6 ms·

I truly don't understand this reasoning. If lobbyists buy politicians, the sell out are the politicians, and then healthcare administration must be taken away f

I truly don't understand this reasoning. If lobbyists buy politicians, the sell out are the politicians, and then healthcare administration must be taken away from government..

10000truths 5y ago
So you hold both parties accountable. Neither is being held at gunpoint here - both are mutually consenting to an exchange, and thus both are responsible for the consequences thereof.
- throw123123123 5y ago
  The tax payer is being held at gunpoint by the government: he must pay for this exchange involuntarily. The private enterprise does not hold that privilege.
Ericson2314 5y ago
Getting rid of medicare could fix this price gouging, but not price gouging in medicine in gneeral. Look at insulin: The efficient market response to jacked up insulin prices is...um...mercy kill your diabetic relatives and procreate new ones in their stead. Yeah, no thanks. The only solution is public healthcare and unfucked voting systems. Say it to yourself until you get it.
- dantheman 5y ago
  Or perhaps allow competition and not government granted monopolies through patents and approvals?
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Did you read my insulin example? The patents expired, at least. Don't get me wrong, markers are good for some things, but healthcare is not among them.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  I disagree with both majority and minority rule, but regarding > unfucked voting systems What system would you propose? Considering our voting systems have only tended more toward 'fucked' over time, how do you propose we ever get to 'unfucked' voting systems when we are held fast by 'fucked' ones?
  - marton78 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
  - vajrabum 5y ago
    Looks to me like our voting systems work fine. Our campaign finance systems however...
    - sofixa 5y ago
      First past the post is a terrible voting system. It forces two main parties, and doesn't represent anyone whose candidate didn't win in their locality. Representative ( or mixed representative with preferential, where you vote for a party list and for a person specifically who gets ahead) is much better, and would certainly alleviate many of the US political system's issues ( like the immediate politicisation of every issue among party lines)
  - radicalbyte 5y ago
    Full on proportional representation in both houses would do the trick. You get the occasional year of formation negotiations but it would solve so many problems in the US.
    - dantheman 5y ago
      The senators are supposed to represent states - their direct election has been a major source of government growth and waste.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
tcmart14 5y ago
Or we prevent politicians from being bought out. Otherwise this can apply to anything and everything as it already does. Farm policies that help bust small farmers in favor of corporate farmers as an example. Then what we end up with is no government (which is fine with me but detestable by many) and local organizing.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  Yes, this is a general argument against government. Government always tends towards corruption, so allowing it the total control of anything ends badly.
  - willvarfar 5y ago
    And places without strong government also tend towards corruption. There was an interesting article on HN yesterday about the failure of nation building in Afganistan https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28271799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28271799
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    Allowing total control of anything with no input from those affected ends badly. It is independent of if that concentration takes the form of a corrupted government or capital accumulation or a warlord. Of those only a democratic government at least has the theory of responding to those governed. Either forms tend to be a hierarchical application of power with few checks.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  I hope I'm alive to see the day voters scrutinize politicians whom take lobbiest contributions. There are websites that lay it all out, but not many people bother to do our homework, including myself. I have heard the insurance industry lobbiests, and not just medical insurance, pretty much control my state (California).
  - tcmart14 5y ago
    Me too. But people are too busy caring whether or not a D or R is present next to the name and what social policies are pushed. Who cares about economic policy when I really just want others to be forced to live with the morals I have? And in some cases, some voters do see those corporations and wealthy as people who should lead society. Like they they will actually admit it, but it can be seen from actions and comments.
pa7ch 5y ago
That plan also has bad incentives, the third option is best, try to remove money from politics. Ensure medicare laws are made for the good of the people.
- throw123123123 5y ago
  How? A politician is never tied to a medical result, or even "the good of the people". A politicians first priority is winning an election, not having administrative capabilities.
- tommymachine 5y ago
  lol simply become god and create politicians that don't want to live in huge mansions. Problem solved!
  - sitkack 5y ago
    Your account is old enough to not do this.
- Aunche 5y ago
  The problem isn't money in politics. It's politicians with absolutely no knowledge about economics. Healthcare system became an entangled mess of the private and public sector in the first place because the government tried to implement a price floor on salaries, no lobbying required. Even the most unscrupulous of politicians should recognize that a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions and front row tickets to a college football game isn't a fair trade for handing pharmaceutical companies a blank check from an account with effectively infinite money. What happens is that the lobbyist butters the politician up and sounds smart, so the politician just listens to whatever the lobbyist is saying.
- treeman79 5y ago
  Medicare is a cash cow for businesses. Anyone that tries to fix it is going to discover what it’s like to be part of a smear campaign.
dv_dt 5y ago
The only reason government politicians are worth buying out is that the power of government is the only check to even larger power accumulations. If you eliminate government then that capital power just does directly does what it wants with no transparency of even a politicians bought vote.
- throw123123123 5y ago
  But this is an example of that big governemnt doing exactly the opposite and using its power to sell out.
- tommymachine 5y ago
  So the transparency of free market negotiations is inferior to the transparency of corrupt taxpayer sponsored price fixing?
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    There is no free market without some government keeping it to some measure of free. If no one enforces property rights then the strongest just takes property from anyone with no consent.
- curiousgal 5y ago
  I love it when Americans theorize and hypothesize acting like healthcare isn't a solved problem anywhere else in the world.
  - tommymachine 5y ago
    You're right. No one dies anymore in the rest of the world.
  - least 5y ago
    The American healthcare system is exceptionally bad when you compare it against the United States' relative wealth, for sure; the rest of the world hasn't solved healthcare, though. Even if you zoom in on the few countries most people are talking about when they say "the rest of the world," there's still a tons of issues present, a lot of which are directly a result of the system that they chose to utilize. This is an issue with a lot of nuance and I wish people wouldn't make such reductive statements like this.
kristopolous 5y ago
Ideally that should be illegal and we shouldn't tolerate naked political corruption and bribery.
smolder 5y ago
No, we need a functional government free of bribes, not a society run by money which places the value of a life at roughly $0.
- throw123123123 5y ago
  You need to punish gov from taking bribes to get there.
evanextreme 5y ago
the problem is that something as critical as people's health is allowed to exist as a commodity on the free market. when your life is at stake, there's no price that remains in the way. so these companies gouge out the consumer, pray on their fears. the last thing we need is to allow the free market to control health care even more than it already has.
- dantheman 5y ago
  Yet we somehow have food, water, and electricity. The problem isn't that its essential, it's that we grant monopolies, limit competition, and overall break any systemic feedback loops.
  - evanextreme 5y ago
    _you_ might have food, yet over 10% of american citizens do not (https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/the-united-states https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/the-united-...). the later two categories you mentioned are classified as public utilities by the federal government (water and electricity). the vibrancy of the health care in the United States is not the issue. by all economic measures, the health care market is incredibly vibrant and profitable. there are numerous companies that exist in each state, and dozens of options to choose from nationally. the problem is that there is a market for medical supplies which the government does not strictly limit and control, and multiple perverse profit layers which should not exist. your health care provider is not incentivized to help you, only exploit as much cash out of healthy people as possible while ensuring their "losses" (paying for those who are ill) are minimized. under a free market health care system where the goal is profit, this will always be the case
pjc50 5y ago
You can't take the oversight away from government, that's fundamentally what it does. You can't expect them to stand by forever when the private situation is a disaster that gets people killed either, like Purdue and their opiates.

I truly don't understand this reasoning. If lobbyists buy politicians, the sell out are the politicians, and then healthcare administration must be taken away from government..

10000truths 5y ago

So you hold both parties accountable. Neither is being held at gunpoint here - both are mutually consenting to an exchange, and thus both are responsible for the consequences thereof.

throw123123123 5y ago
The tax payer is being held at gunpoint by the government: he must pay for this exchange involuntarily. The private enterprise does not hold that privilege.

Ericson2314 5y ago

Getting rid of medicare could fix this price gouging, but not price gouging in medicine in gneeral. Look at insulin: The efficient market response to jacked up insulin prices is...um...mercy kill your diabetic relatives and procreate new ones in their stead. Yeah, no thanks. The only solution is public healthcare and unfucked voting systems. Say it to yourself until you get it.

dantheman 5y ago
Or perhaps allow competition and not government granted monopolies through patents and approvals?
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Did you read my insulin example? The patents expired, at least. Don't get me wrong, markers are good for some things, but healthcare is not among them.
reedjosh 5y ago
I disagree with both majority and minority rule, but regarding > unfucked voting systems What system would you propose? Considering our voting systems have only tended more toward 'fucked' over time, how do you propose we ever get to 'unfucked' voting systems when we are held fast by 'fucked' ones?
- marton78 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
- vajrabum 5y ago
  Looks to me like our voting systems work fine. Our campaign finance systems however...
  - sofixa 5y ago
    First past the post is a terrible voting system. It forces two main parties, and doesn't represent anyone whose candidate didn't win in their locality. Representative ( or mixed representative with preferential, where you vote for a party list and for a person specifically who gets ahead) is much better, and would certainly alleviate many of the US political system's issues ( like the immediate politicisation of every issue among party lines)
- radicalbyte 5y ago
  Full on proportional representation in both houses would do the trick. You get the occasional year of formation negotiations but it would solve so many problems in the US.
  - dantheman 5y ago
    The senators are supposed to represent states - their direct election has been a major source of government growth and waste.
- Ericson2314 5y ago

tcmart14 5y ago

Or we prevent politicians from being bought out. Otherwise this can apply to anything and everything as it already does. Farm policies that help bust small farmers in favor of corporate farmers as an example. Then what we end up with is no government (which is fine with me but detestable by many) and local organizing.

reedjosh 5y ago
Yes, this is a general argument against government. Government always tends towards corruption, so allowing it the total control of anything ends badly.
- willvarfar 5y ago
  And places without strong government also tend towards corruption. There was an interesting article on HN yesterday about the failure of nation building in Afganistan https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28271799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28271799
- dv_dt 5y ago
  Allowing total control of anything with no input from those affected ends badly. It is independent of if that concentration takes the form of a corrupted government or capital accumulation or a warlord. Of those only a democratic government at least has the theory of responding to those governed. Either forms tend to be a hierarchical application of power with few checks.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
I hope I'm alive to see the day voters scrutinize politicians whom take lobbiest contributions. There are websites that lay it all out, but not many people bother to do our homework, including myself. I have heard the insurance industry lobbiests, and not just medical insurance, pretty much control my state (California).
- tcmart14 5y ago
  Me too. But people are too busy caring whether or not a D or R is present next to the name and what social policies are pushed. Who cares about economic policy when I really just want others to be forced to live with the morals I have? And in some cases, some voters do see those corporations and wealthy as people who should lead society. Like they they will actually admit it, but it can be seen from actions and comments.

pa7ch 5y ago

That plan also has bad incentives, the third option is best, try to remove money from politics. Ensure medicare laws are made for the good of the people.

throw123123123 5y ago
How? A politician is never tied to a medical result, or even "the good of the people". A politicians first priority is winning an election, not having administrative capabilities.
tommymachine 5y ago
lol simply become god and create politicians that don't want to live in huge mansions. Problem solved!
- sitkack 5y ago
  Your account is old enough to not do this.
Aunche 5y ago
The problem isn't money in politics. It's politicians with absolutely no knowledge about economics. Healthcare system became an entangled mess of the private and public sector in the first place because the government tried to implement a price floor on salaries, no lobbying required. Even the most unscrupulous of politicians should recognize that a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions and front row tickets to a college football game isn't a fair trade for handing pharmaceutical companies a blank check from an account with effectively infinite money. What happens is that the lobbyist butters the politician up and sounds smart, so the politician just listens to whatever the lobbyist is saying.
treeman79 5y ago
Medicare is a cash cow for businesses. Anyone that tries to fix it is going to discover what it’s like to be part of a smear campaign.

dv_dt 5y ago

The only reason government politicians are worth buying out is that the power of government is the only check to even larger power accumulations. If you eliminate government then that capital power just does directly does what it wants with no transparency of even a politicians bought vote.

throw123123123 5y ago
But this is an example of that big governemnt doing exactly the opposite and using its power to sell out.
tommymachine 5y ago
So the transparency of free market negotiations is inferior to the transparency of corrupt taxpayer sponsored price fixing?
- dv_dt 5y ago
  There is no free market without some government keeping it to some measure of free. If no one enforces property rights then the strongest just takes property from anyone with no consent.
curiousgal 5y ago
I love it when Americans theorize and hypothesize acting like healthcare isn't a solved problem anywhere else in the world.
- tommymachine 5y ago
  You're right. No one dies anymore in the rest of the world.
- least 5y ago
  The American healthcare system is exceptionally bad when you compare it against the United States' relative wealth, for sure; the rest of the world hasn't solved healthcare, though. Even if you zoom in on the few countries most people are talking about when they say "the rest of the world," there's still a tons of issues present, a lot of which are directly a result of the system that they chose to utilize. This is an issue with a lot of nuance and I wish people wouldn't make such reductive statements like this.

kristopolous 5y ago

Ideally that should be illegal and we shouldn't tolerate naked political corruption and bribery.

smolder 5y ago

No, we need a functional government free of bribes, not a society run by money which places the value of a life at roughly $0.

throw123123123 5y ago
You need to punish gov from taking bribes to get there.

evanextreme 5y ago

the problem is that something as critical as people's health is allowed to exist as a commodity on the free market. when your life is at stake, there's no price that remains in the way. so these companies gouge out the consumer, pray on their fears. the last thing we need is to allow the free market to control health care even more than it already has.

dantheman 5y ago
Yet we somehow have food, water, and electricity. The problem isn't that its essential, it's that we grant monopolies, limit competition, and overall break any systemic feedback loops.
- evanextreme 5y ago
  _you_ might have food, yet over 10% of american citizens do not (https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/the-united-states https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/the-united-...). the later two categories you mentioned are classified as public utilities by the federal government (water and electricity). the vibrancy of the health care in the United States is not the issue. by all economic measures, the health care market is incredibly vibrant and profitable. there are numerous companies that exist in each state, and dozens of options to choose from nationally. the problem is that there is a market for medical supplies which the government does not strictly limit and control, and multiple perverse profit layers which should not exist. your health care provider is not incentivized to help you, only exploit as much cash out of healthy people as possible while ensuring their "losses" (paying for those who are ill) are minimized. under a free market health care system where the goal is profit, this will always be the case

pjc50 5y ago

You can't take the oversight away from government, that's fundamentally what it does. You can't expect them to stand by forever when the private situation is a disaster that gets people killed either, like Purdue and their opiates.