The first and greatest cost cutting is...
Okay. All these are very plausible arguments why socialized health care is supposed to be cheaper. Now can you tell me that these are not arguments for communism (state capitalism) in general? Because I think they are. The following paragraphs are your arguments for why socialized health care is superior, with a few words exchanged which (to me) appears to make them arguments for state capitalism in general.
Can you explain why soviet Russia wasn't a great economic success despite all these mechanisms, which you argue will make health care more efficient if put in the hands of the state, working on the entire economy.
Thanks
The first and greatest cost cutting is that you render financial competition irrelevant for basic supplies [...] - the government knows how much these things cost to produce and can market them to the right people as part of the civil service.
it means that profits from industry don't have to be spent on marketing and promotion.
It also holds these companies to a set of standards that the government are ultimately accountable for, rather than numerous different standards the companies would operate to if left as wholly private enterprises.
The second cost cutting is that needless consumption is reduced. Because managers are paid a set wage, and companies funded according to need, rather than on performance or ability to drum up customers, they are less likely to produce unnecessary products. The USSR percentage of overconsumption is about half that of the US as an average.
Forthly would be Xris' point about wholesale purchases[...] It's "aggressive" competition driving prices up that is moderated in a public system.
Lastly, in the US people with taxpaying jobs still pay for other people's food and shelter.
Why do you not reply to my question? would you refuse to be party of system that costs you two thirds less and gave you better cover.
I would love that. If it were possible. I tried to explain why it isn't that simple. You just keep insisting that socialized health care is cheaper because it seems that way on the first look. That fits your views, so there is no need to carry on looking. That the reasons it's supposed to be cheaper are the same arguments that were supposed to make the soviet union a economic success is easily shouted off, since only a right wing mud slinger would ever mention the soviet union. And that the US health care market covertly subsidizes the European health care markets is too complicated a concept. And therefore not worth arguing with. All in all, we can just believe what we want to believe.
Okay. All these are very plausible arguments why socialized health care is supposed to be cheaper.
Now can you tell me that these are not arguments for communism (state capitalism) in general?
Can you explain why soviet Russia wasn't a great economic success despite all these mechanisms, which you argue will make health care more efficient if put in the hands of the state, working on the entire economy.
Lastly, in the US people with taxpaying jobs still pay for other people's food and shelter.
Firstly, because not every part of the economy works like the healthcare industry can, nor do I think there's the same ethical basis for socialising all aspects of industry as there is with healthcare.
The short answer is that Marx, as a political polemicist, tended to overstate his case. In taking him literally in all things the bolsheviks overshot the position he was actually advocating, and ended up with an inflexible and inefficient system.
They do anyway - don't they?
So it looks like its cheaper because it is cheaper. How have you proved that its not? you have not even tried, you have just waffled.
Neither have you proved America subsidises our system? have you? For goodness sake Im not living in communist russia or anything like it. Answer my question and give me some evidence for your outrageous claims? pretty please.
Ethical justification does not change economics.
Your side always assumes that because socialism intends to raise the material consumption of the poor, it must be able to accomplish that.
And thus the only thing that's holding us back is our ethical determination to do it.
But socialism does not work, it does not actually increase the standard of living of the poor.
History is crystal clear on this, wherever there are free market systems, the poor are better off.
This doesn't change when you do "a little bit" of socialism, i.e. "mixed market systems", then it's only harder to detect the failure because the effects are easy to hide in the complications of economics and there is no apples to apples comparison that would show the failure of socialism.
Are you saying that state capitalism does work, soviet Russia just didn't do it right and had too many practical challenges?
Yes. Vastly over half of the federal budget is entitlement programs; paying for other peoples food and shelter. So the same argument as on health care works on other necessities; we already have to pay for other people, we might as well socialize.
I'm sorry xris, on this an the other topics, I can only say that I believe you to be well-intentioned but mistaken. It's all been said. If you don't believe me at this point, we have to agree to disagree. I do appreciate your comments, and will keep them in mind as I think about things.
many other people on the internet think they are educated and repeat facts like parrots, but one you challenge them on those beliefs, they do not know what to say. Their understanding is not very deep. Your are different, I wanted you to know that I respect that.
You cheeky wot sit, you make unsubstantiated claims and then refuse to be drawn on them.
As Dave hinted at its a social insurance package with health at the top.
Of course not - but the economic argument is actually the weakest one in your arsenal - it just IS cheaper. The US just has the most expensive system which isn't the best. Per capita it is three times more expensive than the UK or Danish systems, and it's not as good at treating people.
Economically you ought to be demanding an NHS equivalent - or something better.
The ethical argument - that people should receive healthcare regardless of social standing - is just another facet really. Divorced of ethics the economic argument is clear - you support a white elephant of a system that does less to eliminate bad practice and quackery than all socialised systems in the developed world. In the UK NI costs less than HI dies in the US - it would allow US employers to reinvest in their own businesses if they didn't have to hand all this cash to the medical industry.
Even the "I shouldn't pay for other people's health" argument doesn't work - because if you buy insurance you are - more so than the NI equivalent - you're just hoping the hospital or doctor concerned recoups through the legal system.
All this money does not go on better healthcare - it goes on administration.
For the umpteenth time - I am not advocating socialism per se, nor am I on "the side" of those that do.
You seem required to veiw this in binary terms. Please try to think a little harder and address me rather than a strawman of your own construction.
I do not think that socialism either intends to raise consumption of the poor, or that it succeeds in doing so.
To say I do is a repeated inaccuracy.
I think you're just burying your head in the sand really.
Aspects of socialism do not equal socialism.
Are you actually capable of grasping that?
If so do me the favour of dropping the "socialism" strawman.
I'm having to remind you every single post that I'm not advocating widespread implementation of socialism.
Let's talk about what we are actually talking about - not what we want to imply that each other are talking about.
The broken record strawmanning is getting tedious. Address the actual debate. If you can.
Well compare the communist Russians to the Tzarist serfs, or sub saharan africans to the chinese. It's not that cut and dried.
Compare poverty line living of the UK and US, or the US and the low countries, or France.
Compare national debt.
It isn't cut and dried.
I see - you can't produce anything to back up your arguments, so you'll claim the things you would be able to use to back up your arguments are hidden.
I think you should take your own advice - you are the one to whom the answer seems crystal clear but who is arguing without rationale other than distaste for a system you have been indoctrinated to regard as wholly without merit.
I'm saying you can't honestly tell either way. Russia was badly run, it was a badly run monarchy, then it was a badly run communist state, then it was a badly run technocracy, now it's hardly a model free market.
There is a long history of arbitrary management of the country.
So to use Russia as an example of anything is to use a bad example. It was always associated with wasteful governance - whatever the system of governance.
You cheeky wot sit, you make unsubstantiated claims and then refuse to be drawn on them.
Again, it is not less expensive, it is less expensive for them. Just as living with your parents might be cheaper for you, but it's not cheaper for your parents. That you don't have to pay it does not make it cheaper.
You keep claiming your views are not socialist, the next paragraph you make an argument for socialism.
You can claim your arguments are not socialist all you want, if they fit the term, that's what they are.
I never claimed that you want full-blown socialism ... Even wanting socialism on some issues is socialism.
I think there should be some help for actual poor people. We are a rich enough society to not let people die. But most people are worse off when we are supplied by the government.
I don't think socialized health care actually does save cost. Not that I deny the accuracy of your numbers. But I think it is more complicated than that. Partly socialized health care just amounts to price control. For example you mentioned that government can more aggressively bargain with drug companies, and doctors get paid less.
If government decided that bread may only cost half of what it costs today, we would initially have cheaper bread, but nobody would be willing to produce it at a loss. So we have less bread than if the government had not made that law. I think the same applies to doctors, drugs and medical equipment as well. The reasons it is supposed to be cheaper is merely government declaring it should be cheaper. It would lead to shortages. For example people don't want to be doctors, because they won't get paid enough. Or that medical equipment doesn't get invented, because there's no money to earn on that.
I think we have just not seen the negative effects of these price controls so much in Europe, because all the money on health care is earned in the US. It's like the bread factory earns most of their money in the US. That pays for running the factory, so they can afford to send off some bread to Europe at lower prices. But in a sense the high US bread price is paying for Europe to have cheap bread. One market is subsidizing the other market. If the US established the same price controls as Europe, the bread company could not afford to operate the ovens. So nobody would have bread. I don't mean to lecture you on economics, but does that make sense? Do you agree?
Nero I refer you to your first claim that Americans are paying for our system..now you tell me where you elaborated on this claim with any idea of evidence or where you answered my reply to this outrageous claim? Your not escaping this one like all the others you bluntly refused to be drawn on.
Evidence? What part of it do you want elaborated. You said yourself that American health care providers make more profit than European ones. You said yourself that European health care systems have price controls. The rest is economics.
Yes, a hypothetical argument about bread - which isn't even true (consumables tend to be cheaper in the US) doesn't amount to an argument.
Of course it's not fricking true, it was an analogy to health care.
No it isn't - the european systems aren't purchasing US developments any more than the US purchases developments from europe
Besides - the extra profits made by the US indistry do not go on R&D - they go on admin.
