The Stagnant Working Class

[Bofferbrauer2]

Snoopy said:

the-pi-guy said:

1.)  Do you have proof that the government involvement in LASIK has declined?

2.)  Lasik isn't proof of anything, because it's an elective procedure.  When you want to get your eyes fixed, you can call around.  Most insurance companies don't cover lasik, so if you are getting lasik, you probably have the money to drive to a hospital that's further away.  When you have a heart attack, your first option isn't to call around and see which hospital is cheapest.  

Capitalism only works at lowering prices when you have the option to say "no, I can't or won't pay that price."  Most of healthcare doesn't give you that option.

>Minimum wage is for people who put in minimum effort, thus get what they deserve.

1.)  Because life and the world is absolutely fair, and if someone is working a minimum wage job, it's definitely their own fault.  Is that right?  

2.)  Because what people deserve is exactly equal to their effort.  That's why CEO's who simply make decisions, are worth 10,000 times more than someone who works in a hot kitchen.  Sounds fair?

3.)  Because people should always get what they deserve, not what makes the world a better place. Sounds good?  

>We have a low unemployment rate and we want to keep it that way, unlike Australia. 

Australia has a low unemployment rate as well.  

https://www.ft.com/content/9a612758-a8fa-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04

>We have a lot of homeless in mostly liberal areas that have a lot more government control, go figure.

That's largely due to Liberal NIMBYism, not because of some arbitrary measure of government control.  

And again, you keep throwing around "government control" with no concern of policy.  As if government exists on a one dimensional line.  Government isn't that simple.  There's practically an infinite number of policy possibilities, some work better than others.

>Welfare is a trap because it incentivizes a lot of people to not work

A lot of welfare programs have job requirements and/or limits for how long you can have them.  Not exactly incentive to not work.  Quite the opposite.

> live a depressing life knowing they aren't contributing to society

This goes against your previous point.  I know a lot of people that actively avoid welfare because they don't want a hand out.  I doubt most people want welfare.  but it's something that's necessary because the world isn't perfect.  Sometimes people lose their jobs at no fault of their own.  Sometimes people don't get a job at no fault of their own.  Sometimes people have a low paying job through no fault of their own.  

Before welfare was a thing, a lot of those people would have died.  Or more likely turned to crime to try feeding themselves and their family.  

Yes, I have proof that less government involvement in Lasik eye surgery has seen a huge decrease in costs. Here is an article with a nice video from Bob McEwen explaining how the government isn't the answer.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/18671/prageru-video-government-cant-fix-health-care-aaron-bandler

This doesn't just apply to health care, pretty much any industry with less government control seen a decrease in price.

That's not a proof, that's an opinion - and a hitpiece.

But if you think governmental involvement is so bad for healthcare, then how come everywhere else in the world where the government handles the healthcare, healthcare is significantly cheaper?

Have a look at this, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_system#International_comparisons

The US are last by a country mile in every single category. The only category they are leading, is the pricetag - as in, they're by far the most expensive.

Or how about this here:

US citizens have to pay much more for their healthcare even by purchase parity compared every other nation. And the gap just keeps growing.

Healthcare in the US is not working not because of governmental involvement, but because Republicans continually torpedo every resolution and water them down if they can. Their problem right now is that Obamacare is too popular to repeal without murdering the party, so they just leave it as is. But otherwise they certainly would have repealed it already. They cut coverage where they can not because it helps the patients, but the healthcare lobby who pays them millions and rake in billions due to less coverage.

Also, just consider this: If you're an insurer, do you want to pay for a vaccine or prefer not to, as the statistics say the chance that you get that infection are below 1%? Do you want to cover preventive care or look at the statistics, which say that less than 1% get seriously sick? Or do you want to cover those things, but not the possible less than 1% chance of serious illness?

That's how purely private healthcare works: They cut out their costs so much that they also cut down the benefits for most people who can't afford to pay several extras. They cherry-pick what they cover, and on top of that have their own hospitals, so you just can't go to any hospital, either. You have to go to their hospital to get your coverage.

Also, just think about this: If you travel to the US from most European countries, you need to pay for a travel healthcare which covers flight back in case of illness. Because flying you back over the pond on a stretcher in a special plane is much cheaper than the healthcare in the US. And that rule got included by popular demand from frequent US travelers.