Health Care for Everyone

[ledhed]

Goverment run health care will mean the death of all those who cant afford private health care...lol..who are they kidding ? Anyone with decent insurance or a decent checkbook will avoid the Goverenment run health system like the plague on humanity it would be ,,,so who would be helped ..


" FIRST DO NO HARM "

And
" UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE "

Is a HUGE Oxymoron .

Underfunded -understafed- and OVER top heavy with GOVERNMENT managers..like the guys that ran FEMA ...lol...

And the staff will be all those who cant get jobs in Private institutions ...

So how is THAT fair ??

Unless the US turns Communist or totally socialist and BANS Private health care ,,the poor are screwed.


Think about how well the government is at running ANYTHING .

We have the best Military in the world...but it doesn't mean squat with idiots running it .

Name a program the Government runs that the private sector could not do a better job at ?

 

[Danoff]

Unless the US turns Communist or totally socialist and BANS Private health care ,,the poor are screwed.

If the US did become communist, we'd all be screwed.

 

[FoolKiller]

I just now took the time to read Obama's plan. Let me make sure I understand this. To provide affordable healthcare for the poor we will tax the rich? Then to make sure it is affordable what you pay is basically on a sliding scale based on income? And the private health industry will still continue, meaning that those being taxed will have to completely pay for their own healthcare as well as the healthcare of the poor?

Well, that sounds completely fair. The rich pay twice while the poor pay nothing.

Oh, and the typical consumer would save $2500 a year in premiums. Wait, I only pay $1768 ($68 every two weeks). So, will mine be free?

This won't work. I just do not see it passing. It may get him elected but it won't pass.



Now, let's look at the idea of a truly universal healthcare system. I have seen estimates that my income taxes would have to be raised anywhere from another 10% to 30%. I will give them the benefit of the doubt here and low ball it.

So 10% more of my income would be roughly $3,500 a year.

Now, as I said I pay $1,768 in premiums a year.
Now I have an annual baseline physical - $25 co-pay.
Two cardiologist vists - $30 co-pay * 2 - $60.
A neurologist visit - $30 co-pay.
Dentist - $20 co-pay.
Optometrist is free because she's my sister-in-law - lucky me.
Pharmaceuticals - roughly $600 a year.

$1,768
+25
+60
+30
+20
+600
= 2,503 - Wow, so free healthcare will actually save me about -$1,000 more a year! Wait a second....

Now, let's be fair. I might have a hospital visit in there. My heart condition likes to randomly send me to the hospital for God knows what. A hospital admittance co-pay is $500 (used to be $300). Funny, it is still cheaper for me the way it is right now.

And before anyone says, "But what about those who can't afford it or get a job like yours?" My company hires with nothing more than a high school diploma and after 90 days you are eligible for the health insurance plan. My college degree made me move up faster than others, but that was gotten through student loans, which I am now paying off with this job.

I went to a school in a farming community where the school officials admitted they taught or a farming culture, not for college prep. I paid attention and rarely studied in high school to get by. College required studying and probably a bit more than normal as I suddenly found myself playing catch-up.



Now, as someone with a heart condition I have to say that I find myself shocked at the idea that response wouldn't be considered as (or more) important that the other statistics. The number 1 factor in saving a life is response. If you want to add into that response issue just average speed of service - I have to get X-rays for every cardiologist appointment and so beforehand I go to the connected hospital with my order in hand and show up unannounced. I wait longer for the film to develop than I do to get in. My last cardiologist appointment had to be rescheduled due to family illness and when I suggested a date three days later they had multiple times available.

Whenever I hear about socialized health systems I never hear about quick in and out times for specialists or testing in a hopsital. Heck, every time I do my physical I get a list of bloodwork done to check my medicine levels. The blood lab is in the physicians office and it is all taken care of that day.

When it comes time for flu vaccines I have done $5 vaccines at the health department and waited in line for an hour. I paid $15 at my doctors office and was told to come on back. I had to wait for the elderly lady to leave and then I sat down and had my shot. The 15 minute wait to see if I had a reaction was longer than my wait to actually get a shot.

Now this isnt't always the case. I know some specialists are in high demand, like OBGYNs and Oncologists. But imagine what those would be like in a socialized system.

Right now our healthcare system is cheaper and faster than proposed plans for universal healthcare. Why would I want them?

Another thing I woudl like to point out: Here are a list of some of the doctors' names at a few of my offices I visit.
Subcyck (I spelled that wrong - It's Russian and sounds like sub-check)
Puri
Aboud
Elbl
Yang
Reese (from Brasil, even if it sounds American).

None of these doctors were born in America. Why would they leave their native countries for our evil, privatized system?

One could assume that I, as a person with a severe medical condition, would want a socialized healthcare system, but all that would bring me is more trouble. I go to high-quality doctors that actually show me recent studies that have to do with my conditions and ask if I want to try the new thing mentioned or wait for more information. Why would I want to risk changing that?



And I can tell you why pharmaceutical companies advertise. If they didn't their R&D would produce new products and then no one would know about it. You have to publish the story, visit doctor offices to go over it and answer their questions, and inform the consumer about what their options might be, because occasionally a doctor will leave you on an older drug if his opinion is that it is more tested. Doctors should inform, but patients should also ask. Neither happens without advertising dollars being spent. If no one knows about your new products then no one will buy them and if no one will buy them you will go out of business and instead of an R&D department that doesn't get advertising money you have an R&D department that shuts down and produces nothing, ever.


I'll stop now, but as I have explained socialized healthcare is something I feel strongly about and every time a Democrat mentions it I get nervous. I like being healthy and alive. I'd rather not work a second job to pay for a premium service that is the quality of what I had beforehand.

 

[Swift]

Good post outline the ACTUAL costs and times FK. Well done 👍

 

[ledhed]

_________________________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. – Thomas Jefferson





Thats about the size of it .

 

[Omnis]

Indeed, Ledhed.

30% more tax might as well be confiscation!

 

[Swift]

_________________________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. – Thomas Jefferson





Thats about the size of it .

And there it is. From one of our founding fathers. Gonzo, how can you justify your concept for healtcare insurance?

 

[FoolKiller]

Wow, I didn't even think about my sig file the entire time I was typing that up, which is odd because healthcare is what I was thinking about when I decided to use it.

And there it is. From one of our founding fathers. Gonzo, how can you justify your concept for healtcare insurance?

The same thing everyone else who wants socialized healthcare: he is being sympathetic. In America the term bleeding heart liberals came about because they wanted socialized programs to help those who couldn't have something. My brither tried using this argument on me by pointing out one of his in-laws who hasn't held a job for more than a week in years and has two kids and a wife. He asked me how I can justify not helping his family. When I asked why he hasn't been able hold down a job the topic suddenly changed. I found out later (from my brother's wife) that he quits any job that doesn't promote him after a week. That is why I don't have sympathy. Nevermind I also found out that his wife does have a full-time office job with benefits.

It is easy for me to not have sympathy for someone who wants all the benefits without the effort. You can work your way up anywhere, if you put in the effort. I have been promoted (one was actually a lateral move) twice since February of this year. Considering the second move was suggested by one of the company officers in New York, who hadn't met me until this past Tuesday, I have to assume it is because I was working hard and doing a job that stood out. Now, I am supposed to be sympathetic for a guy who wants to be almost immediately promoted to management or expects to start out making twice the money I do and then quits when it doesn't happen?

We make our own beds in this country and if you don't like it then you need to change how you are doing things. The only people I will be sympathetic towards are those who are physically unable to work. And then I think they would be better helped by charities.


Gonzo, I will give you the benefit of the doubt because you are from a country where socialized healthcare was the norm and then it was changed, and someone messed it up along the way. It sounds like a public official tried to set up a privatized system, which never works. No matter what party the official(s) is with the system will be botched by a combination of greed for money and power.

They should have based their setup on how India's private healthcare is going. They are attracting patients from Europe and even America. It isn't huge, but those who want to pay less than America's prices and/or don't want to wait weeks to months in a NHS program will travel to India. Trying to setup a program based on America's system is bad for the reasons that Danoff mentioned, and we never had to switch from public to private. The private industry was how we started. If you have a government over throw and are starting a new country and system then you can use the American model.

I am sorry your privatized helathcare system went bad, but blame the officials and not the system. The American quality of life is more about our lifestyle and less about our healthcare system. Of the statistics mentioned only one (response) can be used as a measure of a health system. None of those others can be proven to be attributed to the healthcare.

Infant fatalities can be caused by mothers smoking, drinking, violence, or any number of things. Does this number include abortions? Note: Not a comment on abortions, just asking.

Our healthcare costs are high because the rest of the world's socialized systems have price controls that barely allow companies to make a profit and so we basically are subsidizing everyone else's healthcare - combine that with our lifestyle causing more and more cases of obesity, herat attacks, diabetes, etc. My health provider had to increase costs because my company alone had well over a million dollars increase in claims last year.

Life expectancy again is a lifestyle issue. We love McDonald's and any other fattening products. Compare that to how much fattening foods we eat and how much we smoke and I bet you will find a much more likely correlation. I often wonder how much healtheir we woudl be if we had a mad cow scare. A few years back a guy that worked with my mom was from Germany and he worked here for a couple of years and then went back to Germany. He came in on a work trip about six montsh later and we all went to dinner. He lost 30 lbs because there was very little beef or dairy products. He claism he didn't try to lose weight, it just happened because of hoe different the diet was. He ordered a huge steak at dinner. And then my grandmother is 92 years old and still doing fine. Her vision is going, but macular degeneration is age related and can't be stopped. Did I mention my grandmother was an immigrant? Same healthcare system, different taste in food.

I am curious what we are calling fair in financing? Does that mean government subsidies, cost of healthcare for individuals? How is a system where those who can pay more can afford to get better treatment not fair? How is taking money from someone who works 70-80 hours a week and giving it to someone who can't hold down a part-time job fair?

The 47 million not covered by healthcare [insurance] says nothing about why. Do those statistics take into account people who don't want insurance? I know people I work with who would rather keep their $68 every paycheck because they rarely ever get sick and think it will be cheaper to pay for getting treated for a cold once every 5 years. I won't go into how dumb I think that is. Although, this does bring up the fairness thing again. How is it fair to make these people pay to have healthcare they don't want/need to use but every so often? You just took away the money they were saving to put in their 401(k) or their kids college fund or whatever. How is that fair?



I have another quote that fits in really well with my previous post:

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free. – P.J. O'Rourke (1993)

 

[Gonz013]

Gonz,

I’ve broken your post into 4 main points to try to consolidate my responses. I’ll summarize them (though I realize that’s dangerous).

Yes, it's dangerous...I feel some of the summaries miss the mark, but this might be due to how I wrote my thoughts in the first place.
It may be helpful though, especially because it highlighted that we have been straying away from the main topic. I'll try to reign it in a little:

Summary: Government organizations can be run efficiently if the proper incentives are in place.

This is essentially one of the cores of my argument, so I will focus on it.

Summary: Justice is determined by need and costs should be shared proportionately.

I'd like to leave this one by the wayside, but I think it is important for me to address, primarily due to the fact that one of my prime concerns with regards to healthcare is the notion of fairness.

Summary: Each person is in a position to determine the health and education everyone else should get.

? not what I meant...I'll try leaving this one aside...

Summary: Advertising and profit makes private corporations as inefficient as government.

I will try to largely leave this one aside too- My main concern was to illustrate the first point summarized above. Namely, that Government run organizations can run efficiently.
We can both run around in circles citing examples of well and poorly run government and private services.

Ok, let’s start with the first notion – that government can be structured to be more efficient. You give the example of accountability (like, elections for example) as a way to increase efficiency. You say performance reviews and requirements can help minimize losses.

Voting is a poor substitute for the free market.

Agreed- that's why I said that there was need for accountability BEYOND voting. For instance, if people in government departments do not perform/ are inefficient, etc. they should be fired. There should be real accountability.
In the case of Australia Post (yes, I'm pulling it out yet again), it is run with a lot of accountability for people that run it and work in it.

But while people often approach voting in a similar way to purchasing a product, research quite is difficult with government policy because of the number of variables. This means that few people choose to investigate.

👍 I think it tends to be worse: I feel that most people don't even bother to look into policies/ political ideologies etc.
Ask the average person to differentiate the core values of left and right wing politicians, and they would likely be at a loss.
At the end of the day, an election seems to get reduced to a popularity contest.
Mind you, these days most decisions are made on pragmatics rather than ideologies, providing competent short term solutions (coincidental to their terms in office), but little vision and leadership for the future. Sorry, straying into different subject again...

Let’s say one of the candidates is proposing a dig project. The scale is massive, 10 billion dollars/year will be spent to offer jobs to the unemployed to dig a hole of biblical proportions. When the hole is properly dug, the project will then employ these people to refill the hole. When the hole is finished being refilled, the process will be restarted.

I cut the rest off for convenience... Refer to Danoff's original post for rest.

Your example makes perfect sense to an extent, except that there is a big difference between undertaking a project for no good reason versus providing an important service that is actually needed, valued, and provides further benefits to a society.
In some cases, I would argue paying out for these services is a burden that should be taken on.
I wouldn't advocate for an project/ service to be created just to increase employment etc. It's ultimately unsustainable.

The other 5% sees the cost as high and the benefit as minimal.

That's not necessarily right.
Any economic assessment should also take into account social and environmental costs, in order to get a true cost and benefit analysis.
The results can often be quite surprising/ unexpected, but they provide a clearer picture of what happens in real life, rather that how it should happen in theory.
eg. Quickly relating back to your example: - Environmental costs of removing trees before digging hole?, of carbon released by trucking in equipment and supplies?, of water/ petrol/ other resources used up? -Social costs of bringing in people from far away? Benefits from reduced crime due to higher employment? etc. etc. etc.

A good example of this is the assessment that was recently done on the environmental impacts of different cars. It turned out that when everything was taken into account, a Jeep Cherokee was more environmentally friendly than a Toyota Prius over the lifetime of the cars.
They tried to take into account everything, like the greater distances travelled to/ from factory by Toyota employees, the ability to re-use parts from each car, the greater environmental impact (eg chemicals used) when producing the materials required for different parts, and so-on.

The benefits, if everything is taken into account, might be quite high even for the 5% that are taking on the greater initial cost burden.
For instance:
-Less sickness= more productivity, less burden on health system
(more prevention of serious illnesses, etc.)
-More income = more likely to have better education
-More education = less crime
-More education = more innovation, better informed decisions (including political choice)
-Less crime = less costs required for courts, jails, police, etc.
-Less crime = less fear, higher quality of life.

In a nutshell, a population that is healthy and educated benefits everyone.

I know that social and environmental variables are not exactly easy to quantify and plug into an economic model, but the importance of these factors cannot be understated. There are clear causal correlations at work that more than merit their inclusion.

I would suggest that one of the best ways to do this is to look at examples around the world, seeing what different approaches result.
In countries that provide 'free' healthcare and education, there are lower crime rates, higher quality of life etc. (eg. scandanavian countries)
Where these have been removed, crime rates go up, quality of life down.

Justice is determined by need and costs should be shared proportionately.

Justice is not in any way determined by need. Our system of justice is based upon the notion of fundamental human rights and voluntary agreements. A voluntary exchange is obviously not dependent upon need in anyway, it requires consent from both parties – the need of one party does not overrule the consent of the other.

I should clarify my position: I was not getting at a 'just' proportionment of healthcare. If this was the case, I might be advocating for no healthcare to murderers in Jail. (lets not go there- Its only an example out of thin air)

My main concern as it relates to healthcare is not with justice, but fairness.
(Yes, they are distinct -just ask any lawyer- I'm sure we can all think of 'just' things that are 'unfair')

Human rights are also not dependent upon need. Each individual regardless of status or possessions (or religion, or race, or gender, etc.) has the same fundamental rights within the national system of justice. 👍 E]

Right, and I believe (as does most of the international community) that access to healthcare by all (not just those that can afford it) is central to the notion of human rights.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html
(refer to article 25)

If a system provides a service on the basis of what is already unequally distributed (money) it can never be fairly provided to all. It will always favour those with more money.

In a market based, 'user pays' system, people that need/ want the service pay for it, those that don't need/ want it, don't pay. One could argue that is just -on the surface, it seems to be- until you consider that people simply don't have equal access to what is needed to get those services provided (money). Once this is taken into account, it is harder to argue that this sort of system is fair.

Having a situation where affordability determines the availability or quality of healthcare is discriminatory and fundamentally unfair.

Saying that a situation such as this is fair because anyone can access healthcare (as long as you pay for it) is plainly absurd.

It is not fair- it reduces humanity to a dollar sum.

It ranks the worth of an individual only by how much they can pay/ how much money they have.
In this sort of system, a 'Donald Trump' is worth much more than a 'Mother Teresa'.

On the notion of proportionality… the idea that a certain percentage of one’s income is worth the same amount of health care, or education, or military, or anything as anyone else’s is fundamentally flawed. 5% of one person’s income is not worth the same as 5% of another’s and so it should not (justly) buy the same product.

That's not what I meant- It's not about equality. Its (again) about fairness.
Someone that pays 5% of a $100k income is clearly paying more than if they earned $50k. That's not equal, but one could argue it is fair.
It's about everyone making a contribution, that in turn benefits all.

Each person is in a position to determine the health and education everyone else should get.

You might be willing to live with a scar for $2000. Your neighbor may think that it is worth $2000 to remove the scar. You might think that it is worth putting your family in debt $200k to cure your lung cancer, your neighbor may not agree. Decisions about your health (or education for that matter) must be made by the person who has to bear the consequences. Society might collectively determine that my left ring finger is worth the same as my right, but I know that it is not the case. I know that I use my left far more than my right.

Health is a very personal matter. Different aspects of your physiology mean more to you than those same body parts mean to others, and you are in the best position to determine what they are worth.

I am concerned with what it costs to provide healthcare when needed- eg. what it actually costs to operate on a foot- this can be valued objectively.

I'm not concerned with subjective valuations of each body part by an individual, or with cosmetic/ aesthetic valuations.
Even with universal healthcare, anyone is free to refuse treatment if they feel that the cost (non monetary, eg. the trauma of cancer treatments) is too much.

Like I said previously, valuation and costs are not the same.
Its not as simple as valuing something and deciding that it is worth paying for.
What happens to the person that really wants to live, they value their life highly, want to be around to help out their kids/ contribute to society/ etc. but can't afford the cancer treatments that would give them the best chance at life?

Advertising and profit makes private corporations as inefficient as government.

In the US, the government advertises. Even though the army has a monopoly on military service work, they advertise to recruit. Here we advertise government programs like food stamps, highway safety, new post-office policies, and, of course, millions upon millions of dollars are raised and spent campaigning...

(the rest @ Danoff's original post)

They advertise here too, the point is that the amount of advertising and marketing required by a government run organization is much less than when exposed to market forces, so that money can go back into providing the services. Ditto profits. These will typically outweigh inefficiencies that might be present from lack of competition (unless it is run really badly of course)

Sometimes, as in the example of the pharmaceuticals, advertising and marketing can get so out of hand, that it starts to actually reduce the effectiveness of services/ products that should be the central focus.

Again, what you said above is not necessarily wrong, but it becomes less relevant when the government organization provides an important service and is run efficiently.

Milton Friedman.

I respectfully recommend:
-"Microeconomics In Context" by Neva Goodwin
-"Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications" by Joshua Farley & Herman E. Daly

 

[Gonz013]

And there it is. From one of our founding fathers. Gonzo, how can you justify your concept for healtcare insurance?

Wait... because one of your 'founding fathers' said something: does that automatically make it true? Were they human or infallible super-beings?

I can justify my position because it (a government run health system) works when its done properly. Just because it hasn't worked in the US, does not mean it doesn't work.

 

[Swift]

Wait... because one of your 'founding fathers' said something: does that automatically make it true? Were they human or infallible super-beings?

I can justify my position because it (a government run health system) works when its done properly. Just because it hasn't worked in the US, does not mean it doesn't work.

...And communism works on paper...

But to answer your question directly;

Yes, when it is a principle point of the foundation of the US government of course it makes it true. Sure they were human, that's why they had the option of amendments. Because they knew that the country could/would change and the federal government would need to change with it.

What I'm saying is that the people that developed our Constitution understood that the Federal government should NEVER do certain things. Tell me how a government health insurance system is not taking from those who have and giving to those who don't and then you'll have a valid argument for socialized healthcare insurance in the USA that you could discuss. Until then, it's simply theft.

 

[Gonz013]

Wow, I didn't even think about my sig file the entire time I was typing that up, which is odd because healthcare is what I was thinking about when I decided to use it.

The same thing everyone else who wants socialized healthcare: he is being sympathetic.

👍 I am sympathetic.

In America the term bleeding heart liberals came about because they wanted socialized programs to help those who couldn't have something.

👎 I'm no bleeding heart.

My brither tried using this argument on me by pointing out one of his in-laws who hasn't held a job for more than a week in years and has two kids and a wife. He asked me how I can justify not helping his family. When I asked why he hasn't been able hold down a job the topic suddenly changed. I found out later (from my brother's wife) that he quits any job that doesn't promote him after a week. That is why I don't have sympathy. Nevermind I also found out that his wife does have a full-time office job with benefits.

I wouldn't have sympathy for someone like that.

You can work your way up anywhere, if you put in the effort.

If only it were that simple. Some people are trapped in different situations due to a whole range of reasons.
If everyone could simply work their 'way up there' all the poor people in the world would simply deserve to be poor. Clearly this is not the case.

Free health and education are two of the best ways to ensure that as many people as possible are able to help themselves and work their way up & out of their poor situations.

Gonzo, I will give you the benefit of the doubt because you are from a country where socialized healthcare was the norm and then it was changed, and someone messed it up along the way. It sounds like a public official tried to set up a privatized system, which never works. No matter what party the official(s) is with the system will be botched by a combination of greed for money and power.

👍 They introduced a fantastic system in the early 70's, and since the late 90's a neo-conservative, economic rationalist Prime minister decided it would run even better if we began to privatize aspects of it... he was wrong. Now he's claiming that to fix it, we should privatize more of it....

I am sorry your privatized helathcare system went bad, but blame the officials and not the system.

I'm sorry too.

The American quality of life is more about our lifestyle and less about our healthcare system.

??? You really don't think that the quality of healthcare impacts on your quality of life ???

Of the statistics mentioned only one (response) can be used as a measure of a health system. None of those others can be proven to be attributed to the healthcare.

Not true - the WHO (World Health Organisation) uses those statistics to measure health systems internationally. They are recognized by experts as being the best indicators of the effectiveness of healthcare systems.

Infant fatalities can be caused by mothers smoking, drinking, violence, or any number of things. Does this number include abortions? Note: Not a comment on abortions, just asking.

Yes, lots of different things cause infant mortalities. If the rate is higher in one country than another, it signifies that health and healthcare in that country is poorer. No, it doesn't include abortions.

Our healthcare costs are high because the rest of the world's socialized systems have price controls that barely allow companies to make a profit and so we basically are subsidizing everyone else's healthcare

that's absurd.

combine that with our lifestyle causing more and more cases of obesity, herat attacks, diabetes, etc. My health provider had to increase costs because my company alone had well over a million dollars increase in claims last year.

Don't worry- Australia is quickly catching up to the US in terms of obesity. (wer'e currently No.2- )

Life expectancy again is a lifestyle issue. We love McDonald's and any other fattening products. Compare that to how much fattening foods we eat and how much we smoke and I bet you will find a much more likely correlation.

You think McDonald's and cigarettes only exist in the US?
As above, we have a similar obesity rate here in Australia.
Europeans and Asians smoke a lot more than Americans.
The prevalence of unhealthy lifestyles in the US are not enough to explain the poor US statistics. Poor diets, lack of exercise and other poor lifestyle choices are commonplace in the OECD countries used as comparisons.

How is a system where those who can pay more can afford to get better treatment not fair?

In a nutshell: because not everyone can get medical care when they need it, and because it imposes a ranking system that values human life according only to how much you can afford to pay.
eg. Imagine if you urgently needed an organ transplant- should someone that is willing/ able to pay more for that organ get it before you? How is that fair?

-Please refer to my previous responses to Danoff's post regarding this issue of fairness.

 

[Gonz013]

Tell me how a government health insurance system is not taking from those who have and giving to those who don't and then you'll have a valid argument for socialized healthcare insurance in the USA that you could discuss. Until then, it's simply theft.

Well, I think there's a clear parallel between Paramedics and Firemen:

By your reasoning, a government that taxes you to provide firefighters for all people is robbing you, because you are paying for something that only those that have their house catch fire use, even if they didn't pay their taxes.

I'm arguing that healthcare should be paid for by all, and used by anyone who needs it. Just like police, firefighters, etc etc.

I'm arguing this because I believe it to be central to any government's responsibilities. It is a vital service, not an optional luxury to be bought only by people who can afford it.

 

[Swift]

👎 I'm no bleeding heart.

I'd have to disagree

From Wikipedia

Bleeding heart can be:

* A term, usually critical and politically loaded, for someone who is held to be overly sympathetic to another person's (or group of people's) plight.

I wouldn't have sympathy for someone like that.

So he wouldn't be eligible for socialized healthcare insurance for his medical "needs"?

Well, I think there's a clear parallel between Paramedics and Firemen:

By your reasoning, a government that taxes you to provide firefighters for all people is robbing you, because you are paying for something that only those that have their house catch fire use, even if they didn't pay their taxes.

I'm arguing that healthcare should be paid for by all, and used by anyone who needs it. Just like police, firefighters, etc etc.

I'm arguing this because I believe it to be central to any government's responsibilities. It is a vital service, not an optional luxury to be bought only by people who can afford it.

Actually...no. There's not a clear parallel between Paramedics and Firemen and our healtcare insurance system. Two reasons. First and foremost, police and paramedics are on a local level, not Federal. Second, stopping a fire and/or catching a criminal is a direct benefit to the local community.

I know I'm going to sound really cold here. But how does stealing money from me to pay for another man's chemotherapy on the other side of the country benefit my community?

 

[Danoff]

Agreed- that's why I said that there was need for accountability BEYOND voting. For instance, if people in government departments do not perform/ are inefficient, etc. they should be fired. There should be real accountability.
In the case of Australia Post (yes, I'm pulling it out yet again), it is run with a lot of accountability for people that run it and work in it.

In the end, the only accountability is voting. The only reason people will get fired is because the person doing the firing is worried about maintaining votes. The one and only accountability (within the system) for (democratic) governments is voting… and I already explained why voting is an inferior feedback system to money.

Your example makes perfect sense to an extent, except that there is a big difference between undertaking a project for no good reason versus providing an important service that is actually needed, valued, and provides further benefits to a society.

It was solely an example to examine the kinds of economic mistakes that can be made from what appears to be a microeconomic “good” choice on the part of most voters.

I would suggest that one of the best ways to do this is to look at examples around the world, seeing what different approaches result.
In countries that provide 'free' healthcare and education, there are lower crime rates, higher quality of life etc. (eg. scandanavian countries)
Where these have been removed, crime rates go up, quality of life down.

You’re ignoring the most important metric – economic impact. Are these countries economically better off? Are the people in them richer or poorer because of their healthcare or education system? And how do you measure quality of life? Access to healthcare? Doesn’t that seem a bit incestuous?

My main concern as it relates to healthcare is not with justice, but fairness.
(Yes, they are distinct -just ask any lawyer- I'm sure we can all think of 'just' things that are 'unfair')

The concept of justice and fairness are intertwined and cannot be separated. You’ll find that they’re used somewhat interchangeably in my posts.

Right, and I believe (as does most of the international community) that access to healthcare by all (not just those that can afford it) is central to the notion of human rights.

It’s a conflicting right. It conflicts with other people’s rights to not be forced into the slavery of providing them with their healthcare.

This is why it is so critical that people approaching this topic have a solid understanding of human rights, and how they exist. Your rights protect you from force. You have a rights to say what you want, study what you want, do what you want. You cannot have rights to have someone else do something for you… that requires that someone else provide it to you, which interferes with their rights.

Now, I think I can probably read your mind at this point. You’re probably thinking “but nobody forces doctors to become doctors”. You’re right, but doctors don’t provide you with healthcare. Sure, they actually perform the procedures, have the knowhow, etc. But what’s really providing your healthcare is money, and it’s the people who are having that money taken from them and given to you that you’ve made slaves out of.

In a market based, 'user pays' system, people that need/ want the service pay for it, those that don't need/ want it, don't pay. One could argue that is just -on the surface, it seems to be- until you consider that people simply don't have equal access to what is needed to get those services provided (money). Once this is taken into account, it is harder to argue that this sort of system is fair.

Having a situation where affordability determines the availability or quality of healthcare is discriminatory and fundamentally unfair.

Your definition of fair is pretty odd. Fair is getting what you pay for. Fair is reward for work. Fair is that everyone interacts voluntarily. Fair is not based on outcome alone. Fair is based on appropriate outcome for appropriate input. Money and the market is the system that ensures fairness.

Here is the situation you consider fair.

Bob sits on his couch all day long doing nothing. He doesn’t feel the need to work, he doesn’t feel the need to do much of anything.

Jim is a contractor who works until midnight each night. He collects a great deal of money for his overtime, but he rarely gets to see his wife and kids as a result. Jim pays for the healthcare of himself and his family.

Bob gets sick and goes to the doctor.

Police show up at Jim’s house, put a gun to his head, and force him to cut a check for Bob’s doctor visit.

That’s what you’re saying is fair.

Let me make the imagery match the situation slightly better.

Jim is a contractor who works until 11:30pm each night. Every night, at 11:30, police show up to Jim’s work and hold a gun to his head forcing him to work for an additional 30 minutes. The police then confiscate the money he earned during the 30 minutes of slave labor to pay for Bob’s doctor visit.

It is not fair- it reduces humanity to a dollar sum.

But it allows each person to determine their OWN sum based on their OWN finances. Humanity gets reduced to a dollar sum when healthcare is involved, there is no way around it. The only thing we can do is allow it to be OURSELVES who determine the dollar amount rather than “society”.

What happens to the person that really wants to live, they value their life highly, want to be around to help out their kids/ contribute to society/ etc. but can't afford the cancer treatments that would give them the best chance at life?

They die, and that’s fair.

You can’t sit there and tell me that no matter what disease you get, no matter how complex the cure, no matter how expensive the research, society must go bankrupt paying for the cure. The “best chance at life” is provided for via an infinite number of dollars. To give everyone the “best chance at life” requires that all productivity go into maintaining life for everyone. It requires that every single person on the planet is either a healthcare administrator or researcher.

Now, I know that’s not what you meant. I know that you’re talking about a more measured approach. But that’s not the “best chance at life” is it? So don’t pretend that one of us is advocating the “best chance at life” and the other is not.

These will typically outweigh inefficiencies that might be present from lack of competition (unless it is run really badly of course)

You very sorely underestimate the destructive power of a monopoly held by force.

 

[ledhed]

Wait... because one of your 'founding fathers' said something: does that automatically make it true? Were they human or infallible super-beings?

I can justify my position because it (a government run health system) works when its done properly. Just because it hasn't worked in the US, does not mean it doesn't work.

Yes The United States has followed and extrapolated on the principles of the " Founding Fathers"
The thoughts and reasoning of the " founding fathers " are enshrined in the Constitution of The United States of America.

NO other Country on Earth can compare to the US in the majority of measurable standards of wealth -power -freedom -stability -influence - affluence...etc...including HEALTH CARE.

Can it be improved ? No doubt ...but lets get a little perspective here.

Communism and socialism is a failed and bankrupt experiment . Despite what it looks like on Paper.

The US on the other Hand ...BECAUSE of whats on paper , is the worlds largest economy by many degree's and the worlds only super power. despite having a Population of only 300 mil or so .

Its not a question of infalability ..its more a question of .." where do we find more like them " ? And how can we improve on the foundation they poured a few hundred years ago ?

Entitlement is BOGUS , its a recipe for failure and creates a culture of dependents . It turns the workers and earners in society into slaves .
Respect is not given it is earned . Self respect is something you must work for, no one can mail it to you or sudsidise it .

You want the best health care ..we have it now ..but not everyone has access , so the solution is to find ways to give everyone the oppurtunity to be able to afford and have access to " the BEST health care" .

Not to create a two teired system of government provided death prevention and PRIVATE excellent health care and decent quality of life assurance.

Again I am still waiting for someone to show me the method of keeping the best Doctors and care givers out of the private health care system ..and all the leftovers out of the government run boondoggle.


And then I'd like to know how this can be seen as " fair and equitable" the creation of the " free health care " class ...and the rest of us who will have insurance and a choice to stay far away from anything the government is providing for as long as we wish to live ...with a decent quality of life.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes The United States has followed and extrapolated on the principles of the " Founding Fathers"
The thoughts and reasoning of the " founding fathers " are enshrined in the Constitution of The United States of America.

Certainly so. I wrote four or five papers on the Fathers and how they relate to today in school last year in my history and political science classes. The Poli Sci courses use the fathers near constantly on various subjects, as they always seem to be the "guiding light" when we seem lost for whatever reason.

I move on with great doubt that any of the Fathers would support the idea of a National Heath Care system. Its just one that does not lead itself well against their principles of low (or no) taxation, and as little government involvement as possible.

If we could ever get a "fair" assessment of how good or bad a nationalized heath care system would be people may find it easier to decide. Too often the facts and opinions are intermingled with no concise way to separating the two apart. I know Mike Moor's film "Sicko" is supposed to attempt to do that, but lets be honest, we can't always trust that liberal dog...

I dunno. Maybe if we stopped giving free heath care to illegal immigrants we might be able to give assistance to people who actually need it.

...But even then, I'd be more likely to support a tax increase to fund the war, much less better fund the education system long before I'd support a tax increase to support this proposed health care system...

 

[Gonz013]

So he wouldn't be eligible for socialized healthcare insurance for his medical "needs"?

Yes, he would be. That doesn't mean I'd feel sorry for him.

stopping a fire and/or catching a criminal is a direct benefit to the local community.

Free health and education IS a direct benefit to a society. As has been proven many times around the world:
-Less sickness= more productivity, less burden on health system
(more prevention of serious illnesses, etc.)
-More income = more likely to have better education
-More education = less crime
-More education = more innovation, better informed decisions (including political choice)
-Less crime = less costs required for courts, jails, police, etc.
-Less crime = less fear, higher quality of life.
BTW:apologies for quoting myself, so here's a quote from a Wikipedia article comparing US to Canada:

"In 2002, automotive companies claimed universal health care system in Canada saved labour costs.[9] In 2004, health care cost General Motors $5.8 billion, and would increase to $7 billion.[10] UAW also claimed the resulted escalating health care premiums reduced workers' bargaining powers.[11] In fact, Canada's universal healthcare has been an incentive for US companies to set up businesses and create jobs in Canada."

I know I'm going to sound really cold here. But how does stealing money from me to pay for another man's chemotherapy on the other side of the country benefit my community?

You don't just sound cold, you sound selfish and heartless too. If everyone is contributing fairly, then you would benefit from that man's money if you, or anyone that matters to you, ever needs medical treatment that you otherwise wouldn't afford.
It's not stealing from you, you are contributing to something that benefits everyone, including yourself.

 

[Gonz013]

Yes The United States has followed and extrapolated on the principles of the " Founding Fathers"
The thoughts and reasoning of the " founding fathers " are enshrined in the Constitution of The United States of America..

I have always thought that the principles on which the US was founded were some of the best. They are exemplars to the rest of the world.

NO other Country on Earth can compare to the US in the majority of measurable standards of wealth -power -freedom -stability -influence - affluence...etc...including HEALTH CARE.

I'll be the first to admit that the US is great in many respects, but you are simply kidding yourself.

Wealth/ Affluence: US is 8th in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita_income
It's interesting to note that the top 4 in the world all have social healthcare systems.
Health: ranked 37th overall by World Health Organisation ranks the US behind many other OECD countries http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf
Education: Literacy rates in many countries around the world as just as high as the US
Power: How exactly would you measure this?
Political Power: agree US is arguably No.1
Military Power: agree US has most advanced military capabilities, but not the largest army- US is 2nd or 3rd from memory
Stability: US is not as stable as many other countries. US is at war more often/ target of terrorist attacks, more often than other comparable countries etc. The US also has some of the highest crime and murder rates.

There is no single country that is at the top of all rankings.
No single country does everything better than all other countries.
Too often pride and arrogance blinds people from the possibility that there are better ways to do things/ that there are areas in which they can improve.

but lets get a little perspective here.
Communism and socialism is a failed and bankrupt experiment . Despite what it looks like on Paper.

I'm not promoting communism.
Neither am I promoting wholesale socialism of an economic system.
I am only promoting a socially based provision of vital services.

Just as the US is a witness to how well capitalism can work in many areas, other countries are a witness to how well socialism can work in some areas.

The US on the other Hand ...BECAUSE of whats on paper , is the worlds largest economy by many degree's and the worlds only super power. despite having a Population of only 300 mil or so .

Superpower, Yes...By many degrees? You're kidding yourself again...

Entitlement is BOGUS , its a recipe for failure and creates a culture of dependents . It turns the workers and earners in society into slaves .
Respect is not given it is earned . Self respect is something you must work for, no one can mail it to you or sudsidise it .

You are entitled to free speech, to freedom, to the pursuit of happiness: are these entitlements all bogus too?
Entitlement works perfectly fine in many areas of society. If you contribute to a society, you sohuld also benefit from the entitlements that society provides. Healthcare should be one of these.

Not to create a two teired system of government provided death prevention and PRIVATE excellent health care and decent quality of life assurance.

That's exactly right- a two tiered system sucks, and it comes about when only some people can afford something, the rest are given the scraps.

If healthcare is provided to all equally, this is not an issue.

This unequal situation is not a problem when you are talking about consumer goods, or other things that are not vital for your wellbeing. If you can't afford the Porsche, too bad. But that's ok, you're not going to die, and not having it is not going to prevent or hamper you from trying to get it.

Again I am still waiting for someone to show me the method of keeping the best Doctors and care givers out of the private health care system

Here you go: don't have a private healthcare system.
It's not simple, its not easy, but its possible, it can work, and is in place very successfully around the world.
It's fair, its equitable, and the quality is so high that there is no need for a private health system.
Social democracies have the best healthcare systems in the world, and they are accessible to all its citizens.

Also: This is an interesting comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

In a nutshell:
"Canada and the United States had very similar health care systems in the early 1960s.[1] The two neighbours are now a dramatic contrast. Canada has one of the world's most fully socialized health care systems, while the United States is one of only two OECD countries (with Mexico) not to have some form of guaranteed health insurance for all citizens."

and:

"Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations’ budgets. The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724.[16]

However, U.S. government spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada."

and:

"Canada's higher taxes to pay for health care certainly have some negative impact on its economy. There are, however, some benefits as well.

In 2002, automotive companies claimed universal health care system in Canada saved labour costs.[9] In 2004, health care cost General Motors $5.8 billion, and would increase to $7 billion.[10] UAW also claimed the resulted escalating health care premiums reduced workers' bargaining powers.[11] In fact, Canada's universal healthcare has been an incentive for US companies to set up businesses and create jobs in Canada."

 

[FoolKiller]

You don't just sound cold, you sound selfish and heartless too. If everyone is contributing fairly, then you would benefit from that man's money if you, or anyone that matters to you, ever needs medical treatment that you otherwise wouldn't afford.

Define contributing fairly? Does chemo man across the country pay the exact same dollar amount I do, or is he unemployed and contributing the same 30% of his non-income that comes out of my paycheck?

It's not stealing from you, you are contributing to something that benefits everyone, including yourself.

A man walks up to you and says that you have to give him some of the money in your wallet. You say no and he presents a gun. He then explains that it is going to be given to the benefit of the whole community, including yourself. He even shows you the financial plan. You say you don't agree with the plan and he says that it is too bad you have to give it to him.

Is he stealing from you?

 

[Gonz013]

You’re ignoring the most important metric – economic impact. Are these countries economically better off? Are the people in them richer or poorer because of their healthcare or education system?

Yes, they are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita_income

People in countries where healthcare is free are free from burdens associated with obtaining healthcare that they would otherwise be unable to obtain.

Countries with a high access and standard of education are also the wealthiest.

Higher crime rates are directly related to lower education standards/ accessibility.

And how do you measure quality of life? Access to healthcare? Doesn’t that seem a bit incestuous?

Access to healthcare would be one of several factors.
Others would include: education, security (crime/ murder rates), pollution, time spent at work, etc etc.

The concept of justice and fairness are intertwined and cannot be separated. You’ll find that they’re used somewhat interchangeably in my posts.

They are meant to be, for sure.
But often, justice is not commensurate to fairness or equality.

It’s a conflicting right. It conflicts with other people’s rights to not be forced into the slavery of providing them with their healthcare.

That's a bit extreme.
You pay taxes to help keep other people safe.
Why is that so different from paying taxes to help keep other people healthy?
Its clearly to the collective benefit of the society in which you live.

But it allows each person to determine their OWN sum based on their OWN finances. Humanity gets reduced to a dollar sum when healthcare is involved, there is no way around it. The only thing we can do is allow it to be OURSELVES who determine the dollar amount rather than “society”.

Sure, if you happen to be able to afford it.

They die, and that’s fair.

So if you/ your loved one didn't receive an organ transplant, because someone with more money got it instead... that's actually fair to you?

...Now, I know that’s not what you meant. I know that you’re talking about a more measured approach. But that’s not the “best chance at life” is it? So don’t pretend that one of us is advocating the “best chance at life” and the other is not.

I don't expect anything unrealistic, so it IS the best chance at life when people can get free healthcare.

You very sorely underestimate the destructive power of a monopoly held by force.

You completely ignore that they can be incredibly beneficial, and that like in any democracy, it is not held by force- there can always be a referendum/ similar mechanisms to do away with the monopolistic situation if its not working: but if its working well, there would be no need to.

You also seem to sorely underestimate the severe inadequacies of a system that promotes profits before people- especially in this case, where the whole point it to provide a service to the benefit people.

A capitalist model will never provide the best healthcare system, because it causes a fundamental conflict of interests.

 

[Tulok]

Everytime i think of these thereads, i think of how stupid, the idea of cost is, honestly, I believe that cost is a pointless factor... If you built a more complex machine, you should be at the beneft of it, and you could decide to build more, it would be better if the world was free, open, and no one tried to stake land, or get rich. People wouldn't fight over oil. great creations would be used for/on everyone who wanted or need it. people would probably have better technologies...the reason people argue over things like this is pure greed, some people don't wanna pay, and some people dont wanna work for pay... some people cant work, and the ones who cant work, should get healthcare, which is what welfare is all about, but we have tons of stereotypical non working, people, who
A. refuse to work
B. wont get glasses cause they arent pretty in them, so they dont get a drivers liscense, and dont get a job, and dont support themsleves...
C. are crack addicts, or werent "lucky"
and these people screw up the system, because thier own selfishness wont allow them to work, or their own unwillingnes to fix one of their prolems, doesn't gain them wealth. Homeless bums, could get jobs as gardeners here in cali, its not impossible, its actually very possible.

others, like retarted people, people with no limbs, elderly, uber sick people, the list goes on, but welfare isn't strained out well enough,, so some people die, so lazier people can eat Mc-Ds for dinner, when they dont want to cook for their overweight 9 year old kid.

 

[Omnis]

Cost is the key to economics. Everything costs something. It's far from pointless.

These arguments also don't come down to pure greed. Scientifically, greed isn't even valid. The argument revolves around costs, resources, and economically sound decisions.

 

[Swift]

Yes, he would be. That doesn't mean I'd feel sorry for him.

Interesting. He would deserve to get his healthcare paid for even though he can work and CHOOSES not to? So he literally takes my money to use for his physicals, prescriptions and operations but since he decided he's to good for most jobs that's OK? Gonz, are you serious?

Free health and education IS a direct benefit to a society. As has been proven many times around the world:
-Less sickness= more productivity, less burden on health system
(more prevention of serious illnesses, etc.)
-More income = more likely to have better education
-More education = less crime
-More education = more innovation, better informed decisions (including political choice)
-Less crime = less costs required for courts, jails, police, etc.
-Less crime = less fear, higher quality of life.
BTW:apologies for quoting myself, so here's a quote from a Wikipedia article comparing US to Canada:

"In 2002, automotive companies claimed universal health care system in Canada saved labour costs.[9] In 2004, health care cost General Motors $5.8 billion, and would increase to $7 billion.[10] UAW also claimed the resulted escalating health care premiums reduced workers' bargaining powers.[11] In fact, Canada's universal healthcare has been an incentive for US companies to set up businesses and create jobs in Canada."

FK has already hit a lot of this, but I want to throw my 2 cents in as well.

I refute your first point.

• -Less sickness= more productivity, less burden on health system

While that is true, how does free healthcare make people less sick?

My father had symptoms of possible heart trouble but didn't go to the doctor's for years when he had very GOOD health insurance. Then when he started to not be able to function, he went and found out he had several blocked arteries in his heart. It was all covered under his insurance(for the most part) but it would've been better if he would've gotten checked out back in say 1999. It could've been treated with drugs alone. But he didn't go to the doctor, why? Because he was too proud, stubborn, pigheaded take your pick. It had NOTHING to do with the cost of the visits or procedures. It was pure choice. I bet almost everyone in this thread knows someone with a similar experience.

Americans especially have shown that if they think they can be "fixed" they won't take care of themselves/be more healthy. People in general aren't sick just "because" they're sick because of what they did to themselves. Obviously there are genetic disorders and the like. But the vast majority of people are ill because of their own choices. Do you really think that if everyone knew it was free to go to the doctor they wouldn't just do whatever they wanted, get a procedure/drug to fix what's wrong and keep on going?

That bit about GM is their own fault. They let the unions muscle them into pension deals that absolute destroy their bottom line. That with the fact they were arrogant for most of the 70's and 80's has messed up GM. Not the healthcare costs themselves.

Also, I don't think you can prove that more education equals less crime. Less crimes against humanity maybe. Such as rape, murder, assault and the like. Is that what you meant?

You don't just sound cold, you sound selfish and heartless too. If everyone is contributing fairly, then you would benefit from that man's money if you, or anyone that matters to you, ever needs medical treatment that you otherwise wouldn't afford.
It's not stealing from you, you are contributing to something that benefits everyone, including yourself.

As FK said. What is fair contribution? If I'm making 250K a year by the rules of the proposed legislation, I'd be considered rich and have to pay MORE then someone making 14K a year. It wouldn't be a flat 15% of all people's income. They would do it on the same ridiculous sliding scale that the current income tax is done with. How is that fair contribution.

No, I'm not selfish or heartless. I give a good portion of my salary to various charities and other non-profit organizations. But that's my choice, nobody is forcing me into that. What you're saying on the other hand is that I HAVE to pay for Danoff's treatments(Sorry Dan, but I know you're in California and I'm in Maryland-3000 miles away-so it makes a good example). And that it benefits me somehow? Even though Danoff has been ignoring the symptoms for years and now needs a major organ transplant that will be 20- 50 times as expensive then the treatment if he would have went to the doctor when the symptoms first occurred?

Also, what about the people that die and barely used any health benefits? Do they get a refund at death? Of course not. So there you go Gonz, it's theft. I really and truly understand your basis for what you think. And my heart agrees with you. But the sheer fact of the matter is that you're saying the government should be at the best Robin Hood and at the worst Carl Marx. That simply shouldn't fly in a democratic republic with a free enterprise based economy.

Tulok, what your describing is a world like Star Trek. Where there is no money and everyone works for achievement but there is no monetary value involved. That sounds fine to me. But let's talk realistically here. You say that people with my view have it just because of greed. Is it greedy to NOT want someone taking your money from you just because they think they can do something "smarter" with it. That covers almost all taxes not just healthcare insurance. Let me ask you this would you seriously want to give up 30% of your income for healthcare costs for everyone. When it's quite possible you'll never use to much of it yourself? Couldn't you think of something better to do with that 30%? I mean, it's your money. Why shouldn't YOU choice what's done with it?

 

[Danoff]

Yes, they are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita_income

People in countries where healthcare is free are free from burdens associated with obtaining healthcare that they would otherwise be unable to obtain.

Does that make ANY sense to you at all? Have you considered the sort of perpetual motion machine you're proposing here? I mean, you can't pretend that the healthcare system you're advocating is free, the money comes from somewhere. And so you can't pretend that the people in nations with nationalized healthcare are "free from burdens associated with obtaining healthcare" because it must be paid for.

So if you recognize the economic drain, then you're reduced to simply arguing that the government can do it more efficiently. But basic economics shows us that the government can do NOTHING more efficiently. We use government when we HAVE to, but we waste money in thep process.

Access to healthcare would be one of several factors.

Yup, that's what I'd call a self-fullfilling prophecy.

That's a bit extreme.
You pay taxes to help keep other people safe.
Why is that so different from paying taxes to help keep other people healthy?
Its clearly to the collective benefit of the society in which you live.

It is not clearly in the collective benefit, it is clearly AGAINST the interests of all parties invovled. Yes, I pay taxes to keep my country safe, but I do that because there is no other way to provide for national defense. If there were another way, I'd gladly support it. I am not happy that the government has to do anything at all.

So if you/ your loved one didn't receive an organ transplant, because someone with more money got it instead... that's actually fair to you?

Generally, yes. Though people donating their organs almost always have other interests in mind besides money, so the point is rather moot.

I don't expect anything unrealistic, so it IS the best chance at life when people can get free healthcare.

A) it's not free
B) you are unable to get anything but the most basic standard care from that system - so it is inherently NOT the best chance at life.

You completely ignore that they can be incredibly beneficial, and that like in any democracy, it is not held by force- there can always be a referendum/ similar mechanisms to do away with the monopolistic situation if its not working: but if its working well, there would be no need to.

I have explained to you why monopolies are inherently wasteful. I have explained to you why voting is a poor method of control. You have not refuted either point.

You also seem to sorely underestimate the severe inadequacies of a system that promotes profits before people- especially in this case, where the whole point it to provide a service to the benefit people.

This statement has multiple layers of misunderstanding of economics and basic human traits.

A capitalist model will never provide the best healthcare system, because it causes a fundamental conflict of interests.

And what conflict of interest is that? Profit vs. Good Care? Those interests are not in conflict.

Everytime i think of these thereads, i think of how stupid, the idea of cost is, honestly, I believe that cost is a pointless factor... If you built a more complex machine, you should be at the beneft of it, and you could decide to build more, it would be better if the world was free, open, and no one tried to stake land, or get rich. People wouldn't fight over oil. great creations would be used for/on everyone who wanted or need it. people would probably have better technologies...the reason people argue over things like this is pure greed, some people don't wanna pay, and some people dont wanna work for pay... some people cant work, and the ones who cant work, should get healthcare, which is what welfare is all about, but we have tons of stereotypical non working, people, who
A. refuse to work
B. wont get glasses cause they arent pretty in them, so they dont get a drivers liscense, and dont get a job, and dont support themsleves...
C. are crack addicts, or werent "lucky"
and these people screw up the system, because thier own selfishness wont allow them to work, or their own unwillingnes to fix one of their prolems, doesn't gain them wealth. Homeless bums, could get jobs as gardeners here in cali, its not impossible, its actually very possible.

others, like retarted people, people with no limbs, elderly, uber sick people, the list goes on, but welfare isn't strained out well enough,, so some people die, so lazier people can eat Mc-Ds for dinner, when they dont want to cook for their overweight 9 year old kid.

I'd recommend an economics course. Or just play some online videogames. If you've ever played Diablo II online you'll understand why currency is necessary, helps everyone, and is a natural and efficient system.

 

[Tulok]

sorry guys, I was nearly dead tired when i wrote that, it isn't realistically possible I know,
Its just that i don't think we should have free health care for everyone because we already sorta have it, but only for the people who need it.
But then there are those that abuse the system, and illegal immigrants who live off of it and other welfares, plus, people DON'T like to pay taxes, and especially not MORE than they already do.

 

[Gonz013]

So if you recognize the economic drain, then you're reduced to simply arguing that the government can do it more efficiently. But basic economics shows us that the government can do NOTHING more efficiently. We use government when we HAVE to, but we waste money in thep process.

Maybe YOUR government can't be trusted to do things properly and efficiently. I would put MY government in that same basket at the moment.
However, there are dozens of real-world examples where government run healthcare systems work very well.

I can point at many social democracies with fantastic healthcare systems that are run efficiently and provide care equal to anywhere in the world.

Can you point at any capitalist run healthcare systems that run anywhere nearly as well?

B) you are unable to get anything but the most basic standard care from that system - so it is inherently NOT the best chance at life.

You can get fantastic healthcare from many socially democratic states. They prove what can be done with 'free' healthcare.

And we have gone over what I mean by 'free' many times before, so you can stop harping on about that point.

I have explained to you why monopolies are inherently wasteful. I have explained to you why voting is a poor method of control. You have not refuted either point.

On the contrary- I have agreed with you about voting being a poor method of control, and advocated that greater responsibility and accountability should be placed on government agencies.

As for monopolies, I agree with you that most of the time, they are likely to be wasteful, but I have also cited instances where in real life, they can be run very efficiently.
As above, when greater responsibility/ accountability and proper corporate governace principles are applied to government agencies, they can run just as well as private corporations- often better in fact, because their spending on advertising/ marketing is vastly reduced, and profits made go back into improving the services, rather than spent on fancy toys for the big bosses.

And what conflict of interest is that? Profit vs. Good Care? Those interests are not in conflict.

Capitalism works best in the private sector, where services/ products provided are not vital or necessary for people's safety, well being, etc.

In the public realm, where vital services are provided to citizens, striving for profits over providing those services only undermines the services that are to be provided.

Again, I can point to many examples all around the world (particularly socialist democracies) where healthcare systems benefit greatly from being publically run.
In healthcare services, a capitalist approach is not a 'best fit' model for ensuring the best possible provision of healthcare, precicely because you can't make a better mousetrap- you have to cut services and raise costs to get ever increasing profits instead.

People in societies where healthcare is provided for 'free' cry out in protest when there are moves to privatize their systems- because they know from past experiences that services will go down, prices will go up.

 

[Danoff]

I can point at many social democracies with fantastic healthcare systems that are run efficiently and provide care equal to anywhere in the world. Can you point at any capitalist run healthcare systems that run anywhere nearly as well?

Like I've said several times, it depends on your metrics. In terms of response, and in terms of innovation (ie: access to the most cutting edge techniques/devices) the US is at the top of the list. I'd say that makes it the best, but if you define the best as being available to everyone then you're going to get the answer that validates the reason you used that metric.

But we both know that the US is not an example of a capitalist system. It might be one of the most capitalist, but it's not really what I'm advocating. So no, I have no good example for you. But that doesn't in any way invalidate my point.

Capitalism works best in the private sector, where services/ products provided are not vital or necessary for people's safety, well being, etc.

So then you're advocating government intervention in the areas of food, housing, clothing, heating, electricity, transportation, and information right?

In the public realm, where vital services are provided to citizens, striving for profits over providing those services only undermines the services that are to be provided.

Quite the contrary. Economic theory is all that is necessary to explain how the persuit of profit strengthens those services. It encourages efficiency, good service, low cost, high quality, and a product catered to the customers needs/wants.

Profit is the mechanism that capitalism relies upon to deliver what customers want. Your above statement convinces me that you don't understand profit and how it is used in capitalism. Which means you don't understand capitalism.

you have to cut services and raise costs to get ever increasing profits instead.

People in societies where healthcare is provided for 'free' cry out in protest when there are moves to privatize their systems- because they know from past experiences that services will go down, prices will go up.

Again, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding of economics. This notion that you keep coming back to - that service declines and prices go up in capitalist markets simply refutes too much of reality, logic, and established economic history to comprehend.

You're not going to understand my point of view untill you understand capitalism, profit, competition, and how they harness basic human greed for the benefit of all.

 

[Gonz013]

You're not going to understand my point of view untill you understand capitalism, profit, competition, and how they harness basic human greed for the benefit of all.

You know, I've often though that if we had the chance to sit down face to face, we would probably find that we agree more than we disagree.
We'd also find that a lot of the point we both harp on about are largely misunderstandings that arise from not wording things in the best way/ or our intention behind a point not getting accross properly...

Anyway:
I totally get the supply/demand, competition, innovation, profit motivation, harnessing human greed thing.
But you seem to be always dealing in the realm of theory, where everything works the way it should.

I'm all for capitalist approaches where they are a 'best fit'- for instance, I believe it works exceptionally well when making consumer products.
A socialist/ communist model is arguably the very worst at this- can you imagine the government in charge of technological innovation, providing us with electronics? It would be a total disaster, innovation would be stifled.

In the real world, and particularly in some service industries; a system fundamentally based on greed which aims to constantly increase profits, inevitably delivers cuts in services and cuts in quality. These are the eaziest, quickest ways to deliver a greater profit- and that's exactly what happens all the time.

I'll grant you that it's not supposed to happen, and its certainly not the best approach for any company long term, but it is what typically occurs everyday.

People are not educated enough (and you can't expect them to be) with regards to comparing vital services. It's not like comparing two different DVD players. The 'competitors' providing vital services are typically indistinguishable. A good way of observing this is when you see people trying to compare companies that offer health insurance.

The unfortunate reality it that in the real world, healthcare and education are two services that simply do not benefit from a capitalist model.
If they did, there would be many examples all around the world. As it is, there are none. The best fit for providing healthcare is a socialist model.

It is impossible to create a "better mousetrap" for these two services.
Private schools that are in competition with each other don't get cheaper, more efficient or provide better education.
I can hear you argue that they get better results:
Statistically, they don't produce results that are even remotely commensurate with the difference in fees charged. The differences in results is nearly always attributable to the 'drop out' problem kids that do poorly in the public schools- if you remove these 'statistical anomalies', you find that the results are generally equal.

For healthcare in particular, advances in technical equipment, new drugs or surgical techniques will simply not cut down how many people are getting sick. Prevention is about the only way to cut down costs, and provide more care for more people.

But that would be contrary to the interests of a capitalist based system, would it not?
A capitalist system would want more sick people, not less.
A capitalist system would benefit from the greater demand, and have no interest in improving people's overall health.

You are probably correct in saying that the US system is the most capitalist. That is exactly why it is the most expensive, and offers the least service
overall.

In terms of innovation and research, it is the European countries and companies making the most profit- often heavily subsidized by governments.

Contrary to your belief, a socialist based healthcare system can be much more efficient than a capitalist based one.

As an example: Australian researchers recently helped to come up with a vaccine that prevents 70% of all cervical cancers. This research was done with heavy government sponsorship.
Drug companies in the US were not willing to put in the time and money by themselves into the research, bacause it was deemed too risky- that is, a profitable product may not come from it, so they instead put millions into advertizing and marketing drugs they already have in the market.
The Australian governement will make the vaccine available to all women aged 12-26 for free, and I am happy to contribute towards this through my taxes.
Unless the US government decides to subsidize the drug, the women in the US will have to fork out thousands each.
I'm sure that this is ok with you. After all, why should you have to pay for women to get this expensive treatment?
But that is short-sighted: Long-term, the savings from reducing cervical cancer by 70% are massive when compared to the initial cost of providing the vaccine.

So in a capitalist based system- only the women who can afford it would have access to the vaccine. The burden on the health system caused by cervical cancer will persist for many decades.
But wait... that's actually good for a privatized system: lots of sick people to provide top of the line, expensive cancer treatments to= more profits.

This is the sort of experience which is occuring time and time again in all healthcare systems that are being privatized around the world.
This is why US doctors (and increasingly Australian ones) are crying out against privatization, claiming that we are increasingly offering "sick care" not "health care".

In a socialist based system- all women would have access to the vaccine, and 70% of cervical cancer is wiped out- resulting in guess what: long term cost savings, less burden on the health system.
It also provides massive cost saving in areas that are very difficult to put a dollar value on: healthier, more productive women for the society, less dead mothers, less broken families, less social problems.

Like I said before, there is a fundamental conflict of interest at play if a capitalist model is applied to provision of vital services.

It's not a matter of greater services aligning with greater profits, its a matter of greater profits aligning with a greater incidence human misery- greed simply adds fuel to the fire.

A privatized healthcare system has no interest whatsoever in making everyone healthy- It would be out of business.
It has no interest in long term health advances- this would reduce its profits in the future.
It has no interest in life-saving vaccines that prevent serious illness- this would simply reduce its consumer base.
Companies by their very nature put profit before people. If a company is supposed to provide a vital service for people, it will put profit first, even if it is at the expense of the very people it is supposed to be 'serving'. The people it's actually serving aren't the customers- its the shareholders.

Basic capitalist theory is no match for the complex dynamic of human interactions. It simply cannot take into account the myriad of variables that humans throw into the mix.
Even in the most idealized and 'pure' form (the stock market), basic capitalist principles often falter due to the most basic human biases.
'Sentiment' plays such a big role in the markets that it is not uncommon to see a company's share price suffer after announcing a healthy profit.
Even when all the numbers indicated a stock should have gone up, it sometimes goes down. Sure, you can then explain it all- but much like Freudian theory, you can only explain everything after the fact, not before.
(Sorry- straying off-topic again)

 

[Danoff]

Now we’re getting somewhere! I think your last post helps me out quite a bit for figuring out where your issues are.

In the real world, and particularly in some service industries; a system fundamentally based on greed which aims to constantly increase profits, inevitably delivers cuts in services and cuts in quality. These are the eaziest, quickest ways to deliver a greater profit- and that's exactly what happens all the time.

I think this is not exactly what you mean. I think you mean to say that in some industries this occurs, rather than that this simply occurs in capitalism. My thesis is that it does not occur in health care (or education for that matter), but we’ll get to that in a moment.

People are not educated enough (and you can't expect them to be) with regards to comparing vital services. It's not like comparing two different DVD players. The 'competitors' providing vital services are typically indistinguishable. A good way of observing this is when you see people trying to compare companies that offer health insurance.

I have not noticed that. I recently signed up with a lower-cost dental plan. It took me exactly 1 visit to the dentist to decide to never go back and immediately change plans. My wife recently visited the doctor under an HMO (don’t know if you have those), and it took her exactly one visit to realize that we need to switch to a PPO.

Good doctors and good health care plans are actually fairly simple to break down. They’ll typically have a spreadsheet of services covered, and often times these will be stacked directly against competitors. But often doctors are not gotten through a chart or table – they’re usually gotten via word-of-mouth. The most important thing is finding a good doctor – something that people invariably do over time after experiencing one after another.

When I got into a fender bender, it took me a few trips to body shops to find one that I felt semi-trustworthy and decently priced. When I went to buy a house I asked around for real-estate agent recommendations. The problem with those two things was that not everyone has a real-estate agent, and not everybody has used a body shop. Those that do aren’t always satisfied with the results they got, but haven’t had the opportunity to go check out others because they haven’t needed those services. On the otherhand, everyone has a doctor. And often once you find one good doctor he/she can give a solid referral for others.

So no, I completely reject this notion that it is impossible to weigh the competition, that somehow with the health care industry it is impossible to shop or weigh options.

The unfortunate reality it that in the real world, healthcare and education are two services that simply do not benefit from a capitalist model.
If they did, there would be many examples all around the world. As it is, there are none. The best fit for providing healthcare is a socialist model.

^ This is not a real argument. But I feel it necessary to say that I don’t feel it necessary to respond.

For healthcare in particular, advances in technical equipment, new drugs or surgical techniques will simply not cut down how many people are getting sick. Prevention is about the only way to cut down costs, and provide more care for more people.

Advances in equipment, drugs, and surgical techniques mean people get cured faster, cheaper, and don’t have to stay in the hospital as long for more lengthy involved treatment. These things directly cut down costs.

Prevention is also a good way to cut costs – which is why there is a solid market for prevention.

But that would be contrary to the interests of a capitalist based system, would it not?
A capitalist system would want more sick people, not less.
A capitalist system would benefit from the greater demand, and have no interest in improving people's overall health.

You can say this about just about any service industry. Plumbers would benefit from more plumbing problems right? Electricians would make more money if there was more shoddy electrical work. Painters shouldn’t paint your house properly – afterall, you won’t have to come back for more paint in the future if they do a good job.

…and everyone’s favorite, the auto mechanic. There are definitely mechanics out there looking to rip you off. Same goes with doctors. This is why people get recommendations from others as to which mechanics/doctors are good. That sort of thing helps ensure that untrustworthy doctors/mechanics go out of business.

So if your line of reasoning here is correct (which it is not, because it neglects to take into account competition), all services industries would suffer from this sort of problem. Plumbers would purposely do a bad job. Mechanics would sabotage their customers’ cars. Electricians would put faulty wiring in homes counting on getting called back out. But that doesn’t happen (often), and there’s a reason.

You are probably correct in saying that the US system is the most capitalist. That is exactly why it is the most expensive, and offers the least service
overall.

The fact that the most money is spent on the US system doesn’t make it the most expensive. It means that more health care is purchased in the US than other markets (which BTW, is a good thing – it means you have a good product). And I’m wondering if you didn’t mean “most” service overall.

In terms of innovation and research, it is the European countries and companies making the most profit- often heavily subsidized by governments.

I honestly don’t know what to make of that claim. Are talking about money not-reinvested in the company? If so, isn’t that a bad thing? Are you saying that government subsidies make it easier for companies to turn a profit? That seems like a no-brainer. There are so many factors here it’s tough to even get started. They don’t have to develop medicine if they live in a marketplace that doesn’t respect American Patents, and so they can leech off the research done in other countries (it happens regularly) and turn a profit without investment.

As an example: Australian researchers recently came up with a vaccine that prevents 70% of all cervical cancers. This research was done with heavy government sponsorship.

Don’t get me started on the cervical cancer “vaccine”, and it’s best not to get Famine started on it either. Suffice it to say that the science is not all in on this vaccine. Last I heard, US was in the approval process for this vaccine and some states were looking at making the vaccine mandatory.

There is a preventative technique for HPV (which causes the cervical cancer that your vaccine “prevents&#8221 which was developed many years ago. It’s inexpensive and easy, and it’s called a condom. Now, a condom can’t completely prevent HPV from spreading, but it does reduce your chances by a substantial amount. I wouldn’t be surprised if it prevented… say… 70% of infections.

I’ll never benefit from this vaccine, and my wife won’t either. But our tax dollars would be used to force others (many of whom will choose a lifestyle that will prevent them from benefiting from the vaccine) to be vaccinated.

That’s government. Force. You “will” take this vaccine. You “will” pay for this vaccine. Is it tested? We think so, a few people on a board were convinced.

If it were up to me, my tax dollars would never be used to research an HPV vaccine. Same for HIV. And don’t get me started on stem cells. Sure, these things can be researched, but it should be researched for the people who are willing to pay for it. Not funded by the people who will never benfit.

But that is short-sighted: Long-term, the savings from reducing cervical cancer by 70% are massive when compared to the initial cost of providing the vaccine.

Why should I care about the long-term savings in an area that I’ll never need? Like, for example, I never plan to purchase a motorcycle. Now let’s say you’re advocating research for motorcycles that will eventually save customers millions in the future. Let’s say it’ll be a major savings if we just put the research in now. Why do I care? I’ll never buy a motorcycle? I don’t care if they cost a ton, or very little, I’m simply not interested.

This is exactly the sort of thing that government is bad at – figuring out how best to cater to the people. Government is a ham-fisted solution that will often put gobs of money into areas that people don’t really need. AIDS is an excellent example. If the government were to properly distribute AIDS and Cancer research dollars it would adjust the budget yearly based on the number of AIDS and Cancer diagnoses to ensure that the people are best served by the research dollars. Instead, these things are based on public perception – which might have ZERO founding in fact and can be shaped/changed by politicians based on how they frame their campaign. That’s a poor way to allocate research dollars.

Now, does that mean I think the government shouldn’t be involved in health care research? No. I think the government has a role there, because one thing the market really doesn’t do will is long-term research - research that won’t pay off for decades. But the government should ONLY do that with major identifiable problems where the horizon is a long way off. Cancer is a good example of where research funding is needed. AIDS is a good example of where the government gets it wrong and pumps tax dollars based on political hype.

So in a capitalist based system- only the women who can afford it would have access to the vaccine. The burden on the health system caused by cervical cancer will persist for many decades.

See the motorcycle rant. The “burden” for HPV, or HIV, or Herpes, or (much of) lung cancer, or drug overdoses, or drug rehabilitation etc. etc. etc. isn’t one that I should bear because I’ll never benefit. But that doesn’t change the fact that there does exist a market for prevention in those areas – and that it would be highly profitable to research those areas.

Like I said before, there is a fundamental conflict of interest at play if a capitalist model is applied to provision of vital services. It's not a matter of greater services aligning with greater profits, its a matter of greater profits aligning with a greater incidence human misery- greed simply adds fuel to the fire.

You’re still going to need to establish that. I need better arguments for why buying health care is different than say, buying food, or plumbing, or gas, etc.

A privatized healthcare system has no interest whatsoever in making everyone healthy- It would be out of business.

Just like plumbers have no interest in giving everyone working plumbing – plumbers would be out of business! Seems like silly reasoning right?

It has no interest in long term health advances- this would reduce its profits in the future.

Developing long term health advances could mean huge profits.

It has no interest in life-saving vaccines that prevent serious illness- this would simply reduce its consumer base.

This is a repeat from earlier.

Companies by their very nature put profit before people. If a company is supposed to provide a vital service for people, it will put profit first, even if it is at the expense of the very people it is supposed to be 'serving'. The people it's actually serving aren't the customers- its the shareholders.

Companies serve their customers first and foremost, because if they don’t do that they’re out of business. And nothing bothers shareholders more than pissed off/leaving customers.