SilentSnow 1 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Do you know of a country with deregulated free-market health care, that allows you to so confidently dismiss it?Do you? There might be a couple but I can't think of any off-hand. The world's health care systems basically fall into 3 groups.Group 1- Lousy health care.Group 2- Good health care with a single payer government option- ie socialized medicine. Costs are roughly half of the US. Nearly every rich country has this system. Group 3- The United States. They are an extreme outlier and seem to be completely unique. Good health care but extremely expensive and mediocre/poor availability. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Do you? There might be a couple but I can't think of any off-hand.No. That's was kind of the point. It seems that what Hblask is pushing is something that isn't currently used anywhere on Earth, so it confuses me how Scram can dismiss it so easily. That's why economics or anything macro is so hard to figure out, because there is no real way to test new theories on a large scale. I could easily see health care costs being driven down and quality driven up in a deregulated environment, but I could also see it being a disaster where no one cares about anything but profit. However, the economic side of my brain refuses to let go of the fact that the free market WILL bring about the perfect social equilibrium. It always does. The private health company that cares the most about people will win if that's the most socially efficient outcome. That's where I feel Scram is wrong. It seems that he's saying that company bigwigs will continue to torture patients for greater and greater profit. But if X Healthcare, Inc. isn't providing quality care at a low cost, they will be out of business. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 completely uniqueDon't do that. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Don't do that.Don't do what?"Completely unique" can be a problematic phrase, but in the sense that the US is an extreme outlier with respect to health care I think it is correct. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 No. That's was kind of the point. It seems that what Hblask is pushing is something that isn't currently used anywhere on Earth, so it confuses me how Scram can dismiss it so easily. That's why economics or anything macro is so hard to figure out, because there is no real way to test new theories on a large scale. I could easily see health care costs being driven down and quality driven up in a deregulated environment, but I could also see it being a disaster where no one cares about anything but profit. However, the economic side of my brain refuses to let go of the fact that the free market WILL bring about the perfect social equilibrium. It always does. The private health company that cares the most about people will win if that's the most socially efficient outcome. That's where I feel Scram is wrong. It seems that he's saying that company bigwigs will continue to torture patients for greater and greater profit. But if X Healthcare, Inc. isn't providing quality care at a low cost, they will be out of business.Of course you could say that the nonexistence of unregulated health care is de facto proof that it will not work. The perfect social equilibrium isn't necessarily a good thing. Maybe the equilibrium will decide that millions of poor people with health problems will be left to die. They will only go out of business if they have to compete on cost. For whatever reason the US health care system does not compete on cost-ie the market has failed. Of course you can argue whether that failure was due to bad regulations or to the impossibility of a free market solution to the health care industry. So you can try to fix the problem by forcing companies to compete or restricting prices. Nearly every other country has chosen to restrict prices and it seems to be working fairly well. I guess there are things the US could try to move towards a more competitive system instead, but there seem to be inherent anti-competitive properties to the health care market. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Of course you could say that the nonexistence of unregulated health care is de facto proof that it will not work. The perfect social equilibrium isn't necessarily a good thing. Maybe the equilibrium will decide that millions of poor people with health problems will be left to die. They will only go out of business if they have to compete on cost. For whatever reason the US health care system does not compete on cost-ie the market has failed. Of course you can argue whether that failure was due to bad regulations or to the impossibility of a free market solution to the health care industry. So you can try to fix the problem by forcing companies to compete or restricting prices. Nearly every other country has chosen to restrict prices and it seems to be working fairly well. I guess there are things the US could try to move towards a more competitive system instead, but there seem to be inherent anti-competitive properties to the health care market.the term "social equilibrium" by definition includes moral stances on things like millions being left to die. That's why I chose it over market equilibrium. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 So you can try to fix the problem by forcing companies to compete or restricting prices. Nearly every other country has chosen to restrict prices and it seems to be working fairly well.You and I differ wildly on the phrase "seems to be working fairly well". Many of those countries are in real trouble financially, with much higher tax rates than ours, longer wait times, and vastly inferior quality. There is a reason heads-of-state from all over the world come here for medical care. I don't know what the solutions to our obvious problems are, but I would prefer our problems over theirs. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 That's the typical ideologue talking points, but it just isn't an accurate characterization. If what you were saying is true, then the term "medical bankruptcy" wouldn't exist, yet it does. We agree that there are cases of financial mismanagement, but there are a whole host of people who sincerely cannot afford private insurance, or, are uninsurable due to existing/pre-existing health conditions... or, are insurable, but for $1900 a month, when they net $1200 a month.If you make $1200/month, you are eligible for state and federal programs.The problem of pre-existing conditions is a separate one that needs to be worked on separately and is extremely complex.This sounds vaguely like "Communism works fine... It just hasn't been implemented correctly yet". Let me know when you get around to a working example we can reference.Not at all, we have 23,455 examples of free markets that work fine in the US, and 5 or 6 examples of what happens when the govt tries to micromanage markets. Healthcare is the latter, education is the latter, the other 23,455 are the things we take for granted like clothes and shoes and food and music and toys. If you compare the price and selection of free market goods to those in highly regulated industries, and to countries with high levels of market intervention, the evidence is overwhelming. You would need pretty compelling evidence to show why "health care in the US" is different than all other industries, and so far, nobody has come close to showing that. It's got its problems, but even with our semi-free market we are still 100X better than the socialist countries that are free riders on our market advancements.Again, retarded, ideologue talking points. This is why debates with people like you are usually pointless; because 90% of the dialog is spent answering to rhetorical bullshit like this, rather than advancing the discussion.It's not a rhetorical problem that congress only responds to those with money -- the corporations and lobbyists. That's a very real problem, and the heart of why corporate cronyism is failing us in healthcare.Sometimes, the answer to a question isn't holding it liable to a particular ideology as a suicide pact and running it off the cliff of the 'furthest degree'. There are indeed some affairs that *are* a matter of public interest and thusly, can only be managed by people who answer to the public; that there are dynamics of the human condition which necessitate decision makers having to answer to the people whose lives are impacted by their decisions. This is absent in private health. All we get is maximized, parasitic cost and severely diminished access.Health care in the US used to be affordable and available to everyone. That stopped when govt interventions started removing market forces. Maybe you are not old enough to remember how it worked, but my small town had some of the last remnants of free market health care. I come from a family of 13 kids, living well below the poverty line, and we got all the care we needed without government intervention. Our family doctor wrote a book when he finally quit, and said he had to stop serving the community like he wanted because Medicare destroyed his practice and wouldn't allow him the flexibility to meet the community needs.Any pretense that federal officials are answerable to us is, frankly, laughable. They answer to their corporate masters, and I can count on one hand the number of elected officials that don't. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Group 3- The United States. They are an extreme outlier and seem to be completely unique. Good health care but extremely expensive and mediocre/poor availability.Except for the part about mediocre/poor availability. If you can answer the challenge I posted in the first response to Scram, go ahead and provide evidence for this claim. You won't because you can't. We have the best access in the world -- for anyone who bothers to look for it. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 No. That's was kind of the point. It seems that what Hblask is pushing is something that isn't currently used anywhere on Earth, so it confuses me how Scram can dismiss it so easily. That's why economics or anything macro is so hard to figure out, because there is no real way to test new theories on a large scale. I could easily see health care costs being driven down and quality driven up in a deregulated environment, but I could also see it being a disaster where no one cares about anything but profit. However, the economic side of my brain refuses to let go of the fact that the free market WILL bring about the perfect social equilibrium. It always does. The private health company that cares the most about people will win if that's the most socially efficient outcome. That's where I feel Scram is wrong. It seems that he's saying that company bigwigs will continue to torture patients for greater and greater profit. But if X Healthcare, Inc. isn't providing quality care at a low cost, they will be out of business.We have examples of free market health care in the US. Corrective vision surgery is the most obvious example; compare now to 1980 for that compared to all the heavily regulated sectors. Plastic surgery is the same. Furthermore, there are doctors across the country who have stopped accepting insurance or Medicare, and they provide extremely high levels of care for a fraction of the cost. The evidence is overwhelming.Medical tourism is another example of how free markets can drive down prices if the govt would get out of the way.There are plenty of examples if you look for them, and that's just in medicine. You can also compare every other industry for market vs centrally planned versions.I find it a bit shocking that intelligent people can think that this evidence is not overwhelming. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Don't do what?"Completely unique" can be a problematic phrase, but in the sense that the US is an extreme outlier with respect to health care I think it is correct.Please stop pretending that "percent of GDP spent on health care" is a meaningful measure. It just isn't, for reasons that have been explained many times. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 [$50K is ] plenty enough for a decent house I'm guessing you've never left the North American continent Minnesota... Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I'm guessing you've never left the North American continent Minnesota...Anyone who takes a job for $50K in a place where you can't get housing and health insurance for $50K is making a very bad financial decision. Our govt should not be in the business of subsidizing stupidity. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Anyone who takes a job for $50K in a place where you can't get housing and health insurance for $50K is making a very bad financial decision. Our govt should not be in the business of subsidizing stupidity.Absolutely, that person should take the job for $200K instead. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Absolutely, that person should take the job for $200K instead.Hahahahaha, you intentionally misunderstood me! Good one!If someone gives me a choice between taking a $50K job in a town where you can't rent a one bedroom apt for $2K month, or a $40K job in a town where a 1BR is $800/month, I know which one I'm taking.Our govt should not be in the business of subsidizing bad decisions. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 We have examples of free market health care in the US. Corrective vision surgery is the most obvious example; compare now to 1980 for that compared to all the heavily regulated sectors. Plastic surgery is the same. Furthermore, there are doctors across the country who have stopped accepting insurance or Medicare, and they provide extremely high levels of care for a fraction of the cost. The evidence is overwhelming.Medical tourism is another example of how free markets can drive down prices if the govt would get out of the way.There are plenty of examples if you look for them, and that's just in medicine. You can also compare every other industry for market vs centrally planned versions.I find it a bit shocking that intelligent people can think that this evidence is not overwhelming.The only example of this that I've heard of personally is the clinic in Seattle that doesn't accept insurance, and pretty much every treatment is like $35. Cash only.I suppose Patch Adams was basically doing the same thing, and I believe his practice was in Virginia or something. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Hahahahaha, you intentionally misunderstood me! Good one!If someone gives me a choice between taking a $50K job in a town where you can't rent a one bedroom apt for $2K month, or a $40K job in a town where a 1BR is $800/month, I know which one I'm taking.Our govt should not be in the business of subsidizing bad decisions.My point was that no one takes a job where they can't afford to live because another job that makes their lives affordable is available. It's a false choice. I was originally just making a joke about how cheap it was to live in Minnesota (I think that does give you a distorted view when it comes to these numbers... your example always make me chuckle) $50K per year for a family is basically poverty where I live... a recent report shows that to get basic necessities of living in california a two-parent working family needs about $75K per year... Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 a recent report shows that to get basic necessities of living in california a two-parent working family needs about $75K per year...or one government teat. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 My point was that no one takes a job where they can't afford to live because another job that makes their lives affordable is available. It's a false choice. I was originally just making a joke about how cheap it was to live in Minnesota (I think that does give you a distorted view when it comes to these numbers... your example always make me chuckle) $50K per year for a family is basically poverty where I live... a recent report shows that to get basic necessities of living in california a two-parent working family needs about $75K per year...I lived in CA and NJ, too, two of the most expensive areas to live. I made wise financial choices in those places, too. Nobody requires anyone to live in an expensive area. Link to post Share on other sites
All_In 0 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Only in america...Man robs bank to get medical care in jailhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/2...al-care-in-jail Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Only in america...Man robs bank to get medical care in jailhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/2...al-care-in-jail Only somewhere else...9-year-old girl kidnapped, drugged, strapped into explosive vest, and told to be suicide bomberhttp://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/2...?iref=allsearch Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Only in america...Man robs bank to get medical care in jailhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/2...al-care-in-jail Is your point that we should base policy on the fear of what the lowest form of humanity will do? Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Is your point that we should base policy on the fear of what the lowest form of humanity will do?I think the point is supposed to be that its a bad situation when prisoners get better health care than free poor people. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I think the point is supposed to be that its a bad situation when prisoners get better health care than free poor people.Mostly that's not true, although there probably are exceptions. Health care in prisons is terrible, while free poor people have many high quality options. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A...Tale-Of-Woe.htmBut hey, don't let facts confuse the MSM. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now