Health Insurance versus Health Care

@EmperorNero,

[QUOTE=EmperorNero;142030] You don't get to 'agree to disagree' when I'm factually right. When your opinion is shown to be incorrect, you have to change it or your opinion is merely faith. I'm not saying that this is the case, that's what we want to find out. But unless you can attack my arguments, you don't get to disagree. [/QUOTE] Well most of the "facts" are statistics and we all know the old "lies, dam lies and statistics". There are fundamentally different political philosophies about the role of public versus private, federal versus state and the scope and extent of government in society. It is not necessarily a matter of facts and what is right or what is wrong.
[QUOTE=EmperorNero;142030] The objective facts are clear: A individualist system (free market) is vastly better than a collectivist system (socialized) at delivering health care to the poor, or anything else for that matter. You may consider health care a human right, but economically the distribution of health care is no different than the distribution of any other product or service. Both economic theory and empiric evidence support the conclusion that the more individualist a system products and services are distributed by, the greater abundance of those products and services "the poor" enjoy. [/QUOTE] In general I agree with the notion that markets distribute resources much more effectively and efficiently than government bureaucracies. I do think health care is a special case and that market mechanisms do not work as effectively in the delivery of health care.
[QUOTE=EmperorNero;142030] We don't really have to complicate the argument with talking about health care specifically. We can talk about economic systems in general. Your task would be to show that collectivist systems are superior to individualist systems in bringing abundance to the people. (Or you would have to show that health care is somehow economically different than any other product or service.)[/QUOTE]

EmperorNero;142030 wrote:

Don't you agree that food is a pretty important necessities? Even more so than health care. If collectivist systems are supreior at delivering abundance to the poor, why do you only want a collectivized system for the distribution of health care, but not for other goods and services? Why are you only a collectivist on the issue of health care? I think the reason is that in general economics you have to agree that the free market is superior, but the complications of the health care debate hide that.

Health care is different for any number of reasons. When you need health care you can not shop around effectively. It is difficult to assess the quality of care you receive, difficult to get pricing in advance and difficult to know if the recommended care is appropriate or excessive. Patients are at a severe disadvantage and even physicians who desire to get informed consent can not possibly impart to patients the complexities involved in complex biological processes and diseases which take years of study to even begin to understand. Plus health care delivery is restricted to those licensed by the state and the health care system behaves more like a restricted monopoly than like a free market system. Food quality, food choice and food pricing on the other hand are relatively simple to evaluate compared to health care decisions.
[QUOTE=EmperorNero;142030] I beg to differ: Government to pay for more than half of U.S. health care costs - KOLD News 13 live, local and late breaking-[/QUOTE]

EmperorNero;142030 wrote:

If you don't trust the source, then google one you trust. Government pays close to half of health care in the US. This not important to the overall argument. But this is simply a fact.

If one takes state and government health care programs, medicare, Medicaid, the public health service, and military medical care systems you might get to about half the health care expenditures coming from some form of public system. I am not sure that helps either argument or point of view.
[QUOTE=EmperorNero;142030] Depends on what your values are. The police forcing all citizens to do daily mandatory exercise would improve the health of a nation as well. Are you for that? I happen to believe that people are capable of making their own decisions, and that we shouldn't have some elite telling us how to best run our lives. Would that mean that we make objectively worse decisions, certainly. You are suggesting that we don't need advances in technology that limit infant mortality, all we need is for the enlightened elite to properly educate those dumb poor people. [/QUOTE] Well, yes there is definitely a question of values and political philosophy involved. You can not force anyone to accept medical care or medical treatment. Patients of sound mind can always refuse medical care or treatment. You can not however refuse to pay your taxes because you do not like what the government does with your money or programs implemented for the "public good".
[QUOTE=EmperorNero;142030] That old gospel about "the privileged few". It's simply not true. It is obviously nonsense that in a free market system only a few rich enjoy material prosperity. Do only a privileged few have cars in [/QUOTE]

EmperorNero;142030 wrote:

America? Do only a privileged few have TV's in America? The average "poor" American has a car and two TV's. They enjoy vastly greater abundance of material wealth than most of the world. Free markets enhance the wealth of the poor more than that of the rich. Why should it be any different with health care?

In general again, I agree that market systems distribute resources more efficiently and effectively, and generate wealth which to some degree benefit all citizens more than central planned or socialist economies. There are no pure market systems in the world however. All "market economies" also have governments which typically regulate or control certain keys elements of the infrastructure, communications, highways, airfields, military, water, power, etc. The question is always a balance between standards and regulations and private market mechanisms. There are numerous reasons why the US has become the most powerful and wealthiest nation of the earth (perhaps in history) but our fictional "free markets" is only one factor. The government represents about 40% of the economy in the US currently and this is a matter for concern with respect to future economic growth, innovation and initiative. The drain of health care costs on businesses and on individual families is not improving our economic competitiveness nor is it contributing to our productivity.
[QUOTE=EmperorNero;142030] The health care topic is hard to judge intuitively, therefore collectivists get away with pretending that only a few rich people get good health care in a free market system while the vast majority are denied care. It's plain wrong. In the 21st century everybody who makes half way responsible decisions can afford better health care than most aristocrats could 100 years ago. Where do you think that progress comes from? Free markets. We can completely leave those pesky "privileged" people out of it; in an individualist system the poor are vastly better off than in a collectivist system. It's no different for health care. [/QUOTE] Well I think it is different for health care and I think comparison of our systems with the NHS of other representative democracies would confirm or justify that comparison. I am not out to make doctors government employees or hospitals federal buildings and neither is any current proposal for national health care. Health care would become a government regulated industry, one of many in the US, in fact all most all critical infrastructure components in the US are regulated industries including banking and almost all utilites.
[QUOTE=EmperorNero;142030] What all failed economic systems attempt, is to distribute what others created in some way different than how much value we are willing to provide for others in exchange.[/QUOTE]

EmperorNero;142030 wrote:

Yes it would be great if we could simply distribute things according to what's the most "fair" or noble. But whenever we do that the overall welfare that society can enjoy shrinks. That's why there is no better way to get stuff to the poor than not giving it to them for free. It seems harsh, but they are actually better off materially.

I think fair and equal is a myth and any government effort to make society "fair" and "equal" is a quick road to serfdom and to tyranny. Equal opportunity is all the government can ever provide not equal results. Access to basic, preventive and fundamental health care will improve economic performance and enhance equal opportunity. It will not destroy the country or the economy, in fact failure to reign in health care costs will be more damaging.

[QUOTE=EmperorNero;142030] You forget that it is based on expropriation. It's inherently anti-liberal. Even if collectivism did provide better health, I'd chose liberty. Where should coercion for the sake of nicer statistics end? I'm sure if the government outlawed ice cream and hamburgers health would improve.[/QUOTE] The government is just providing access to health care. They do not require you to use it. They do of course require you to pay taxes to support the program just like they require you to pay taxes for social security, Medicare, the military, the federal debt of all sorts of other government programs you might object to on philosophical or political grounds. That is the way democracy works. You have certain rights or liberties guaranteed to you through the bill of rights but avoidance of taxes for programs you object to is not one of them. It will not be the end of liberty and freedom if the US becomes more of a socialist democracy like other European countries. You may object philosophically and politically but if the political process and the population chooses to have that kind of system and social safety nets it is democracy in action not totalitarian tyranny. I do not like the nanny state either. I am pretty much a libertarian when it comes to individual life style choices (including the legalization of gambling, drugs, prostitution, etc.)

Although in general I am a fan of individual liberties and of the efficiency and effectiveness of markets in allocating resources and generating wealth, for me health care is a special case. If markets in their excesses cause people to die of thirst for lack of money to pay for water, or food, or basic shelter or basic health care that is too much for me. Markets are subject to their own kinds of excesses and abuses as are the powers of government. All modern societies, all democratic societies, all representative governments are a blend of markets and governments. People of good intentions can disagree about the best mechanisms for achieving mutually agreed upon goals. I do not think either of us thinks people should go without necessary and basic health care based on ability to pay; we just differ on what mechanisms will best provide that desired end or goal.

P.S. The health care bill just pased the house. This bill will not save the government money. Putting 35 million more people into the current health care system can not possibly save money. The reduction in coverage and in payments will come later when economic reality sets in.

1 Reply

@prothero,

Awww... I just clicked the wrong button and my whole fricking post is gone.
Well, I'm not going to type it all again.

My main point was that the problem with health care is not that getting health care is more complicated than other necessities. It is more complicated, but what treatment to decide on is a secondary problem once we get sick. And a proper free market framework could take care of all this. What socialized health care is supposed to fix is that some people can't afford the care they need.

So why can't some people afford health care? The reason is not that there is a lack of physical abundance for the underclasses. It is simply not true that free markets only offer material abundance to a few rich people. In 21st century America everybody can enjoy material abundance that was luxury a generation ago, if we had the right free market framework.

The reason that some lack ability pay is that we have to pay for health care long before we can enjoy it. When we don't prioritize buying food, there is a immediate incentive to get some. But not properly taking care of our future health care needs has no such immediate feedback. Therefore we can happily ignore it until we need a huge chunk of money for a surgery. Then it is too late, and we can't pay for it. But not because we lack the physical wealth, but because we decided to buy other stuff instead. It requires personal responsibility to prioritize health care over other short-term interests.

I think many confuse short-term ability to pay with a long-term lack of material abundance. If the underclasses simply couldn't afford health care, but we decide that they should have it, then the obvious solution is for government to give it to them. But that is not the case. The problem is not a long-term lack of material abundance, but a lack of individuals prioritizing health care through the right long-term financial decisions. Government handouts can never fix that. Handouts only subsidize lack of responsibility.

A free market framework could take care of the immediate problems with the broken system; that insurance companies drop their patients for flimsy reasons, that health care costs more when paid out of pocket, etc. All this does require government oversight. And yeah, let's have some handouts for those truly in need. But the solution is not having the government run health care, the solution is returning the free market to the health care system.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

When I was a young lad fresh out of school I was hit by a car, hit and run.

Our evil commie Universal Healthcare system we have here in the Peoples Republic of Australia, patched me up and sent me on my way. Never asked for a cent, not even for the months of physio and rehab work.

In the 20 years since I've been a productive member of the economy and have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars back to the government in tax.

2 Replies

@Padawan phil,

The main problem is how our freedoms are usurped by the government via health insurance. I grew up in the land of the free...but unfortunately my kids will not. Freedom is not forcing somebody to buy something. Freedom is not promoting legal extortion if that product is not purchased.

Of course everyone pays taxes and the same can be said about taxes. However, taxes go to pay for firefighters, police, roads, parks, war, etc. Thus there is no fair comparison between government mandated health insurance and taxes.

A line is crossed when the government threatens its citizens and tells somebody that they must purchase something. Unless you have harmed someone else, no one should force you to buy something. I realize that I am more independent minded than most, but if I decide that I don't want health insurance for whatever reason, then I should be able to live without it. This does not mean that if others need coverage then I do not want them to have it. Some people need and deserve coverage but for some reason cannot get it. In fact, most things in the bill are good...the main thing that I dislike about the bill is the government mandate.

Universal health insurance can be accomplished without individual mandates and handing over your rights and dignity to the government. People are human beings...not just some animal. People have dignity and independent thought that far exceeds an animal's. A person's independence and dignity should not be seized or dismissed in this manor. Of course most people are sheep so they neither care nor understand. But for the brighter lights of humanity that are not sheep, we desperately care our about freedom. Surely a great nation can adopt a plan that protects those that need/deserve protecting while allowing others to retain their freedom without being threatened.

But sadly, our politiciand are not that smart :nonooo:

0 Replies

@Padawan phil,

Padawan;142481 wrote:

When I was a young lad fresh out of school I was hit by a car, hit and run.

Our evil commie Universal Healthcare system we have here in the Peoples Republic of Australia, patched me up and sent me on my way. Never asked for a cent, not even for the months of physio and rehab work.

In the 20 years since I've been a productive member of the economy and have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars back to the government in tax.

You must love conscription... the collective taking care of the individual, the individual having a responsibility to the collective, that's the rationale behind the draft. That worked great, the 20th century was the most peaceful in history... oh, right. It lead to two world wars. :sarcastic:

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Insurance of any description is a no loose situation for the insurers. House insurance, I asked" why not have a no claims system" , to my friends son who works in the industry. His reply, If you encouraged the few dishonest holders to stop claiming then all the honest would benefit and the insurers would loose. The health system in the US costs the American citizen three times more per head of population than a british citizen, so why in heavens name would you as a Americans not want to save two thirds of your expenditure on health insurance and still have every one covered? YOUR BLEEDING NUTS..

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;143203 wrote:

Insurance of any description is a no loose situation for the insurers. House insurance, I asked" why not have a no claims system" , to my friends son who works in the industry. His reply, If you encouraged the few dishonest holders to stop claiming then all the honest would benefit and the insurers would loose. The health system in the US costs the American citizen three times more per head of population than a british citizen, so why in heavens name would you as a Americans not want to save two thirds of your expenditure on health insurance and still have every one covered? YOUR BLEEDING NUTS..

I try to understand. Why would the insurers lose?

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 10:57 PM ----------

If socialized health care is less expensive despite more people being covered, the bureaucracy squandering a share and patients going to the doctor more because they don't have to pay for it, why would it be less expensive just because it's organized collectivist instead of individualist?

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;143231 wrote:

I try to understand. Why would the insurers lose?

Basics in business thinking..you tell me why they dont give no claims bonuses, think about it.

Why give back millions in no claims when the false claims only amount to hundreds of thousands.Simples...

Its an economic fact that the individual pays less under national health systems than insured. Im not falsifying the facts.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

xris;143249 wrote:

Its an economic fact that the individual pays less under national health systems than insured. Im not falsifying the facts.

I know the empiric facts. But I ask you why that is so. You simply assume that the reason is because socialized health care is better. But what is the logical reason that it is cheaper?

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;143203 wrote:

The health system in the US costs the American citizen three times more per head of population than a british citizen, so why in heavens name would you as a Americans not want to save two thirds of your expenditure on health insurance and still have every one covered? YOUR BLEEDING NUTS..

Again...it comes down to freedom, independence, liberty, and personal dignity. I personally would rather have health insurance and I am greatful that I can get it. I believe that it is wise for most to have health insurance. And if some people that need/deserve it cannot purchase it, then I certaintly believe in giving a helping hand.

However, when my son grows up I don't want him to say: "I don't understand Dad...I pay my taxes and have never commited a crime. Why does the government still force and threaten me?"

The main crux of the matter are the threats and the mandates. I'm a grown man...if I am not commiting crimes why should anyone threaten or force me to do something? It doesn't matter if I would do it anyway...the point is liberty.

As I said earlier, surley we can come up with a reasonable solution that addresses both problems so we have Health insurance while also retaining individual liberty.

1 Reply

@cruise95,

I love this term liberty..It inspires us to believe all types of boggy men hiding in our wardrobes. HEALTH and INSURANCE , the two are not compatible in a reasonable civilised community. Insurance companies are here to make money and not to serve us under all eventualities. Very good if your health history is fine and you have adequate income , you can afford liberty.

Why should a cheaper health system be less capable of serving the community rather than insurance company that serves its share holders needs first, before its clients?

Logically if an insurance company was set up to believe its clients are its shareholders then a social need could be incorporated into its foundation. If the money spent by the insured, was less now and the government commitment was no more than before, who could moan. Whats wrong with a friendly society, it has served before why not again. What has actually happened is the insurance companies have spent millions stirring up unreasonable opposition calling it an attack on freedom and liberty, I wonder why?

1 Reply

@xris,

[QUOTE=xris;143484]Insurance companies are here to make money and not to serve us under all eventualities. Why should a cheaper health system be less capable of serving the community rather than insurance company that serves its share holders needs first, before its clients?[/QUOTE]

Correct...there are many non-profit organizations in the US that can perform the duties currently designated to insurance companies. Also, if an organization does wish to play the role of insuring people then I believe that there should be more regulations on them.

Another point is that insurance companies are responsible for much of the costs of health care. So removing the middle man (insurance companies) allows doctors to perform their duties at a much lower cost...thus making them much more accessible to everyone.

Oh...Oh...I got it!! After eliminating insurance companies the doctors can still charge the same price for an operation. However, this extra profit goes to the government to help others who cannot afford and deserve a procedure.

[QUOTE]...if an insurance company was set up to believe its clients are its shareholders...[/QUOTE]

The problem is that while the citizens would be an insurance company's clients, this insurance company's shareholder would actually be the government. The government is a living organization that exists to sustain itself at whatever costs. So if there were a war or depression...there goes health insurance!

[QUOTE]If the money spent by the insured, was less now and the government commitment was no more than before, who could moan.[/QUOTE]

As we've already seen in the US the government's commitment would only decrease. See social security, Medicare, and the post office for more details.

[QUOTE]Whats wrong with a friendly society, it has served before why not again.[/QUOTE]

One other issue that needs to be addressed is that every taxpayer is now (to a much greater degree than before) responsible for the irresponsible actions of other citizens. So now it is government's responsibility to 1) make smoking and tanning beds illegal 2) fine anyone with a BMI (Body Mass Index) of over 20 - 30 from purchasing sweets or pasta (carbohydrates) 3) outlaw skydiving, mountain climbing, and driving a car over 30 mph.

If somebody wants to act irresponsible and is injured because of their actions, then I should not have to pay for nor should my children's education have to suffer because of their irresponsible lifestyle. So now...to be fair...the government should have the right to legislate almost everything we do. Also, if the government refuses to do this, then it is in the interest of every citizen to harass all irresponsible obese people (note the keyword here is 'irresponsible'), smokers, and all those who act irresponsibly with their bodies. Now their bodies are everyone's concern and now there should be mandated exercise in the US. This bill not only robs Americans of their own freedom, it also pits ordinary Americans against one another!

[QUOTE]What has actually happened is the insurance companies have spent millions stirring up unreasonable opposition calling it an attack on freedom and liberty, I wonder why?[/QUOTE]

And yet this health reform bill only pads the pockets of the insurance companies at the expense of the taxpayers!

1 Reply

@cruise95,

It was a fudge, not what should have been instigated but he would have been opposed, it would have been considered too radical.

You could still have private insurance companies, as long as the share holders are the clients. You dont need government interference. The government would need to subsidize those who are unable to pay. Those who are culpable in causing there illness should be given ultimatums, its been introduced here to a certain degree.

The profit motive should be removed from health services but with corporate management. It is possible.

Contracts with pharmaceutical companies would be more advantageous and reduce drug prices. American drug prices, are at the moment, three times higher than Europe, why is that?

3 Replies

@xris,

xris;143658 wrote:

The profit motive should be removed from health services but with corporate management. It is possible.

You're absolutely correct; unfortunately, the ones in my country that won't see this are also the ones who are braying the loudest. It's just what they do; seen in this light, you can give it all the consideration its worth.

That its For Profit is patently ridiculous; who thinks this is a good idea? Simply amazing.

In any case, the only way our system will work as is, is if folks who can't pay and don't have insurance are left to die. The instant you start treating them, someone has to pay for it, and kaboom: We're back on the same merry-go-round of cost increases. And be aware: The two factors of "Treating the Uninsured" and this other "Health as a For-Profit Endeavor" are playing off each other; compounding and fueling each other.

The public option, which was proposed initially, was the only right move. But beyond all this talk, the biggest personal impact I've felt is the deepest shame for all the hateful polemics now being spewed from the right. It's embarrassing because virtually all its content comes from people who don't know what the facts are. The leverage the media blitz combined with the congressman and senators receiving huge campaign handouts from medical industry is enormous; and the backlash has evoked the worst in us - the most hate, the most vicious slanders and (as I saw this morning) now death threats and vandalism.

It destroys our unity (they keep braying), injures our pride (bray, bray) and removes our ability to work through problems rationally (braaay! braay!). Civility has left the office; please leave a message.

Hate will find a way, it always has and always will.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;143658 wrote:

The profit motive should be removed from health services but with corporate management.

Khethil;143722 wrote:

That its For Profit is patently ridiculous; who thinks this is a good idea? Simply amazing.

The profit motive should be removed? Why do you Marxists think there is a health care system in the first place?
In case you didn't know, that whole communism thing only sounds nice in theory, it didn't work out in the Soviet union.

3 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;143744 wrote:

In case you didn't know, that whole communism thing only sounds nice in theory, it didn't work out in the Soviet union.

It wasn't attempted in the soviet union.

But, to fire your own 'tude back at you, you shouty crackers free marketeering dosh worshipping neocons don't get the hugely simple fact that you can sign up for an aspect of socialism without being Joseph Stalin.

Quote:

Denmark, with a mixed market capitalist economy and a large welfare state,[4] ranks as having the world's highest level of income equality. Denmark has the best business climate in the world, according to the U.S. business magazine Forbes.[5] From 2006 to 2008, surveys[6] ranked Denmark as "the happiest place in the world," based on standards of health, welfare, and education. The 2009 Global Peace Index survey ranks Denmark as the second most peaceful country in the world, after New Zealand.[7] Denmark was ranked as the least corrupt country in the world in the 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index,[8] sharing a top position with Sweden and New Zealand.

Sounds alright.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;143749 wrote:

It wasn't attempted in the soviet union.

Call it state capitalism; the state running the means of production, that's exactly what people are proposing on health care.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;143750 wrote:

Call it state capitalism;

Depending on the time frame I'd call it a tyranny, a technocracy and a failed state.

Quote:

the state running the means of production, that's exactly what people are proposing on health care.

Actually, people aren't proposing such a thing as an actor.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;143751 wrote:

Actually, people aren't proposing such a thing as an actor.

Yeah they are.
They want the federal government to run health care and distribute it according to need; state capitalism. Like in the soviet union.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;143753 wrote:

They want the federal government to run health care. State capitalism, like in the soviet union.

They are not an actor and even if they were, an aspect of socialism does not make one Joe Stalin.

1 Reply

Health Insurance versus Health Care

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know