This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[Darat]

No, they were stated by politicians to be inadequate for the purpose of creating a socialist power structure for the politicians to control. The populous fell for it.

Nye was a member of the "elite"? ......

 

[zooterkin]

Do you have any information outside of unsubstantiated reports?

Where are the studies?

You can see at least some sections, possibly all, of the IOM report here.

You should read my sig for clarity.

Irony?

 

[balrog666]

As at 2002, the United States allows its citizens to die in the streets without healthcare.

"In 2002, 1,930 people between the ages of 25–34 died due to lack of insurance. From ages 35–44, there were 3,431 deaths due to lack of insurance, and from 45–54, there were 4,734. While a greater number of young people are uninsured, it appears that larger numbers of older adults without insurance may die because they lack it."

(http://www.dpeaflcio.org/programs/factsheets/fs_2007_health_care_system_intl_perspective.htm)

How would your free-for-all solve this?

Why would you expect it to?

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob
How, and why?

You are looking at health-care in a vacuum. One must understand that government interference with markets and governmental printing and borrowing excess money distorts the economy and thus the markets.

Any specific examples?

In a deregulated market, will economies of scale suddenly vanish?

Will the capital cost and depreciation of medical equipmens suddenly reduse?

Will medical treatment and diagnosis suddenly not need highly qualified workers? Will highly qualified workers, in a field where there is demand for their services suddenly not command high wages?

Will large hospitals not be needed, or will the capital cost of the hospital also not need to be covered? Will the land value of new hospitals vanish.​

Without regulation, how do you protect against cartels?
Adam Smith:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."

 

[volatile]

Why would you expect it to?

Well, I was talking to Jerome, as he has expressed an opinion that the market would leave no-one behind.

Nevertheless, is your position different? Would you rather the poor died of diseases instead of being helped by the state? Do you disagree with all state-funded healthcare, even when it would save the life of someone otherwise unable to afford treatment? You'll note, by my figures, this happens already in the US, and would no doubt get worse were Medicaid suspended or further rationed.

Do you want to live in a society where those who can afford it live, and those who cannot, suffer and die? If you do, this is going to get very interesting, very quickly.

 

[balrog666]

Well, I was talking to Jerome, as he has expressed an opinion that the market would leave no-one behind.

Nevertheless, is your position different? Would you rather the poor died of diseases instead of being helped by the state? Do you disagree with all state-funded healthcare, even when it would save the life of someone otherwise unable to afford treatment? You'll note, by my figures, this happens already in the US, and would no doubt get worse were Medicaid suspended or further rationed.

Do you want to live in a society where those who can afford it live, and those who cannot, suffer and die? If you do, this is going to get very interesting, very quickly.

Do I think a government has unlimited drawing rights on my wallet? No.

Therefore government largess with my dollars must be prioritized (or rationed, if you prefer). It's then just a matter of where you draw the line and I prefer to draw the line using economics not some vague feel-good rhetoric. And I would note that insurance companies already operate that way by including limits to maximum coverage, exclusions of both experimental and woo-woo treatments, and so on.

 

[jimbob]

So balrog666,

I think that providing medical cover for vulnerable people is a worthwhile priority.

If so, the discussion is about how much should be spent on it, and how effective this healthcare should be.

If you are arguing that the US medicare is obviously innefficient and thus a poor use of taxpayers dollars, then I would agree with you.

In the UK, it is possible to pay for private care, but the NHS is sufficiently effective that the NHS usually is the first resort, not the last resort.

There are other systems in other countries, but as far as I am aware, few other countries manage to have less governmental spending on healthcare than the US. That, in itself, demonstrates the innefficeincy of medicaid.

Is anyone claiming that the US system proveide better coverage for the poorest quartile in the US, than the NHS does in for the poorestr quartile in the UK?

I would also argue that, given the relative infant mortality figures, the countries with socialised healthcare seem* to get more effective use of the total (state/private) spend too.

*obviously some of the differeces could be attributed to demographics.

 

[jimbob]

No, they were stated by politicians to be inadequate for the purpose of creating a socialist power structure for the politicians to control. The populous fell for it.

Which is why Churchill immediately repealed the unpopular National Health Service Act when he returned to power in 1951.

 

[Rolfe]

No, they were stated by politicians to be inadequate for the purpose of creating a socialist power structure for the politicians to control. The populous fell for it.

Maybe you need to look up the definition of "populous". Your statement makes no sense.

Why, how condescending of you to inform us, we who are by and large pretty damn happy with what we've had for the past 60 years and who wouldn't trade what you put up with on a bet, that we've "fallen for" a ploy intended to "create a socialist power structure for the politicians to control".

Which planet are you orbiting, you sad little person?

Rolfe.

 

[Fitter]

<snip>

You are not going to just trust what is written on the internet without evidence, are you?

Not if there's a picture of Marvin the Martian next to it I won't.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Not if there's a picture of Marvin the Martian next to it I won't.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Maybe you need to look up the definition of "populous". Your statement makes no sense.

Were you unable to discern the meaning of the sentence because of my spelling error?

Why, how condescending of you to inform us, we who are by and large pretty damn happy with what we've had for the past 60 years and who wouldn't trade what you put up with on a bet, that we've "fallen for" a ploy intended to "create a socialist power structure for the politicians to control".

Well, this is a thread about the American system. I believe others has presented your system as something for America to strive for. Is it unreasonable to discuss the flaws of said system?

Which planet are you orbiting, you sad little person?

Rolfe.

This is logical thought?

Does it make you feel better to to attempt to raise yourself above others?

FYI: Name calling doesn't work.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Any specific examples?

The current problems in the American health-care system.

In a deregulated market, will economies of scale suddenly vanish?

Nope.

Will the capital cost and depreciation of medical equipmens suddenly reduse?

Nope.

Will medical treatment and diagnosis suddenly not need highly qualified workers? Will highly qualified workers, in a field where there is demand for their services suddenly not command high wages?

Nope and nope.

Will large hospitals not be needed, or will the capital cost of the hospital also not need to be covered? Will the land value of new hospitals vanish.

Nope and nope.

Without regulation, how do you protect against cartels?

Why should I protect against cartels?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Which is why Churchill immediately repealed the unpopular National Health Service Act when he returned to power in 1951.

Why was he returned to power in 1951?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Do you want to live in a society where those who can afford it live, and those who cannot, suffer and die? If you do, this is going to get very interesting, very quickly.

Is blowing straw-men a profession or just a hobby?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You can see at least some sections, possibly all, of the IOM report here.

Thank you for the link. Unfortunately I am unable to clearly read it. Old eyes.

Irony?

This would depend on the perspective.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No idea what this comment is about.

Poor attempt at humor. Sorry.

 

[jimbob]

I am arguing that if the system was not government controlled than health-care would be affordable for the poor.

How does this square with your responses below, which seem to agree with my contention that healthcare is intrinsically expensive?


Most of the discussion hidden with spoilers for brevity.

Originally Posted by jimbob
Any specific examples?

The current problems in the American health-care system.

Quote:
In a deregulated market, will economies of scale suddenly vanish?

Nope.

Quote:
Will the capital cost and depreciation of medical equipmens suddenly reduse?

Nope.

Quote:
Will medical treatment and diagnosis suddenly not need highly qualified workers? Will highly qualified workers, in a field where there is demand for their services suddenly not command high wages?

Nope and nope.

Quote:
Will large hospitals not be needed, or will the capital cost of the hospital also not need to be covered? Will the land value of new hospitals vanish.

Nope and nope.

Quote:
Without regulation, how do you protect against cartels?

Why should I protect against cartels?

Further to the above questions, how does a free market make healthcare cheap enough for the poor? Haven't you just agreed that there is a high cost-base to healthcare? Haven't you also agreed that large hospitals are going to be economical?


As to your question as to why you should protect against cartels, the answer is because they distort the market.

Or I could quote Adam Smith again:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."

 

[Rolfe]

Well, this is a thread about the American system. I believe others has presented your system as something for America to strive for. Is it unreasonable to discuss the flaws of said system?

Of course not. You can always learn from the problems others have encountered when they have paved the way for you.

However, that was not what I was responding to. I was responding to your assertion that we have all been duped into believing the NHS is a great institution, because it was in fact introduced to "create a socialist power structure for the politicians to control". You even accused acuity of being "unaware of how politics work and the history of your own nation."

This is frankly ludicrous. Your extreme political views seem to be blinding you to the practical benefits of anything you find ideologically unpalatable.

Riolfe.

 

[balrog666]

Is blowing straw-men a profession or just a hobby?

I'm going to have to steal that one ...