Sick Medical Care

Post Reply New Topic

Hippocratic Oath does not say anything about money.

The fact of the matter is that if we have efficient allocation of health, then we will have the wealthy get more healthcare than everyone else. This point was also made by economist Greg Mankiw.

I am not arguing that some universality in curriculums is not a good thing, however, what if some parents want their kids to learn certain different skills, such as home economics? Should all schools then force kids to learn home ec? What if a school near the US-Mexican border recognizes that Spanish is an important skill for kids to have and teaches that, should a school in New York then have to teach Spanish too? I mean, if wants are heterogenous, then non-universal curriculums make sense. Heck, I'd even like it if schools within the same region were free to set their curriculums differently.

Not only that, but if parents are the ones voting, and most kids cannot avoid having their parents know about the classes they take anyway, then if parents do not want a child learning something, then that will can already be enforced upon the child. In fact, school districts already regularly overwrite certain historical facts. If there is freedom of choice, then at least, this choice is not made by a majority of parents.

Umm.... if something is economically necessary, then don't you think that the economy will watch over itself? I mean, the market is accused of being selfish, but in a matter of it's selfishness it cannot serve itself?? Also, I already mentioned the notion of a voucher system.


People do, they just don't have the right to compel others to pay for their life.


If doctors wanted to help a patient for free, then why couldn't they do so? Scarcity is then the mass murderer.


Well, if they are using medical knowledge, rather than something arbitrary then how is that a problem.

Honestly, I don't see how doctors would get more money for denying claims if the price of the doctor is a major reason why insurance companies don't want to pay up.

A price was already there, insurance companies are only guilty because they recognize that all things have their price.


Well, I have already addressed those nations before. The US has a longer adjusted life expectancy than these other nations, the issue is that we suffer more deaths from accidents and other things where medical expertise is not a factor.

Cuba also has inequality in treatment as well, and this based upon the rank of an individual within the communist party. Also, if I remember correctly, they are lacking a number of important medical resources. I also think that they take certain measure to inflate their abilities that the US does not engage in.


I am not going to bother with such simple shenanigans. I answer your questions how I please rather than engaging in this bs.

Who hates a better world? I hate fools, and find that a better world at least will have less foolish people. I don't see how the world is better with fools, I mean, I am not showing contempt with your position so much as with the arguments taken for that position.

Ok, well, if kids in your school illegally carry knives, then why won't people illegally carry guns too? We have a gun culture and a large border with Mexico where things can be smuggled quite easily.

No, it isn't. In a completely free market, then rules are decided by interactions between participants in this free market and are enforced by those purchased to do so. I am assuming we are talking about market anarchism. I mean, really, how can a completely free market work without agreements? The issue is that you think rules must be from a higher authority, I think they can spontaneously be generated. Heck, businesses already have private rules, private settlement of disputes involving these rules, and private enforcement.


Well, let me ask you a question: can the US government ever be separated from the formation of interest rates? Not only that, but who says that the majority of people *cannot* afford what they borrow. I mean, if they could not afford it, then the situation would already be collapsing. The market already places limits.

You mean the fraud at Enron, which hurt *everyone* but a few people? How do you avoid something like that? I mean, hell, it hurt most people at Enron, so even Enron would seek to avoid these. Concerned investors will want to know that their investment is safe, so they will want clarity on the rules for that reason. The fact of the matter is that one actor acted poorly, so other people within the contract were hurt, these others have their own ability to interact with the situation, so of course they will address the issue and revise their contracts to address their risk.

Ok. Who said that I cared about the perfection of my ideas though? My stance is simple. The notion of freedom and neutrality libertarians have is more correct than not, I believe in freedom, therefore, I go with that notion.

I disagree with your views but I will not argue any further as I respect the right of others to hold views contrary to my own.

I would be interested to see what would happen in an absolutely free market if such an experiment could be performed.

However I remain skeptical about your ideas.

Ummm.... where does "since of course" come from? Not only that, but honestly, markets have been reducing global inequality, look at China and India, they are now experiencing massive economic growth. How can we say that a system that in the long run, promotes such success is wrong?

Well, the issue is that in the end efficiency is a major question that must be asked and answered. I have already brought up the point that health care cannot be equal AND efficient. There are also issues of whether a market system has legitimately failed, I would argue that it hasn't and that Singapore's model shows that markets have a very important role in health care. I might want to go further than Singapore has in a market based system, but I've certainly shown that alternatives exist to European health care systems, and even can argue that market based alternatives can be *better* than governmental policies as Singapore has cheaper health care than anybody else's idea and somewhat based upon the idea of competition.

I love amateur psychology, it's so predictable. From your first response to me, you tried to marginalize me based on things that had nothing to do with the subject at hand, and then got all self righteous when I mocked the place my ancestors couldn't leave quickly enough. Now you think that taking this "I'm above petty things like victory" stance will make it a little less obvious that you've been getting your head handed to you for 12 pages. It's like a six year old knocking the pieces off the board when their about to lose a board game, "this game isn't fair!".

I'm really confused as to where you're getting this "mired in anger and hate" business, I'd say that's pretty good evidence that I'm not the one who's confused. I've yet to show any anger, let alone hate in my posts here, so I have to assume that this is another of your attempts to stereotype me because of my avatar. Perhaps I should Photoshop together a new one of me shooting leprechauns, so you can feel properly persecuted, I know you like that sort of thing... By the way, when you insult someone, it doesn't work if the insult is obviously untrue, it just makes the insulter seem a little dense... Just a tip for next time.

As to being unable to debate, coming from you that's a complement.



I'm no Christian.



No one is saying the market will provide "freedoms" like those of speech or religion, that IS the job of whatever (small) government there is. "services", such as health care and schools can be provided by the market, and provided well. Only someone wearing blinders would argue that any government provided service would be more efficient than one provided by privatization.



No one is saying there would be no rules. As to the bolded sentence, these are the same people you want to entrust with your health?



Less laughing more thinking!



I agree that you are irrelevant, but I would argue that your friends are as well. A bad idea is a bad idea, no matter how many people hold it.

Obviously you simply don't get it.

AG is rational and is open to reason and debate, I respect that. He has a coherent and rational stance however I might disagree with some of his fundamental assumptions.

Is your life so empty of meaning that every petty discussion becomes about victory and "right"?

Again I laugh at the absurdity.

Feel happy in the security of your rightness because it seems that you need this security as much as your guns.

What is right and wrong anyway? How can a non-factual opinion be "wrong"? Perhaps a lecture in elementary logic is necessary. Frankly I am embarrassed.

WHEE!! !


What is meaning?

What isn't absurd?


Right = that which agrees with me
Wrong = that which disagrees with me

Not everything in this discussion was opinion. There were moral statements, which claim to be right but could be wrong(although the discussion was not primarily ethics), and there were statements on economic issues(which is a topic that popped up).

Most people need lectures on elementary logic to be honest.

First of all, I've been through medical hell and back as a kid. Thankfully, my parents had money and I didn't have to worry about there being a choice between food and medical treatment, and thankfully, I survived, both mentally and physically. That's really all I have to be thankful for. If I had had to pay for even half of that, the absolutely necessary stuff, on my own with money I didn't have, there'd be a new and quite literal definition for the phrase "adding insult to injury." I don't know how much worse it can get in some of these countries with socialized medicine, because in the good ol' U.S.A., medical treatment is damn near abysmal. I could go into horror stories, but I won't. To be expected to pay prices up the wazoo for bad service is just preposterous.

If anything, my experiences made me realize that it DOES matter what happens to other people, as corny as it sounds, because it could just as easily happen to me or someone I care about who can't pay for it unexpectedly. It's just a simple thing of asking whether it's more important that I see a few movies or buy a new stereo system or whatever with money that would otherwise go to taxes, or if my best friend or my brother or someone else I know ends up in a hospital after a car crash, there's money to make sure that they get necessary treatment no matter what the status of their bank account.

Furthermore, the system as is is FAILING. Longer wait times in socialized countries? Hmm. How about how people in the States die waiting for crucial treatment, and you can spend 10 hours waiting for a simple dose of medication or blood test, because people who ordinarily would go to actual appointments with physicians if they could pay to end up flooding the emergency room instead? If these people could go to their own doctor for a cold or for other minor or suspected problems without worrying about exorbitant prices and the emergency room could be reserved for, oh, I don't know, emergencies or something, this problem might be at least somewhat alleviated.

The drug industry is just out of hand. They simply do not need all that money, especially since a lot of medical research is already done at universities, research that is, guess what, funded by the government! Furthermore, people will always do research if something is important enough to them. Wasn't it the case that the guy who invented the pacemaker did so because his father died from a heart condition? Medical research and development has happened in the past before it involved huge amounts of money, and it will continue to happen even without there being a multi-million (billion? Trillion?) dollar industry behind it. As it is, we're over-saturated with drugs, drugs that often have horrible side effects that necessitates the purchase of... hmm... more drugs. Isn't that a weird coincidence? More complete and long-term solutions to medical problems would be helpful, but somehow I get the feeling that they'd be a lot less profitable.

This is not to say that a government-run medical system would be perfect - I've heard stories from friends of the family that there are problems that they've had with the government assistance that they have gotten. Some of this, however, could be alleviated by it being more common, that people could expect a certain standard of care and that it wasn't just an extra, special service offered to a collect few. However, such a system would also require a LOT more effort and priority than, say, public schools, in order to be run effectively. I wonder if, and I would hope that, our country has the will and the right spirit to do a good job at taking care of its own.

My issue is with the coercive nature of such a system, something that really can't be avoided with a socialized system. Healthy people are coerced into paying for the illnesses of others, and doctors are coerced into working for below market rate. Altruism and charity are indeed virtues, but they should not be forced upon the unwilling.



In socialized countries, you can trade a wait of hours for a wait of days. If you think that the medical system is congested now, imagine how bad it would be if everyone could go to the doctor whenever for whatever. Factor in the loss of doctors due to less money to be made in the field, and it can get pretty nasty in a hurry. People don't value something they didn't work to earn, health care included. The Singapore system seems to work quite well, for a minimum of government outlay and interference, yet everyone talks like it's socialization or nothing.



This is kind of like the pay scale for athletes and actors, they get paid what the market says they are worth. It's no use complaining about it, it's just how things work. Attempting to implement price controls only leads to black markets and smuggling, the market is inexorable.



Government is inherently inefficient, it can never offer services on par with private entities. The best of both worlds would be a hybrid system like the Singapore one, but as said, no one seems to be considering that.

well done, gentlemen.


Merle

Okay, ho did this become an argument between the Irish, left-wing (middle) yanks and right-wing (extreme right) yanks.
Big deal? Who cares...?

Try this for size: both!

Australia has BOTH! When there is public health care available; if a person cannot afford it, they get it! Generally longer waiting, and lower quality, but better than none.

As for private... If you can afford it, you have to get it. Hence; no free rides if you don't need it.
Private care is a little better, too. Not to mention very cheap drugs, etc.

Or something like that... I don't get sick much, I don't pay attention... but hey, it's there.

Well in some countries like the UK if a doctor gets his patients to adopted healthier lives styles and work on their health he or she gets payed more, so much for getting payed less.

People don't wait days for medical treatment when socialized medicine is in affect your confusing the American system with the socialized systems of other countries. That is a lie that has been fabricated do you think so many countries would still be using socialized medical care if people had to wait days to get basic medical care???

I agree with BokeKaeru the market pharmaceutical companies are far to greedy, these pharmaceutical companies are not worth the money we pay them. In my town their are people who have to decide ok which is more important food, my medication or gas money. There is no reasons a bottle of pills should cost 200 dollars I mean my god what are they made out of??? Platinum?? My area is poor hell we only had a McDonnell's, Wal-mart and K-mart for 12 years I mean we got some poor people out here who can't get insurance and sure as hell can't pay for medications out of pocket.

Governments are as efficient as the people make them, people in the US are lazy sorry if that hurt's anyone's feelings but its just a fact. People in the US just sit on their rears and complain about the government they never do anything about their government they never say "Mr. Senator I helped hire you now if you want to keep your job do as you are told" oh no no no they do nothing. The representatives we elect are the bus drivers and we the common people are the navigators we are the ones in charge but if we don't tell them what we want they just drive around like giant chickens with their heads cut off. 95% of all the problems in the US are caused because we are lazy and we except everything to run smoothly as our employees who are not the brightest nails in the workshop play around with our laws with no direction or guidance from us.

Meh, it did.

How about neither? I think sickness is a good way of determining biological fitness, and well, we don't have the same elimination factors that our ancestors did, so in order to keep our genetic codes strong, we need to abolish health care.

However, to be more serious, one of the objections is the governmental provision of health care period.

It is also true from the discussion that a combined system of government and private initiative has also been proposed as a solution as well, perhaps one better than Australia's.

And I really don't care for that system. The purpose of a doctor is to do whatever I hire him/her to do, not to tell me what to do. I don't want them being rewarded for attempting to boss me around, if I want better health, then it is *my* choice to run my life like that.


Yes, actually I am cynical enough to think that they would. Then again, I am unconcerned about this issue.


If they aren't worth the money we pay them, then why do we pay them? I mean, we are pretty stupid to overpay somebody for something. There is a reasonably legitimate reason to pay 200 dollars for pills, intellectual property. We aren't paying for the physical medicines, that is why pill costs go down when the drug switches to generic, rather we are paying for the research behind that drug to make it into a viable drug, the intellectual property.

No, not necessarily, some issues of efficiency can only be addressed by institutional structure, and the government by it's nature might not be able to have the same institutional structure as competing private forces.


Yeah... of course. We work more hours and seek less vacations than a number of other nations, but we happen to be lazy. I am startled by that conclusion, it is so ingenious. The issue of efficiency is not so simple:

1) In order to be efficient, we must have a good plan pass through all sorts of other intervening factors including the wills of interest groups(which many argue play a legitimate role in democracy)

2) In order to be efficient, we must have this good plan be uncompromisingly accepted, a piece of patchwork will not be efficient because it will have to combine a number of elements that do not go together well.

3) In order to be efficient, we also must first have a good plan, not something poorly thought out, and foolishly accepted.

4) In order to be efficient, we must have very strong self-regulating tendencies found within the planned action.

Now, frankly, realistic republics will suffer from 1-4. Democracies of real people will suffer from 2-4. Ideal democracies as people like yourself will likely envision, will suffer from 2 and 4. And dictatorships will suffer from 4. Given that even under ideal conditions, we still have a major hurdle, and under realistic conditions we have 4 major hurdles, I think the issue is rather difficult, and not a matter of nagging senators.

Umm... even if we did tell them what we wanted, they would still run around with their heads chopped off. Legitimate disagreement is at the heart of democracy. 95% of the problems of the US are likely caused by government, but I doubt this is a matter of laziness and just the nature of government.

I work in insurance, health insurance for a not-for-profit membership where we all pool our money (premiums) together and invest it for growth and pay out to the members that have health care needs. No stockholders to make a profit for.

I work in Government Programs, supplemental and replacement policies. I watch the survivors of the Great Depression and the Second World War get spectacular health care for reasonable premiums. It is not health care in government funded hospitals or doctors, it is state of the art health care in premium hospitals and private doctors offices. The government only funds it, and so do the members. Universal health care in the States can happen with an erasure of the age limit.

(I work Fraud. I like working fraud because I draw the teeth and declaw anyone that dares pervert the system and I am relentless in my investigation as the driven Aspie I am.)

I'm kind of curious myself. I'm not sure why foreigners take such a keen and personal interest in the internal policies of the US, it's sort of puzzling to me. I remember hearing some Europeans being quoted during the 2004 election that they should be allowed to vote because the US has such a huge impact world wide. I suppose that could be part of it, the fear that any policy adopted here may soon spread elsewhere. I do get kind of annoyed with the constant criticism of my country by those who don't live here though, it gets old after a while.