Jump to content

Universal Health Care Poll


Which do you believe?  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Every American has right to free health care

    • Yes
      7
    • No
      22


Recommended Posts

It is practically impossible (because a variety of things would have to happen----health care companies being rendered obsolete despite their lobbyists throwing cash at everyone, the American people understanding that they are better off paying more for a checkup because it will be offset by not having so much deducted from each paycheck, everyone agreeing on what the dollar trigger would be for catastrophic care, how much we would have to ration end of life care, can we get private insurance companies to fill the voids that will arise, etc, etc.)But, theoretically it is very possible.
Sorry, I fully disagree. I do not think that plan is theoretically possible. (I am making the assumption that the same level or better health care is needed to consider this a possibility) The very first reason, and I don't think it needs to go any further is, if the government is in charge of all catastrophic care, where will the incentive come from to create better drugs/treatments for life threatening diseases, illness and injury?Whomever cures cancer or aids or whatever major disease that is plaguing our race, will be doing it partially to be altruistic, and also to make a shit ton of money. If that incentive is not there, why would "most" people dedicate their lives and lively hood to doing work that will get them no personal gain?Now I have your answer, the governement will provide that monetary incentive. I'll even give you a current example, they offered 40K to someone to find 10 balloons using the internet. MIT did it in 9 hours. They did it for the money, and the recognition.Now I'll give you my counter argument. What happens when someone in the government determines they will fund X but not Y. Well guess what, there will be nobody to do the research on Y. That is the problem, it always had been. Even though there is dishonesty and unethical practices from insurance and drug companies, bottom line is, cures and remedies for diseases are getting made and made better all the time. And it is because of the promise of a gigantic windfall for the company taking that risk.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

While I appreciate your desire to dive into the theoretical, I would again argue that this avoids a direct discussion of heath care, which, as I perceived it, was the original intention of the OP.Also, I'm not sure what an example of a "centrally planned society" would be versus a "free market society." Do you have an example of each so I know what you're talking about. The only things I can come up with right now are:"Centrally planned": Every country, except maybe Somalia"Free Market": Somalia
Centrally planned countries are countries where a majority of commerce is controlled by the government. Examples: Cuba, North Korea, former Soviet Union, Venezuela.Free market countries are countries with strong rule of law and strong property rights. Examples: US, Canada, most of Europe. Of course it's all a matter of degrees.Somalia is not a free market because they have no property rights and no rule of law.
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple simple questions for Americans that really aren't very simple.Why is it that every other rich country in the World provides some level of guaranteed health care for everybody and the US doesn't ?Why are Americans so clinging to a system that is arguably the most inefficient in the World ? One unit of health care in the US costs far more than the same unit does in other countries. ( I realize that the current proposals from the Democrats are going to do nothing to change this ) I find it hilarious that all the anti-gov't people harp about the inefficiencies of governments while one of the largest advantages of the public health care systems in places like Canada is that far less money is spent on bureaucracy here when compared to the US.Why do Americans call their system free market when I would argue that there are a high number of places in the system where the market is distorted by it's very structure. The AMA distorts the free market. Lack of cross state insurance competition distorts the free market. Capital intensive hospitals have a natural monopoly effect in many places. I think the US is basically screwed when it comes to health care as your current system needs to be blown up before it bankrupts your country.I think most countries are fiscally screwed to a large extent by rising health care costs and every country has hard decisions to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Honest people are happy to fund community services such as law enforcement and fire departments. We are not so happy to tell doctors "you must work for less than you are worth because some bureaucrat thinks you charge to much".
But what if the Doctors through a system of their having a strong union with large barriers to entry are able to charge above market clearing rates due to their monopoly position ?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fireman presumably are not forced into that line of work.
Nor are health insurance workers. That is why it (obviously) isn't slavery.
Under Obama-care, companies and individuals would be forced to provide services to people at prices they do not agree to.
No, just like fireman, they can go into another line of work.
Certainly you are not saying that having a career option as a fireman is the same as telling an existing professional "do it our way or switch careers"?
We tell fireman the same thing. If you don't perform your job in a way that meets our standards, you must switch careers. There's no substantive difference. There is just disagreement with what the standards should be for health care.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Centrally planned countries are countries where a majority of commerce is controlled by the government. Examples: Cuba, North Korea, former Soviet Union, Venezuela.Free market countries are countries with strong rule of law and strong property rights. Examples: US, Canada, most of Europe. Of course it's all a matter of degrees.Somalia is not a free market because they have no property rights and no rule of law.
And crappy pirates. Somalia has terrible pirates. Ask Cartman.Guapo,What happens when a private company decides to fund research for X and not Y? Those kind of decisions are made all the time. I dont think it would be a huge difference. Things that are needed would get funded and if things that were needed did not get funded the public outcry is supposed to remedy that.I admit there is no perfect system. But I think the system I am proposing would be an improvement over the current system and the proposed rehaul.Also, the best thing about the plan I am speaking of? All ICU treatment is handled by one company, the government. That means standardized forms and computerization.....which will cut clerical errors by well more than half. Right now every company has a different form so there is no computerization which leads to tons of errors.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple simple questions for Americans that really aren't very simple.Why is it that every other rich country in the World provides some level of guaranteed health care for everybody and the US doesn't ?
Because the rest of you suck. If everyone else jumped off the Empire State Building, would you jump off the Empire State Building? (or should I say the CN Tower?)
Why are Americans so clinging to a system that is arguably the most inefficient in the World ? One unit of health care in the US costs far more than the same unit does in other countries. ( I realize that the current proposals from the Democrats are going to do nothing to change this ) I find it hilarious that all the anti-gov't people harp about the inefficiencies of governments while one of the largest advantages of the public health care systems in places like Canada is that far less money is spent on bureaucracy here when compared to the US.
I'm not sure how you are measuring efficiency. Based on several stories of experiences with the Canadian system just from member of FCP, combined with all the others that have made the news, combined with the Canadian govt's own statistics, efficiency does not seem to a very good description of the system there. Lowering prices by not giving people the care they need is, to me, sort of the opposite of efficiency.
Why do Americans call their system free market when I would argue that there are a high number of places in the system where the market is distorted by it's very structure. The AMA distorts the free market. Lack of cross state insurance competition distorts the free market. Capital intensive hospitals have a natural monopoly effect in many places.
I agree with all of these, and more. We call it a free market, though, because compared to the rest of the world, it is one. That's why we invent something like 90% of all new pharmaceuticals and new devices. But yeah, there are serious problems that need to be fixed. One point, though, hospitals don't have "natural" monopolies. In many states, medical providers have tried to create alternatives to big box hospitals, but the hospitals have too much political clout and shut them down. One of the things that is starting to gain steam is "specialty hospitals", where they just do one thing. They don't need 8 stories of staph-infected beds. They may just take up a single floor of an existing medical center or other office building. Where such care is allowed to compete on a level playing field, they are having great success, proving, once again, there are no natural monopolies. There are only bad rules that make unimaginative people think there are no alternatives.
I think the US is basically screwed when it comes to health care as your current system needs to be blown up before it bankrupts your country.
The only part that is bankrupting our country is Medicare, and I'm all in favor of blowing that up. Well, OK, maybe not blowing it up, but dismantling it methodically and fairly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But what if the Doctors through a system of their having a strong union with large barriers to entry are able to charge above market clearing rates due to their monopoly position ?
Then doctors who aren't part of the union can undercut them. If the union is legally enforced, as with the AMA, then we need to fix that problem instead of piling more bad rules on the problem. The AMA is a political entity, and as such, should be disbanded.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We tell fireman the same thing. If you don't perform your job in a way that meets our standards, you must switch careers. There's no substantive difference. There is just disagreement with what the standards should be for health care.
We don't exactly tell firemen how to do their jobs, basically we just tell them "here's the salary, as determined by markets, and you just need to put out fires." If cities pay too little, they don't get firemen. If they pay too much, taxpayers complain.Obama-care is threatening to tell doctors "sure markets would let you charge $30,000 for that, but we are only going to let you be paid $20,000. If you don't like it, you can throw away your 16 years of schooling, and oh, good luck paying off those loans."Yes, that is a huge difference.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple simple questions for Americans that really aren't very simple.Why is it that every other rich country in the World provides some level of guaranteed health care for everybody and the US doesn't ?
But we already do. It's completley ineffective the way it's set up now.I am not against some reform on the health care side, but what has been proposed is not the answer, not by a long shot.Also, what is the measurement of cost of health care vs. quality of health care in the other countries and what % of GDP or even % of a persons income.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What happens when a private company decides to fund research for X and not Y?
When the federal government says no, case closed, drug not developed, people die.When company A says no, companies B, C, D, E, and F recognize the market and proceed.A thousand little experiments will always produce better results than one big one.
Link to post
Share on other sites
When the federal government says no, case closed, drug not developed, people die.When company A says no, companies B, C, D, E, and F recognize the market and proceed.A thousand little experiments will always produce better results than one big one.
Well this depends. If the FDA says no, then case closed people die (but the assumption is the FDA has a reason to do so).When the government health care says no, people will just have to buy it themselves. People who cannot afford to do so will have to rely on charities and payment plans (or perhaps even a private insurance mini plan that covers a number of designer drugs not covered by Federal healthcare). There are ways to deal with this.Also, I find the idea that the federal government would be denying incentive to life saving drugs left and right ridiculous. This might happen in very small number of isolated cases but for the most part the R+D wings of these big pharma companies make research decision years in advance by carefully weighing the potential market for a drug against the potential costs and the likelihood it could pass the FDA.I do not think this would be a big problem. Just another small problem that can be handled with thought and possible help from small scale private insurance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't exactly tell firemen how to do their jobs, basically we just tell them "here's the salary, as determined by markets, and you just need to put out fires." If cities pay too little, they don't get firemen. If they pay too much, taxpayers complain.
Of course we do. You just happen to be unfamiliar with all the regulations there are on fireman. For example, we regulate what they wear, what equipment they are allowed to have, what kinds of emergencies they are required to respond to, how often they have to tune up their trucks, etc.
Obama-care is threatening to tell doctors "sure markets would let you charge $30,000 for that, but we are only going to let you be paid $20,000. If you don't like it, you can throw away your 16 years of schooling, and oh, good luck paying off those loans."Yes, that is a huge difference.
Part of the reason I got in to this is because I can't tell if you were being intentionally hyperbolic or you really don't see the difference between this and slavery. They are not legally nor morally equivalent, and clearly there is no conflict in supporting one and not the other. I mostly enjoy your position on this, but if your position fails to make this kind of distinction then it's not something I can get behind.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this depends. If the FDA says no, then case closed people die (but the assumption is the FDA has a reason to do so).When the government health care says no, people will just have to buy it themselves. People who cannot afford to do so will have to rely on charities and payment plans (or perhaps even a private insurance mini plan that covers a number of designer drugs not covered by Federal healthcare). There are ways to deal with this.Also, I find the idea that the federal government would be denying incentive to life saving drugs left and right ridiculous. This might happen in very small number of isolated cases but for the most part the R+D wings of these big pharma companies make research decision years in advance by carefully weighing the potential market for a drug against the potential costs and the likelihood it could pass the FDA.I do not think this would be a big problem. Just another small problem that can be handled with thought and possible help from small scale private insurance.
It is impossible for the government to support all R&D, because when things first come out, they are very expensive. So if someone invents a drug that adds 2 years to a person's life, but costs $100,000 per year, the government has to decide -- spend $100,000 on everyone, or $100,000 on nobody. We know what that decision will be, and the drug will die on the drawing board. This is how all technology enters society -- very expensive at first, with the early adopters paying the R&D costs. There is zero chance that the government can effectively decide which R&D is worth paying, because we usually don't know that answer until many years later -- and that's with full time people devoted to figuring it out. Bureaucrats long removed from markets and medical care have even less chance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Part of the reason I got in to this is because I can't tell if you were being intentionally hyperbolic or you really don't see the difference between this and slavery. They are not legally nor morally equivalent, and clearly there is no conflict in supporting one and not the other. I mostly enjoy your position on this, but if your position fails to make this kind of distinction then it's not something I can get behind.
Of course I was being hyperbolic; my position is more in line with the couple of response I gave to LLY. But I do think that hiring a fire department compared to telling doctors how much money they can make is about the same leap as telling doctors how much they can make compared to actual slavery. They are all along the Road To Serfdom, with "hiring firemen" at 1, "federal bureaucrats determining doctor salaries" at 5, and "slavery" at 10.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is impossible for the government to support all R&D, because when things first come out, they are very expensive. So if someone invents a drug that adds 2 years to a person's life, but costs $100,000 per year, the government has to decide -- spend $100,000 on everyone, or $100,000 on nobody. We know what that decision will be, and the drug will die on the drawing board. This is how all technology enters society -- very expensive at first, with the early adopters paying the R&D costs. There is zero chance that the government can effectively decide which R&D is worth paying, because we usually don't know that answer until many years later -- and that's with full time people devoted to figuring it out. Bureaucrats long removed from markets and medical care have even less chance.
The assumption would be that those full time people would in many cases be hired by the government (since they have assumed so much added responsibility in paying for everyone's catastrophic care). So, the odds would be about as good then as they are now.Also, drugs are not measured in such a fashion. That example breaks down in the real world. No drug is trumpted as "it will add two years to your life". It will be pitched as "this will help disease/condition x in this way and is therefore worthwhile." And smart people (both bureaucrats and the qualified people they appoint to committees) will make those decisions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cane I am somewhat shocked at the faith that you put in bureaucrats from any background to do whats best for people and not themselves.
Just wait 20 years, he'll think differently.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cane I am somewhat shocked at the faith that you put in bureaucrats from any background to do whats best for people and not themselves.
I think what is best for bureaucrats and what is best for the people are often intertwined.I am always amazed at the faith that you and others have in businessman and CEOs.I know a fair number of people who work in the lower and middle levels of DC so maybe I am just biased.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The assumption would be that those full time people would in many cases be hired by the government (since they have assumed so much added responsibility in paying for everyone's catastrophic care). So, the odds would be about as good then as they are now.Also, drugs are not measured in such a fashion. That example breaks down in the real world. No drug is trumpted as "it will add two years to your life". It will be pitched as "this will help disease/condition x in this way and is therefore worthwhile." And smart people (both bureaucrats and the qualified people they appoint to committees) will make those decisions.
So the government is going to hire tens of thousands of people? And what about the small start-up companies? If I come up with a new medical breakthrough that I work on in my garage, does that guarantee me a federal job? Or will they pay my start-up costs? Or will my idea be thrown in the garbage can of history? Those are your choices. Saying "a federal bureaucrat will magically acknowledge the wisdom of my eccentric vision and fund it for me" is not a real world choice. That's just a technocratic fantasy that died with the fall of the Berlin wall.And your way of saying the benefit of drugs is not materially different from my way of saying it. Basically, we have an expensive product of uncertain value with very high cost. That is where most technology starts, whether it is scanners, drugs, or other medical care. That is reality. The government cannot get into the business of funding every cockamamie idea that anyone has; but if it says we'll only fund the ones that some bureaucrat thinks is worthwhile, then all those other ideas die on the drawing board. Innovation requires that millions of bits of information be assembled accurately in real time. In all of history, only one system has ever provided that information to entrepreneurs and dreamers in a timely manner. Hint: that system doesn't involve filling out federal paperwork.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple simple questions for Americans that really aren't very simple.Why is it that every other rich country in the World provides some level of guaranteed health care for everybody and the US doesn't ?
Bob, what exactly do you consider Medicare, Medicaid, and various other state sanctioned bodies such as CoverColorado?The thing that you apparently don't understand, is that there is already guaranteed healthcare for everyone, if they choose to pursue it. It's just not free, which is what you're seeking. Right?In Colorado, lower income people can be eligible for medicaid, elderly are (mostly) taken care of by medicare, and CoverColorado and other state sanctioned bodies cover literally everyone else who needs it.There are two crises in our heatlhcare system, cost and access. Obama has chosen to attempt to fix the access crisis, which affects about 15% of Americans. I feel that most of us who are opposed to obamacare wish that he'd do at least something to address the crisis of cost, which affects closer to 85% of Americans. Whatsayyou?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what is best for bureaucrats and what is best for the people are often intertwined.I am always amazed at the faith that you and others have in businessman and CEOs.
But history has proven you wrong, on both counts. Bureaucrats, like everyone else, have their self-interest in mind. In the case of congress, that means influencing legislation to favor those who would help get him re-elected. In the case of mid-level bureaucrats, that's to keep their heads low and not make any mistakes that generate headlines.In the case of businessmen and CEO's, it's to make a profit. How do they make profits? Two ways: the first is to lobby for massive federal takeover's of their industry so that they can rig the rules in their favor. This is what is happening in health care right now. The other way to make profits is to give consumers good things at good prices.The choice doesn't seem that hard, but America seems to have trouble giving up on its fairy tale belief that people with perverse incentives will somehow create something from nothing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But history has proven you wrong, on both counts. Bureaucrats, like everyone else, have their self-interest in mind. In the case of congress, that means influencing legislation to favor those who would help get him re-elected. In the case of mid-level bureaucrats, that's to keep their heads low and not make any mistakes that generate headlines.In the case of businessmen and CEO's, it's to make a profit. How do they make profits? Two ways: the first is to lobby for massive federal takeover's of their industry so that they can rig the rules in their favor. This is what is happening in health care right now. The other way to make profits is to give consumers good things at good prices.The choice doesn't seem that hard, but America seems to have trouble giving up on its fairy tale belief that people with perverse incentives will somehow create something from nothing.
The rules are in their favor now. My way would not put the rules in their favor. The amount of money we would save on the plan I like would help offset innovation deficiencies. In the case of health care, companies make profits by leeching a small portion of every transaction while providing nothing of use in return. Health insurance companies dont give good things at good prices. Your position breaks down in the health care industry. A health care company's incentive is to pay out less than you pay in. THAT is a perverse incentive. And I cant demonize them for that because that is what businesses do. But I can come up with a plan that renders them obsolete.i mean the difference between Obama's plan and the current system is that in one, we all pay into a number of private companies....they take a cut for themselves.....and pay out the rest to doctors and hospitals. Under Obama's plan, we all pay (eventually because his assertion that private companies can compete with the gov is hilarious) into the federal government....they waste a cut with their inefficiency.....and pay out the rest to doctors and hospitals. So, with the two choices on the table....would you rather a private company keep a cut so they can make a profit or would you rather have the federal government waste that cut instead. Neither sounds good to me.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The rules are in their favor now. My way would not put the rules in their favor. The amount of money we would save on the plan I like would help offset innovation deficiencies. In the case of health care, companies make profits by leeching a small portion of every transaction while providing nothing of use in return. Health insurance companies dont give good things at good prices. Your position breaks down in the health care industry. A health care company's incentive is to pay out less than you pay in. THAT is a perverse incentive. And I cant demonize them for that because that is what businesses do. But I can come up with a plan that renders them obsolete.i mean the difference between Obama's plan and the current system is that in one, we all pay into a number of private companies....they take a cut for themselves.....and pay out the rest to doctors and hospitals. Under Obama's plan, we all pay (eventually because his assertion that private companies can compete with the gov is hilarious) into the federal government....they waste a cut with their inefficiency.....and pay out the rest to doctors and hospitals. So, with the two choices on the table....would you rather a private company keep a cut so they can make a profit or would you rather have the federal government waste that cut instead. Neither sounds good to me.
Good lord you are seriously making my head hurt. 10/10 times I would like the company to make a profit, and guess what, I would like them to make a really big profit. I would like them to pay their sales reps a lot, i want drs to get perks, I want the CEO to get ridiculous bonuses and go on extravagant vacations.These are all the things that make THIS country work. Not just in health care. You are almost to Star Trek in your social utopia these days. It's like you are regressing, I just don't get it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...