusing to allow competition to exists (and let the private insurance companies run wild), we are creating welfare for the rich.

see reasonator I do have a problem with the extremely wealthy having frivolous things like mini zoos. While their riding there giraffe out back without a care in the world there is still 45 million Americans who cant pay for the most basic health care.

A government option does NOT equal destroying insurance companies! It means forcing them to make their health care more affordable. Did you know that a BCBS plan for a healthy young person is $220 a month, minimum? Now imagine you're working a minimum wage job 60 hours a week. $220 a month is FOOD MONEY for 2 months. Driving that price down is IMPORTANT.

@welcome: So, how much money should people be allowed to have in your world? And would you regulate what they spend it on in that world?

Yes, joint and reasonator, I think the system we have now is preferable to any change whatsoever. So what if we're paying over 15 percent of our GDP to healthcare, more than any other industrialized country, yet we're the only industrialized country NOT covering everyone. WE CAN'T BE GETTING SCREWED, BECAUSE THE COMPETITIVE FREE MARKET SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW MUST BE EFFICIENT, AND WE CAN SEE THAT IN HOW LOW OUR HEALTHCARE COSTS ARE AND IN OUR SUPERIOR HEALTH OUTCOMES. YAY CAPITALISM BOO COMMUNISM KEEP YOUR INEFFICIENT GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF OF MY MEDICARE

@banana: If you're going to get into this discussion, you're going to have to try and understand my point of view before you refute it. So far you have missed my main point, so what you presented was a strawman. My main point is that we DON'T have a competitive free market system in the insurance industry. We have had government regulations for a long time keeping the free market system from doing what it's supposed to do. I do think we need healthcare reform, but the reform we need is less regulation, not more.

I mean honestly, do you even understand what the free market means? Go read an economics book. The insurance companies have been regulated by states for years. How can that in any shape or fashion be considered free market? There is no way it can come close to being defined as a free market system. It has been that way for years, and that's where the problem lies.

@reasonator: A few points: 1. I majored in econ, asshat. 2. It is precisely for this reason that every time I use the term "free market," especially when it's in all caps, I do so sarcastically 3. I knew you were going to say that! Because that is what conservative/libertarian douchebags always default to: that the free market is a panacea and will solve everything, iff it is "truly free". But this is a maddeningly stupid position to take. There are many, many reasons to think that leaving everything up to the "free market" is not the be all end all of economic discussion, least of all not for "goods" with inelastic demand, like healthcare. First of all, the ideal of "perfect competition" makes some unreasonable assumptions about human behavior, e.g. that people behave rationally, or that people have "perfect information" in the marketplace. See: Dan Ariely, behavioral economics, common sense http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html And in real-world contexts, what does perfect information even mean? Just because the models are pretty and fit together nicely doesn't mean that they tell us anything about the way things really are or ought to be. Conservatives/libertarians never got the memo that rationalism is dead, because we can't know that much about the world a priori. Econ is, and should be, much messier and empirical than people make it out to be. See: Paul Krugman, real world http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=paul%20krugman&st=cse Second, even if the "free market" creates economically efficient outcomes (which I contest), that doesn't mean it creates fair or equitable outcomes. The people at the bottom may very well get screwed and exist at the mercy of the people at the top. See: 45 million uninsured Third, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're a libertarian and you believe that we are all independent and should be able to do whatever we want so long as we don't hurt anyone else, but my point is that there are many things that government is better suited to take care of than the private sector, precisely because there are externalities in many of the things we do or don't do. If I drop out of school instead of becoming a researcher and curing some disease, everyone suffers, even if no one sees it. It is in everyone's interests to see that everyone has access to roads and education. I fail to see how the rationale for having a public option in healthcare is any different than having public roads or schools (especially since a public option works better than the system we have now in other countries.) Which is an argument you haven't addressed, that we pay more and get less than any other country, even though they have more regulations on healthcare. See: opportunity cost, externalities, other countries Not that I expect you to read all that. Don't really take you for much of a reader... :P And even if you did,...

I doubt it would convince you, for the same reason you can't convince idiots or birthers of the truth. We're biological and not rational as classically understood. We need to seriously tweak our understanding of democracy and "the free market" if we're going to retain them as the bases of our society in the long run. That being said, I don't know why I haven't learned not to debate with people who aren't going to be convinced of anything anyway, other than that it is cathartic.

@odowd80: It's not, but if the free market system were allowed to work, then when an insurance company operated like that, there would be a hundred others willing to give you a good deal in order to get your dollars. And the insurance company denying claims would be forced to change its ways or go bankrupt. But the free market system is not allowed to work, because there are so many government regulations and subsidies and such.