Tukraq
VIP
free markets is driven by the profits from the people though, your dollar is your vote, in a free market system companies can't just do what they want as there dependent on there customers thus its the people who wield the power
Brits guessing how much healthcare costs in America
- Thread starter Muji
- Start date
@Tukraq
We do have a free market here, but it seems that some industries hold too much power over politicians and are unregulated while others are regulated, therefore, free market only exists for the gullible. There is no and never will be unfettered free markets.
Umm-al-Dhegdheeriyaa
Run and I’ll catch you and eat you alive
Subxanallah how does an inhaler cost that much 
It’s clear reer America are being scammed, have you seen how much they pay for insulin?
I’ve never gotten sick but imagine being an elderly and having multiple health issues 
It’s clear reer America are being scammed, have you seen how much they pay for insulin?I’ve never gotten sick but imagine being an elderly and having multiple health issues 
Muji
VIP
Subxanallah how does an inhaler cost that much
Sadly it’s not only the old that get sick. And everyone will become disabled once in their life- if they live old enough to be.
But people like @Tukraq think you can play around with healthcare like it’s the lottery. He is planning to support Bernie Saunders when he is old and needs free healthcare. Hasn’t once considered what will happens to his parents, or anyone in his life who may become hurt or injured. Americans are very stubborn people- they are in a mess and anyone who tries to warn them is shouted down. It reminds me of Somalia where you mention any of the ills of the country you are called a traitor lol.
Tukraq
VIP
elderly have medicareSubxanallah how does an inhaler cost that much
@Tukraq
We do have a program here called the PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) which means unemployed people (young and old) and poor retirees are their medicines heavily subsidised by the government. It accounts for a fifth of the government’s health spending. This year alone, it will cost the government $13 billions.
Bro you could not be more wrong sadly, banks in western nations are the most regulated sector after only healthcare and food,
banks are far more regulated,
the issue we have with banks is they have created a bubble to protect themselves against the free market, examples: the free market will never allow banks to do what they do today, they create money out of thin air, well its digits now, before they created money through fractional reserve banking,
the government banned 100% reserve banking, allow banks to practice fractional reserve banking, a fancy term for them creating money out of thin air and governments in the west since 1971 banned the gold standard, where money was backed by gold, before 1971 banks could not create money out of thin air with out having the same gold units in stock, since its hard to find gold and mine it they asked the state to ban it,
why do you think world problems have been getting worse since 1970s, its because we banned the gold standard, and even on fiat money i.e paper money
gold restricts what abuse banks can do, banks also lobbied for states to ban usury laws, even in islam we are told use gold and silver as money and hence why also riba has been banned,
since 1860 states have allowed banks to go wild with riba based banking, the church did not allow it for centuries,
we dont have a free market, i wish we did, so stop blaming free markets and capitalism,
educate your self bro, stop lying to yourself with cliched rehearsed answers, that is cheap rhetoric
A Case for Free-Market Bank Regulation
0 COMMENTS
TAGS Free MarketsMoney and BanksInterventionism
11/23/2011Anthony W. Hager
Bank of America (BAC) has rescinded its plan to charge customers a $5 monthly debit-card fee. Shall we praise bank regulators for their swift action in preventing the exorbitant charge? Well, no. Then we'll credit politicians for legislating against greedy, big-bank profiteering, right? Wrong again. The free market drove BAC to drop the debit-card fee.
Several banks have floated similar debit-card fees — some already assess the monthly charge — and each met the same fate as BAC. Customers informed their financial institutions that they would rather pull their assets than pay the fee. Banks responded in predictable fashion. Banks need customers in order to remain solvent; therefore they heed their customers' complaints and outrage, whether or not they are reasonable. That's the free market in action. Unpopular fees and programs are abandoned just as surely as profits are taken. Everything depends on what the market will bear.
The $5 debit-card charge was never a product of free-market capitalism. It was the result of political machinations, most notably on the part of Senator Dick Durbin. Durbin's amendment to the Dodd-Frank bank reform legislation placed an arbitrary cap on debit-card interchange fees, which banks impose on retailers for each swipe of a customer's card.
Banks collect this fee to maintain their electronic networks, retailers distribute the fee among their customers, and customers enjoy the convenience of cashless transactions. Such business-customer relationships aren't invariably perfect, but they are at least agreeable between the involved parties. Once politicians meddle in that relationship, as Durbin did, unintended consequences become the norm. Enter the debit-card fee. Yet the fact that Durbin made matters worse didn't stop him from telling BAC customers to "vote with their feet."
Well, bank customers have voted with their feet — or have threatened to do so. I'll wager that not a single disgruntled customer walked into their bank and said to the teller, "Dick Durbin told me to withdraw my money." Blowhard politicians aren't necessary for customers to decide what fees they should or shouldn't accept. Customers needn't occupy public parks for banks to hear their complaints. The only thing necessary to kill the monthly debit-card fee was for customers to exercise their free choice in an open marketplace.
Markets compel businesses to please their customers or risk losing them to more amenable competitors. Banks couldn't collude on behalf of debit-card fees, even if they so wanted, because they're more interested in retaining current customers and attracting new ones from institutions that assess unpopular charges. The mere threat of losing customers was enough to render debit-card fees a poor business decision. When market forces reign there's no need for protests, tents, and signs; nor is there a need for pandering politicians with superhero complexes to deliver customers from corporate evil.
However, markets move both directions. Just as the market wouldn't tolerate debit-card fees, which are noticeable, the market may tolerate other fees that aren't as noticeable, just as it once tolerated the higher interchange fees. No one considered the interchange fees retailers paid on debit-card transactions until government placed price controls on them. The banks then looked to other areas to recoup the lost revenue, which led to the debit-card fee. Since the market has rejected the debit-card fee, banks will look for another way to boost revenue.
Frankly, a $5 debit-card charge is benign in and of itself. If a customer uses their card 50 times per month, the average cost per transaction is a paltry 10 cents, a rather innocuous expense for the convenience of using a debit-card system. And make no mistake: customers aren't paying the banks for the privilege of using their own money, as the populist argument holds. Customers pay for the use of the bank's computer and network systems, all of which cost money to purchase, operate, and maintain.
There's little purpose in defending or criticizing the banks, their customers, or the debit-card fee. The marketplace spoke and a verdict was rendered. Customers preferred to seek new institutions rather than pay their banks a monthly debit-card stipend. Banks would rather have more customers paying smaller, less recognizable fees than have fewer customers paying larger, high-profile charges. Both entities weighed their options and arrived at a conclusion with which they could live. Markets may not always react as swiftly as they did in this case. But they will always react, and they will produce the best compromise in any given situation.
All businesses attempt to maximize profits while all customers seek the best value for their money. These interests combine in a free market, making astute businesses profitable while rewarding prudent customers with quality services, all at an agreeable price. Government interference upsets that balance, imposing undesirable results on everyone.
https://mises.org/library/case-free-market-bank-regulation
no such thing as free lunch, your so called subsidies keep in mind is the state robbing Paul and giving it to peter, its called taxation,
yet if we had a free market health care, it will be as cheap a chips, nothing special about health are, regulate it and it becomes expensive for the average Joe, we have massive evidence when health care was free market in the US before 1965 and year after year it has gotten more expensive
to the point in america a young man in his 20s is forced to buy female issues and abortion, and and care needed to do birth control etc, why? so he can subsidies females who need abortions and birth control, thats why, so the young single man in his 20s is paying more and more each year thanks to obama care, yet he will never use 99% of the types of healthcare he is paying for, cancer meds, therapy, spinal injury, birth control, breast cancer issues etc in his plan, obama designed this so they can subsides females as he need the votes,
now if i have a wife and we share the health care plan i dont mind, but being forced to pay for birth control when i am a young man in his 20s inside my plan is like forcing a muslim to buy pork in the supermarket we know he will end up throwing it away afterwards,
what is it with you Somalis and constantly demanding the state subsides you lot with "free this free that" it is not free, tax payers have to pay for it,
this is why they should never allow anyone unemployed to vote, naturally they will vote for the state to tax the tax payer so they can pass it to him,
anything the state subsidies becomes more expensive, subsidise milk and prices go through the roof, leave it tot he free Market and prices come down,
the only ones who should get free health are are disabled, children with no relatives/parents, old and infirm, widows etc , carers of disabled kids since they need to care for them and cannot work, but these are very small in numbers
Never should a young health male or female be allowed to get free anything, that breeds laziness
we need the Swiss model
The Swiss Way of Health
82 COMMENTS
TAGS Swiss WatchTaxes and SpendingWorld History
10/27/2017Marcia Christoff-Kurapovna
[Part of a series on the Swiss economy and society.]
The enigmatic independence of Switzerland is perhaps best demonstrated in the fact that its healthcare system manages to satisfy both free marketers and the statist-socialists in the country. It is a giant social safety net woven by individual responsibility and self-made wealth. Health insurance is almost entirely consumer-based, though there are strict cantonal regulations and some governing federal laws. Coverage is not created, provided or managed by the federal or by cantonal governments, but is sold and managed by private-sector insurance companies to individuals. It is not provided by employers, except in the case of large multinationals and then only partially. There are no free state-provided health services. There is no Medicare. Subsidies are provided in extreme cases (poverty, the infirm) with strict conditions, including the recipient having to pay back those subsidies eventually.
Once voluntary, insurance coverage is now, since 1996, compulsory. Public sector care such as hospitals or the administration of public assistance is paid for by taxes.
A Consumer-Driven Private Insurance Model
To begin with, everyone buys basic and supplementary insurance for himself, the first being mandatory. One purchases it from a choice of just over eighty private insurers that offer competing canton-by-canton plans through which individuals are free to select the insurer they want and may choose any doctor they wish — to ask a doctor if he is “on” a particular plan will be greeted by a confused stare. In addition, with the basic insurance, fees for services are regulated by the state and insurers cannot legally earn profit on those basic benefit packages.
Otherwise, the system of premiums and deductibles is familiar territory to Americans learning about this system. Individuals (not entire families, but each individual family member) pay a premium that varies between cantons and will soon average about $450 a month; on the high-end, this will average about $2500 a month, with children under the age of 18 paying less. The annual deductibles run about these rates, as well. The most someone is allowed to pay for insurance in Switzerland is 8 % of income; anything in excess of that amount may be deducted from taxes.
The basic package is generous by most countries’ standards. The insurance covers the costs of medical treatment and hospitalization, but the insured person has to pay part of the cost of treatment. This is done via an annual deductible also ranging canton-to-canton. Furthermore, a copayment of about $15 a day is required for hospital stays. There are many out-of-pocket costs, but the care is superb. Doctors and hospitals are the very best on the continent. There are no waiting lists, either.
Private insurers make money by selling supplementary insurance policies (private hospital rooms, alternative therapies, those wonderful, alpine-air, Thomas Mann Magic Mountain type retreats; drug rehabilitation, dental), which are risk-adjusted. These are highly prized by Swiss consumers — about 70% of those insured have the supplementary plans.
The Role of State-Mandated Social Benefits
On the state side of things, each of the country’s twenty-six cantons has its own constitution and is responsible for licensing providers, coordinating hospital services, and subsidizing institutions and individual premiums. The federal government plays the role of regulating the financing of the system—that is, requiring that insurance be compulsory; ensuring the quality (and safety) of pharmaceuticals and medical devices; overseeing public health initiatives and promoting research and training. The federal government also regulates a “General Social Insurance” (detailed below) that provides healthcare to those who cannot pay for it themselves. This state involvement in the health care sector is financed through tax revenues.
To be sure, things are getting pricier — rates are going up across cantons, effective throughout 2018. Critics of the system — the Swiss themselves who are quick to point out Singapore and Taiwan as providing the overall best and least expensive services. Still, taxes are quite low and the system works. Some 99.5% of the population is insured, and in a 2014 referendum vote for single-payer nationwide insurance, the proposal was swiftly rejected.
How the Swiss Control Costs
Key to the functioning of the Swiss health care system, however, are the cultural and social factors that are at the basis of its foundation, rather than the system being imposed “from the top down” by political whim or trend. Self-reliance is actively encouraged. Abuse of the system and the welfare-dependency of immigrants/asylum seekers are almost non-existent. Corruption (hospitals, insurers, "big pharma") appears to be relatively minor. All of this is critical to the efficiency of the system. Going point-by-point:
First, Switzerland is not a welfare society. The “poor” in Switzerland are not an urban poor. It is not a country of food stamps or people living on the streets or under bridges. It has one of the lowest child poverty rates in the world. About 3% of citizens (7% factoring in immigration/asylum seekers) lives below that country’s official poverty level, double what the level was through the 1990s; of Swiss citizens, these tend to be single mothers or unemployed parents. Based on canton-by-canton law, those individuals receive, as single adults, about $900 a month and about $2200 maximum for a family in welfare subsidies. However, this amount is for what is called “life dignity” and covers only food, transportation, “hygiene” and communications. It is not to cover rent, rooms, or basic health insurance.
Yes, the state will pay for close to 100% of health costs in the event that an individual has no support network whatsoever or means of employment — but only in such extreme cases and only up until the point the individual finds means of work (more on this below). Cantons, not the federal government, decide the distribution of such subsidies.
These subsidies, in turn, come out of the tax-based Swiss General Social Insurance fund, mentioned above, a kind of “Bismarckian” insurance system designed to cover risks like disability and accident and, in some circumstances, to provide benefits through health care services. It covers, in particular, spending for rehabilitation in case of disability and the health care costs in case of professional and non-professional accidents of employed persons.
Secondly, individual responsibility and family responsibility are “national” priorities: State assistance is required to be paid back once the individual or family is back on its feet. Furthermore, a Civil Obligations Code requires that families take care of those members who cannot take care of themselves (parents, children, grandparents and grandchildren) and authorities can request family members to cover all or a part of social welfare payments and health care payments. Again, responsibility is critical here: keep in mind that Switzerland became the first country in the world to vote at the national level on the issue of universal basic income and shot the idea down by 77% of voters in a referendum of February 2016.
Third, Switzerland discourages dependency. The federal government takes care of asylum seekers across the board (shelter, basic health services), but only temporarily and for usually up to three months. Swiss migration law allows only for the immigration of highly skilled labor.
Authority remains strict: refugees arriving at a Swiss reception center have to hand over to the state any assets worth more than $1000, according to latest figures, and up to a maximum of about $15,000 — to help cover their costs, exempting very personal items (wedding rings). If refugees leave voluntarily within seven months, they can get the money back. If they find work during the time of their temporary protection status, as they are allowed to do so, and win the right to stay and work in Switzerland, these individuals have to surrender 10% of their pay for up to ten years until they repay $15,000 in costs.
Fourth, Switzerland is mainly a self-governing society of rich bankers, rich engineers and rich farmers with high educational standards within a largely homogenous society. The country ranked No.1 on the 2017 Global Competitiveness Index. Additionally, wages are generally high in Switzerland and having low-income individuals performing services is almost non-existent because of the significant costs of even the most unskilled labor. To be sure, in Switzerland, it would be very difficult to get people to buy their own health insurance were worker productivity considerably lower.
Fifth, health care fraud in Switzerland is relatively low. In general, Switzerland is not a country where public-private corruption is rife, despite all the hoopla about secrecy. As of July 2016, private sector bribery was codified in the Swiss Criminal Code and Switzerland is one of the least corrupt countries in the world, ranking fifth in the Transparency International Rankings for 2016. The pharmaceutical ‘lobby’ in the country defends the high prices of drugs on the basis of long research cycles and as the leader of the country’s ongoing export wealth. High prices seem to be the extent of controversy.
In all, the system works with a great degree of efficiency, perhaps best summarized by Swiss doctor Thomas Zeltner, M.D., the former Swiss secretary of health between January 1991 and December 2009. As Zeltner stated in an interview with an American health journal a couple of years back: “We [Swiss]will not let people suffer and die when they need health care. The Swiss believe that, in return, individuals owe it to society to make provision ahead of time for their health care when they fall seriously ill. At that point, they may not have enough money to pay for it. So, we consider the health insurance mandate to be a form of socially responsible civic conduct. In Switzerland, “individual freedom” does not mean that you should be free to live irresponsibly and freeload from others, as you would put it.”
Third, Switzerland discourages dependency. The federal government takes care of asylum seekers across the board (shelter, basic health services), but only temporarily and for usually up to three months. Swiss migration law allows only for the immigration of highly skilled labor.
Authority remains strict: refugees arriving at a Swiss reception center have to hand over to the state any assets worth more than $1000, according to latest figures, and up to a maximum of about $15,000 — to help cover their costs, exempting very personal items (wedding rings). If refugees leave voluntarily within seven months, they can get the money back. If they find work during the time of their temporary protection status, as they are allowed to do so, and win the right to stay and work in Switzerland, these individuals have to surrender 10% of their pay for up to ten years until they repay $15,000 in costs.
Fourth, Switzerland is mainly a self-governing society of rich bankers, rich engineers and rich farmers with high educational standards within a largely homogenous society. The country ranked No.1 on the 2017 Global Competitiveness Index. Additionally, wages are generally high in Switzerland and having low-income individuals performing services is almost non-existent because of the significant costs of even the most unskilled labor. To be sure, in Switzerland, it would be very difficult to get people to buy their own health insurance were worker productivity considerably lower.
Fifth, health care fraud in Switzerland is relatively low. In general, Switzerland is not a country where public-private corruption is rife, despite all the hoopla about secrecy. As of July 2016, private sector bribery was codified in the Swiss Criminal Code and Switzerland is one of the least corrupt countries in the world, ranking fifth in the Transparency International Rankings for 2016. The pharmaceutical ‘lobby’ in the country defends the high prices of drugs on the basis of long research cycles and as the leader of the country’s ongoing export wealth. High prices seem to be the extent of controversy.
In all, the system works with a great degree of efficiency, perhaps best summarized by Swiss doctor Thomas Zeltner, M.D., the former Swiss secretary of health between January 1991 and December 2009. As Zeltner stated in an interview with an American health journal a couple of years back: “We [Swiss]will not let people suffer and die when they need health care. The Swiss believe that, in return, individuals owe it to society to make provision ahead of time for their health care when they fall seriously ill. At that point, they may not have enough money to pay for it. So, we consider the health insurance mandate to be a form of socially responsible civic conduct. In Switzerland, “individual freedom” does not mean that you should be free to live irresponsibly and freeload from others, as you would put it.”
Lets say the goverment had no power and it was fully free market. What stops corporation from having their own military?. do you think it would be some fairy tale were corporation are respecting each other, It would be impossibe to open small business, unless you're producing something Big corps would do everything in their power to stop competitions.
And i agree with you, state service and letting the state supply the people isn't gonna work when the state is already corrupt.
@Teeri-Alpha
Sxb, in a good way, you posted chunks of stuff that I couldn’t fathom & reminded me of the great @DR OSMAN. I stopped reading when you as a “Free Marketeer” and small government proponent mixed religious “values” with economic rationalism. If you are anti-taxation, you would’ve supported abortion because those who the State pays for their abortions are the poor. You are suggesting the poor to have more children so the State have to educate, train, feed and house them or the most probability to imprison them which costs more to feed and look after them in the slammer than a whole family on welfare. These are based on religious principles because it doesn’t make any sense to an economic rationalist.
@DR OSMAN
What do you think? Dr @Teeri-Alpha uses your Lingua of ‘out of nothing’?
Sxb, in a good way, you posted chunks of stuff that I couldn’t fathom & reminded me of the great @DR OSMAN. I stopped reading when you as a “Free Marketeer” and small government proponent mixed religious “values” with economic rationalism. If you are anti-taxation, you would’ve supported abortion because those who the State pays for their abortions are the poor. You are suggesting the poor to have more children so the State have to educate, train, feed and house them or the most probability to imprison them which costs more to feed and look after them in the slammer than a whole family on welfare. These are based on religious principles because it doesn’t make any sense to an economic rationalist.
@DR OSMAN
What do you think? Dr @Teeri-Alpha uses your Lingua of ‘out of nothing’?
ad hominem attacks will not work bro, the state's job is to provide protection against foreign and domestic enemies, it is after the state with full monopoly on force, and to enforce contracts in court and provide law and order,
but the states job is not to give company X 20 years patents where its the only firm making that medicine and we all know what happens to price of medicine after the patents expires, we get a rush of competitors that bring down the price 99%,
look at Albanian american idiot who purchased a patent for a HIV drug and ended up increasing he price from 33 to 8000$ then 12000$, the previous company use to sell it for $3 but the state allow this fool to have 20 years patent
when the patent expired the medicine HIV drug was reduced to $1.5, patents screw people up
many economist have warned about the state giving these patents, specially for needed drugs, the state grants geographical monopoly, the state allow the American medical association to tell universities how many doctors they can educate, so to reduce the supply of doctors, they have been taken to court but the state gave them the power, with out the state such powers cannot be enforced,
so blame the state that gives these powers, if you are told in your state you can only pick one health care supplier and you are not allowed to go else where well then the state is killing you indirectly, it has taken away your freedom, your rights,
i wrote a theses on patents and abuse, firms spend billions each year lobbying the state
senators and congressman take bribes from firms and give them or make laws for them, these bribes are called campaign contribution, lobbying, it has a fancy name and many of the middlemen who run the lobbying firms hired by companies are run by former senators, congressman etc,
also the state bans you from buying medicine from abroad where its cheaper, we have drugs that can be purchased from japan, Germany and imported into England but the UK government will block it due to patent laws and anti import laws etc, made and created by the state ,in many cases these drugs are cheaper and more effective at treating the illness,
blame the state bro, if the state allows me a 20 years patents i will take and milk it,
islam is masha Allah, islam doesn't allow patents or price floors or price fixing,
the prophet SAW banned it,
the natural costs of raising a family will force a men to decide how many kids to have, the market ironically, will say life is too expensive etc so stop, he will do self plan when he knows the state will not be there to bail him out,
what gives you the right to decide how many kids a man can have? dont subsidise him and the state will send a message, you look after your own kids, you fathered them, your responsibilities,
stop subsides people and let reality of life judge their decisions, give him free money and he will breed, so yes again the free market has a solution for him,
no need to be pro abortion if the state gets out of the way and tells the father we will not rob another man to give you money, trust me the free market and real life will give him a wake call and he will adjust to real life when he has to pay for 100% of the costs of his family,
china did abortion, now they regret it as they have a socialist crises, 50 million men with no wives to marry, as parents aborted girls since the 1970s, and picked boys, so the state always screws up,
no in china men kidnap married girls and force to have babies for him as he cannot find one to marry, they screwed up the balance Allah created, now they regret it, they aborted girls like no problem, due to the one child policy,
the state is always bad when it enters the realms beyond defend and protect the nation and uphold laws and rights,
@Teeri-Alpha
States give patents to companies that invented the product, are you against intellectual (property) copyrights? Who will invest in Research and Development? The government?
States give patents to companies that invented the product, are you against intellectual (property) copyrights? Who will invest in Research and Development? The government?
Umm-al-Dhegdheeriyaa
Run and I’ll catch you and eat you alive
That’s the thing, I believe anyone can get sick but usually the older you get, the more your body gives up on you, @Tukraq is going to realise it, he needs to wait a couple of years
I find it baffling how Americans aren’t going out into the streets and protesting(or making a big deal about it) how are you okay with paying that much for your healthcare
https://mises.org/wire/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation
patents create more problems than they solve, be prepared to rethink the issues, i will blow your mind, they have been captured and abused by firms,
would you like to read my these about patents my university has converted into a book?
its not long, only 15000 words,
https://mises.org/wire/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation
@Teeri-Alpha
You sound like Alexis de Tocqueville on his essays on individualism & can it be adoptable and become realistic in this day and age? Can you apply your newly founded individualism to yourself and cease being a spokesperson for your clan here for a month? What should the State do to families who can’t feed and look after themselves? Watch them perish with hunger and diseases? Sxb, waa ku sidee?
The temporary welfare plan to help people out of poverty plus are strong workers rights and onions so companies cant exploit their workers. And strict immigration laws, no wonder the swiz are doing good
Trending
-
Can AI tell that you’re Somali? Check your phenotype here- Started by empressjamila
- Replies: 86
-
-
