Charity on October 12th, 2007

Now JD wants to know, “how is a system that puts profits over health somehow a better choice?

Okay, I am no economist, but here is a simplified explanation of why a for-profit entity is better than a government subsidized entity.

Where do profits come from? Profits are made when consumers purchase your product or service. Profit alone is motive to provide a good product or service, when there is choice in the market place.

If your service or product stinks, no one will buy it, ergo, no profit.

When a service provider is funded by the government, there is no motive to provide better service. If your service or product stinks, people still need to use it. Ergo, no motive to make it better.

As to this claim that private insurers care about profit and the government cares about your health, government funded health care programs do not put health over financial sustainability. A government system of health care still has financial constraints that impact quality of care. The only difference is that they lack the motive to improve that quality.

Now, to change the direction back to my original post about different philosophies, I just don’t understand why anyone thinks that it is someone else’s responsibility to pay for health care and not the individual’s.

We don’t have universal food distribution. We don’t have universal housing. Surely those are more necessary to live than health care, at least on a daily basis.

Where do we draw the line at requiring someone else to pay for our needs?

7 Responses to “The Profit Motive”

  1. Ok, at least you’re responding. Now the fun stuff…
    Profit alone is motive to provide a good product or service, when there is choice in the market place.

    Ok, in the private healthcare sector in the US, a good product or service is not provided and many people no choice whatsoever in what health plan they get (if they’re lucky enough to have one.) Seems like an odd way to start making your case.

    If your service or product stinks, no one will buy it, ergo, no profit.

    Well, they’re making a profit and providing a shitty service. Doesn’t that contradict your first point?

    When a service provider is funded by the government, there is no motive to provide better service. If your service or product stinks, people still need to use it. Ergo, no motive to make it better.

    HAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, that was funny. How is there no motive to provide better service when the government provides it. THe health and well being of its citizens is the motive, silly. But you don’t get that, becasue they dont’ point that out in those free market think tanks you like to read all the time.

    As to this claim that private insurers care about profit and the government cares about your health, government funded health care programs do not put health over financial sustainability. A government system of health care still has financial constraints that impact quality of care. The only difference is that they lack the motive to improve that quality.

    Proof? You seem to be incapable of grasping the idea that somebody or thing might do something right for reasons other than money.

    And then you close with your selfishness. I didn’t ask for someone to pay for the Marine Corps! Why should I have to pay for your defense? You really fail to get what a nation is all about. It’s not about a bunch of assholes continuously fending for themselves. It’s about realizing we all do better when we work together for a better society. It’s not hippie kumbaya bullshit, it’s just the way it is.

    You know, Charity, you’ve alluded several times that money is tight in your household. How do you reconcile that with the fact that many people who push these policies you support unquestionably with zero evidence believe that if you’re poor, you must be stupid and/or lazy? Look up ‘cognitive dissonance’ in the dictionary.

    I appreciate your response, I really do, but it’s STILL just quoting a bunch of right-wing THEORY that has very little bearing on the way the world really works. You quote these things, yet all the while you act as though we have an efficient, functioning healthcare system in this country, when it’s really on life support. WE’re not dealing with theoreticals, here, gal. Real people ar dying because of corporate greed here. Do you even care, or is it just tough shit or God’s will or something? As long as YOU don’t have to pay for them. How much work are you doing to stop paying for killing Iraqi kids? I don’t hear you complaining about paying for that, Where do you draw the line?

    Surely those are more necessary to live than health care, at least on a daily basis.

    Yeah, brain cancer is manageable as long as you can still eat. You really don’t get it.

  2. “many people no choice whatsoever in what health plan they get (if they’re lucky enough to have one.)”

    I specifically said, “when there is choice in the marketplace.” I said that because there isn’t. There needs to be. We need to be able to buy insurance from whatever state we want and buy whatever type of plan we want. Right now the government regulates policies so much, many people are priced out, unless their employer provides it, in which case, there is no choice of service, as you said.

    I never said our current system was a-okay.

    if they’re lucky enough to have one/

    That’s a joke right? 85% of the population has health insurance and that is considered luck? Can you say hyperbole, JD?

    You seem to be incapable of grasping the idea that somebody or thing might do something right for reasons

    No. This is what you are incapable of grasping. I believe that the poor will be taken care of by private charities and you ascribe to an ideology that says the poor will die on the street unless the government forcibly take money from people to help the poor.

    Why should I have to pay for your defense?

    Because that is what nations are for - for providing things that the individual cannot provide for himself.

    Communities are for caring for our neighbors.

    The one-size-fits-all nature of a centralized bureaucracy is not the best way to provide health care.

    How do you reconcile that with the fact that many people who push these policies you support unquestionably with zero evidence believe that if you’re poor, you must be stupid and/or lazy?

    This really annoys me about you, JD. You have this idea that anyone who is conservative just sits around reading think tank articles (that one made me really laugh), listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading Michelle Malkin and never stops to question anything or think for herself.

    In reality, I rarely read or hear anything from the right-wing perspective. Lately, I get most of my political news from GMD, I am ashamed to admit, and the Burlington Free Press, again ashamed. And the AP headlines on the Comcast homepage. (Okay, this is really embarrassing, but I have been really busy with other stuff lately.)

    The only right-wing blog I have in my feed reader is IMAO, which a humor blog.

    I do get the Town Hall daily e-mail (with links to the day’s columns), but I only read a couple of columns maybe once a week, if even.

    And what makes you think that I am not critical about my own views? That is pretty damn arrogant of you to think that anyone who disagrees with you must not examine their own beliefs critically.

    To answer your red herring, there is no one who thinks that a family with one stay-at-home parent and one working parent is in a tight financial situation because they are lazy or stupid. Ours is a personal choice that requires financial sacrifices.

    Oh, and so you know, I don’t sit around reading think tank papers. I google them when I need facts. Interesting how you never dispute the facts, only the source, as if that some how wins you the argument.

    Let me know if I missed anything.

  3. That’s a joke right? 85% of the population has health insurance and that is considered luck? Can you say hyperbole, JD?

    Ok, I should have said ‘people lucky enough to have decent healthcare’.. you know, the kind that actually pays for things instead of doing everything in its power not to.

    I believe that the poor will be taken care of by private charities….

    And on what evidence do you base that belief? … Lemme guess.. the only reason they’re not doing it is because the gov’t is, right? It takes communitoes? Ok, what about all of the communities who couldn’t give two shits about you as long as they got their capital gains tax cut?

    listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading Michelle Malkin and never stops to question anything or think for herself.

    That’s funny, considering your latest post is all about Rush Limbaugh’s latest anal discharge.

    ” and you ascribe to an ideology that says the poor will die on the street unless the government forcibly take money from people to help the poor.”…

    No, I just believe that government is the best and most reliable way to pull the resources together to make sure everyone, not just those lucky enough to get charity, or be born into wealth, ensures their basic needs are met. “forcibly take money”? Um, it’s called taxes.. Just curious, Charity , how much money did the government “forcibly take” from you last year? And of that, how much of it went to give some poor kid healthcare? A dollar? 10 cents? A half of a cent? I’ll bet it was a lot less than the amount that went to the war, but you don’t seem to be bothered about it because you never bring that up lest you get kicked out of the Krazy Kon Klub. And do you hear me complaining when they ‘forcibly took’ more of my money that they did from you because you chose to have 3 kids and I didn’t? You gonna write a post on that or are you too busy doing your upcoming AL Gore whine piece like every other rightwing crybaby out there?

    And what makes you think that I am not critical about my own views?

    Well considering how easy many of them aren’t based in any concrete evidence, I have to wonder. You continually fail to see that you hold conservatives to a much different standard than libs.

    here is no one who thinks that a family with one stay-at-home parent and one working parent is in a tight financial situation because they are lazy or stupid.

    Really? I googled ‘right wing’, “poor” and “lazy” and found plenty of wingers who think that. And some of them have a stay at home parent too… Here’s jsut a sample of what’s out there…
    “The so-called poor have cars and cable tv and free medical. They live in America in the 21st century, where school is free and libraries are free and a bus ticket to a better town costs less than a bag of crack. If they’re “poor” it’s because they were too lazy and stupid to a) finish high school and/or b) keep their pants on. Jesus had something to say about folks who didn’t properly manage their money or other people’s, and who squandered free gifts and good will. He told the adulteress to sin no more, not to find herself another baby daddy.

    Ever listen to Neil Boortz? He can’t stand people like you.

    I google them when I need facts. Interesting how you never dispute the facts, only the source, as if that some how wins you the argument.

    Problem is,you never bother to see if your source is even accurate. You find something that confirms your worldview and that’s good enough. You don’t seem to even question the motive. Like when you were plugging that global warming denier wingnut.. his facts were in dispute, many were completely disproven, you couldn’t even be bothered to check, and when brought to your attention, you didn’t seem to care. I do dispute many of the ‘facts’ you point out, because they’re so easily proven wrong or at least with no real evidence they’re actually true. My point is all I need to do to find any of your POV is go to any random wingnut site and there’s about 2000 people on there repeating the same thing, uncritically. Like when you talk about economics and this free market b.s. you repeat ad nauseum… very little of this theory works in the real world we all live and die in. The ones that push it so hard push it because it benefits the people at the top of the food chain, and no one else. Just because the idiots at NRO say so doesn’t make it true. Sources DO matter. You wanna build a house you gonna call a guy who builds treehouses or a guy that builds real ones?

    End rant.

  4. Oh, and ‘think tanks’, whether right or left wing are organizations put together with an agenda or purpose in mind. Why on earth would you go to them as your first place for ‘facts’?

  5. That’s funny, considering your latest post is all about Rush Limbaugh’s latest anal discharge.

    I said that I have IMAO in my feed reader and if you look at that post, you will see that IMAO is credited with where I got the info from.

    Ever listen to Neil Boortz? He can’t stand people like you.

    Neil Boortz hates married, stay-at-home moms? And he calls them adulteresses? That’s so weird.

    I always thought that it was the left-wing feminists who hated stay-at-home moms.

    Anyway, what does any of this have to do with anything? Whether or not my views are correct is not dependent on the others who share those views, what they think of me, or whether they are wrong about other things.

    Stop with all the red herrings.

    You continually fail to see that you hold conservatives to a much different standard than libs.

    Another red herring, but also untrue and baseless. If you go to the old She’s Right, you will find many posts where I take the GOP to task (just search “Republican”). In fact, I hold conservatives to a higher standard because what they say matters to my own cause.

    This blog is not about holding anyone to any standard, it is an outlet for my own personal political rants mostly to spare my husband from having to listen to it when he’s not in the mood to discuss politics.

    No, I just believe that government is the best and most reliable way to pull the resources together to make sure everyone, not just those lucky enough to get charity, or be born into wealth, ensures their basic needs are met.

    Well, I don’t. I think there are better ways.

    As you pointed out (on FBC I think), cost of living (and lifestyles) vary around the country, so at the very least, government programs should be wholly local.

    We also have more direct power at the state and local level.

    For me, my views are about maximizing freedom. De-centralizing all government programs, except for those that must be federal (and are enumerated in the Constitution) retains the maximum amount of power for the people.

    And don’t feed me any of your “we are the government” fluff. Talk about living in a dream world. How much power do you think you really have in the federal government? The one representative that you have out of 435 in the US House hasn’t even held up on his promises to his base. As for me, I have no representation at the federal level.

    We all have someone who we can work with at the state level. We all can show up on the statehouse lawn, if need be. These guys have to look us in the eye.

    Who would you rather have managing your health care program?

  6. We all have someone who we can work with at the state level. We all can show up on the statehouse lawn, if need be. These guys have to look us in the eye.

    Who would you rather have managing your health care program?

    At this rate, anyone but private corporations. So are you saying you’d be okay with universal healthcare if it were at the state level?

  7. A lot of the profits in our private health care industry (especially in the HMO area)come from denying health care to everyday Americas…I just can’t wrap my mind around how that is fair in the good, ole USA that I grew up in. I mean, yeah, screwing grandma out of her heart transplant might save X-number of dollars, but then she’s a goner if she can’t pay for it herself…
    BTW, I used to work for the federal govt. It’s made up of people, just like you and me…just like your state and local governments…no different. We’re regular people too…