Women should get free birth control, panel says

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I'm confused on how preventative health services wouldn't exist, without public money.

Because we're not operating in a hypothetical market - we're operating in an actual, defined system, one in which insurance companies have very little incentive to push preventative services (due to consumer, government and market pressures), and one in which their slavish devotion to quarterly earnings trumps the long-term cost benefit of pushing preventative measures anyway.

[AlwaysSAI]

Must this thread, of all threads, really turn into yet another GC barking contest?

ROOF! My bark is the loudest.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

Must this thread, of all threads, really turn into yet another GC barking contest?

ROOF! My bark is the loudest.

Uh...do you have something to share about the actual topic? That's the best way to keep a thread on topic.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

Must this thread, of all threads, really turn into yet another GC barking contest?

ROOF! My bark is the loudest.

Is your bark the loudest? Or is your house the most dry?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

Must this thread, of all threads, really turn into yet another GC barking contest?

ROOF! My bark is the loudest.

Yes, people disagreeing and discussing matters at a moderately high level really takes a dump on a thread, doesn't it?

Take off your moderator pants, put on a pot of tea, and chill out. EW is somewhat one-note, but a lot of times there's an interesting point to discuss underneath the Libertrolling.

Also, it's like the most anti-Feminist thing on Earth to say "this thread, of all threads" - seriously?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Because we're not operating in a hypothetical market - we're operating in an actual, defined system, one in which insurance companies have very little incentive to push preventative services (due to consumer, government and market pressures), and one in which their slavish devotion to quarterly earnings trumps the long-term cost benefit of pushing preventative measures anyway.

I thought Elephant Walk was "smart enough" to know all of this. I guess not.

I was looking forward to reading different opinions on this. I welcome those who can express those opinions in a manner different than Elephant Walk.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Because we're not operating in a hypothetical market - we're operating in an actual, defined system,

Of course.

However, I suppose my hypotheticals come with caveats. If we are to remove healthcare funding from the federal budget, we are to remove total government intervention in the market. The problem is that we get a little free-market one way...but no free-market in another similar instance.

For example, the banks were able to spend boundless amounts of money and hand-out tons of loans. An exhibition of free-market Austrian capitalism. Except, that in direct opposition to this was the fiat money system, the FDIC, and the federal reserve. These federal regulations and propping up systems created moral hazards creating a collapse. No moral hazards/no government intervention...a functioning market. But when the invisible hand is not allowed to work, it is a nightmare.

With that said, I'm advocating the removal of the federal intervention in the health-care market...but if we remove universal health care, we must remove the whole disgusting mess.

So when you talk about,

one in which insurance companies have very little incentive to push preventative services (due to consumer, government and market pressures), and one in which their slavish devotion to quarterly earnings trumps the long-term cost benefit of pushing preventative measures anyway.

Which is created by a system propped up by the government, expounded by the fiat money system and welfare, you're going to have this mess. In spite of this consistent meddling by the federal government, the insurances still like preventative care. Insurance companies and companies that provide insurance love preventative care because it makes having you in their insurance cheaper. If they have a slavish devotion to quarterly earnings, they would have a slavish devotion to preventative measures which saves money. And they do. Do you really think that many corporations (including the one I work for) provide a gym because they want everyone to be skinny and hot?

No.

When you have a regulatory agency which consistently withholds drugs from the populace where it might be someone's last hope, where you have a federal government that prevents cheap drugs from other countries in order to support corporations (form of corporatism, eventual fascism), where you have a government who has now forced the populace to buy insurance (which again is another form of corporatism, eventual fascism) which in itself creates a terrible moral hazard and greatly increases the cost of care, and ultimately a government who props up a multiplicity of companies, you have a problem. The problems these last two or three decades have seen in regards to healthcare are not a result of a government hands-off approach, simply the opposite. The government has been too involved.

The Austrian Free-Market is compassion. The socialized market fakes compassion for power. Power over the powerless.