BF2S Forums The Problems with Socialized Health Care

Narupug wrote:

Universal health care will help to eliminate poverty.

Just how is that? People are not poor because they have to pay hospital bills, by and large. And poor people generally don't have to pay hospital bills, anyway--govt programs already take care of that...and pay pennies on the dollar for charges.

We have socialised healthcare.  There are minimal fees but these are largely subsidised for those with low incomes.  The public health system does have waiting lists for some stuff, but is still preferable to many alternatives, and lets face it - people will rarely compliment a health system.

Oh, and you can purchase health insurance (ie. private healthcare) if you wish, the cost is typically comparable to the cost of a telephone or broadband plan.

Last edited by Pubic (2009-05-01 06:06:31)

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You think that doctors must only be in it for the money. There is always going to be well paid positions in both public and private health care. And if the pay differences are huge it doesn't take a genius to work out that the govt. just has to narrow the gap.

With what money? Where does that money come from?

If you don't even understand that public health care cost comes from tax dollars, answering the rest of your questions is equally as pointless.

Come back when you have some concept of what we are talking about here. kthxbai

This is my point. Do you not understand where tax dollars come from? Certainly not out of thin air...and certainly not out of medical need. The cost of the care does not change no matter what (or the quality of the care changes along with cost), only who is paying for it changes.

Turquoise wrote:

Compettion is a temporary aspect of markets, and when it dwindles, consumers suffer.  This is why the government HAS to regulate with things like antitrust laws.

lol? Competition stems from scarcity, and scarcity is permanent. The more overzealous monopolies become the easier it is to break them.

It really seems you have things backwards. Free market is superior in the long term, not the short term. It can take a loooong time to work things into or out of a free market, but eventually it will always work itself out. The question is whether people can weather the rough times without trying to put band-aids all over the system.

Turquoise wrote:

Uh no.  Look at Standard Oil.  Look at the growing oligopolistic behavior of telecoms.

The free market didn't even get a lifetime to work before government interfered.

Turquoise wrote:

Nearly every major market moves in an oligopolistic direction, because many markets have high barriers to entry.  Some of these are government created, but a lot of them are actually just the overhead cost of entering some markets.

And when the rape is so great that it exceeds the cost of overhead, or more realistically when the rape is so great that investors are willing to take a chance on that overhead, presto, competition.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It really seems you have things backwards. Free market is superior in the long term, not the short term. It can take a loooong time to work things into or out of a free market, but eventually it will always work itself out. The question is whether people can weather the rough times without trying to put band-aids all over the system.

The only way markets get better is for regulation to favor competition.  Antitrust laws are part of this.  WIthout the proper regulation, competition rarely ever comes about.

Competition begot by government "regulation" is inferior competition because it isn't based on merit. There is always room for competition when monopolies attempt to enforce obscene prices.

People need to understand that they can't get their way just because they want it, or because they think it's fair. You have no right to impose restrictions on someone else's success because you feel you deserve the fruits of their labor cheaper than they're willing to give them to you.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uh no.  Look at Standard Oil.  Look at the growing oligopolistic behavior of telecoms.

The free market didn't even get a lifetime to work before government interfered.

Standard Oil had been around for a while before government intervention.  It basically took the government to realize that this company almost had more power than the government for politicians to grow concerned and act.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Nearly every major market moves in an oligopolistic direction, because many markets have high barriers to entry.  Some of these are government created, but a lot of them are actually just the overhead cost of entering some markets.

And when the rape is so great that it exceeds the cost of overhead, or more realistically when the rape is so great that investors are willing to take a chance on that overhead, presto, competition.

You'd be surprised how much "rape" the market tolerates.  I'd prefer to lower that threshold via regulation.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It really seems you have things backwards. Free market is superior in the long term, not the short term. It can take a loooong time to work things into or out of a free market, but eventually it will always work itself out. The question is whether people can weather the rough times without trying to put band-aids all over the system.

The only way markets get better is for regulation to favor competition.  Antitrust laws are part of this.  WIthout the proper regulation, competition rarely ever comes about.

Competition begot by government "regulation" is inferior competition because it isn't based on merit. There is always room for competition when monopolies attempt to enforce obscene prices.

Not when the product is something people's lives depend on.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People need to understand that they can't get their way just because they want it, or because they think it's fair. You have no right to impose restrictions on someone else's success because you feel you deserve the fruits of their labor cheaper than they're willing to give them to you.

Actually, I do.  Democracy is majority rule, so if the majority wants it...  they usually get it.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If the government was so concerned they should have competed.

That's not how it works...

Turquoise wrote:

You stifle creativity and ingenuity when you use regulation. You have to take the bad with the good.

Considering that most of the advances we now enjoy in medicine and science involve some connection to government funding, I'd have to disagree.  If anything, government can inspire creativity.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Even more so if the product is vital. If prices are high but demand is higher, it's even easier to compete.

Besides that I don't think you understand the difference between a want and a need very well. Food air water shelter...that's as far as needs go. Triple bypass surgery is not a need. Most people would rank it pretty damn high on their list of priorities, but it isn't a god-given right to an extension of the natural lifespan.

Cancer treatment is what I would consider a need.  Ultimately, rights are defined by what the public believes them to be.  Personally, I believe everyone has a right to healthcare that is essential to continued living.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This is why I praise the wisdom of the founding fathers, the wisdom to understand the tyranny of majority. I prefer societies not run by the fickle will of a mob kthx.

What the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate was the tyranny of minorities -- special interest groups that lobby against the will of the people.

I personally find those far more loathsome than any tyranny of the majority.

One thing I was trying to raise in my earlier post was that the conservative no regulation argument glosses over the fact that regulation already exists in health care. However, those regulations are designed to protect the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies from competition ie only a doctor can prescribe, patents for big pharma. If the no regulation crowd were true to their argument then they would be seeking ways to divest the doctors and big pharma of the regulations that enable them to control the health care markets like a monopoly.

But they don't, they choose not to engage in that discourse because that road leads to competition, cheaper prices and more choices for health care consumers. But you either have to have a single payer national health care system to control costs or you have to decentralize the concentration of power that big pharma and doctors now enjoy. One solution is more regualtion and the other is less regulation. In a perfect world both could and would be achieved. If neither is achieved then it is very hard to conceive of a viable solution to the health care crisis.

My personal example
Some of the problems of the health care crisis can be seen in this example. Personally, I've got good health care insurance. If I get sick, I have $20 copay and I think the insurance company picks up the other $55 or so. If I get a prescription I go get it filled and for a simple antibiotic from walmart I might pay $10 with insurance.

Now I also live close to Mexico and I can go there and legally bring back antibiotics. I can buy about 4 courses of amoxicillin for around $8 or 1 course of zithromax for $6. These antibiotics are available directly from the pharmacist with no prescription. I would call that a health care system without regulation, or at least it has regulation that is more patient-centric that the American system.

Now compare the prices. $30 out of pocket for the US system with insurance and $2 for 1 course of antibiotics from Mexico with no insurance.
The American system just can't compete with the Mexican system because the Mexican system has less regulation.
Now if the conservatives with their no regulation mantra were true, then they would be looking at freeing consumers and actually increasing choice, not yoking consumers to health care industry profiteers. It pretty sad to think that under the Mexican system, that the 40 million uninsured might receive better health care than under "the best in the world" American model... something has to change.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People work better and harder if they enjoy product of the full extent of their labor, this much is fact. If that comes through government programs a la NASA, so be it. That doesn't mean regulation does not hamper creativity and ingenuity.

That argument would work if it weren't for the fact that NASA is highly regulated.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If they have not contributed as much as they desire to use, who exactly foots the bill?

The cost of providing care in a socialized system is greatly reduced because it works like insurance.  You have a pool of money to work with rather than relying on charging people higher rates due to people that don't pay up (like how the private market works).  Everyone pays for each other in effect.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Tyranny? lol. Manipulation, maybe. There is nothing tyrannical about it. If constituents don't like the way their representative is voting, they can put someone else in his place. If not one can be found, special interest groups are the least of our worries.

Lobbyism is inevitable.  There's no way around it, but the only way to neutralize it somewhat is to have policies that favor the will of the people.  Lobbyism is just as much a tyranny in healthcare as it is in many other industries.  For example, pharmaceutical lobbies continually push for extending patents on drugs, so that they can postpone when generics come out.  That dicks over millions of people because of the costs that incurs on everyone.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't understand how you couldn't fear a group that you are powerless to fight directly, controls societal definitions at whim, and is far more susceptible to hype than rationality. It's power is unlimited, it's movement sporadic, it's logic nearly nonexistent. No group that clearly defines what it wants and how it wants it, funded by people that openly desire the same outcome, can even be considered to approach the same level of power or potential level of corruption.

If that's the way you feel, then you should understand why I fear lobbyism.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People work better and harder if they enjoy product of the full extent of their labor, this much is fact. If that comes through government programs a la NASA, so be it. That doesn't mean regulation does not hamper creativity and ingenuity.

That argument would work if it weren't for the fact that NASA is highly regulated.

In what way? In a here's some money to artificially lower your prices kind of way, or a let's make sure this space suit really works before we kill some one kind of way?

That would be violating someone's legitimate god-given need of air.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If they have not contributed as much as they desire to use, who exactly foots the bill?

The cost of providing care in a socialized system is greatly reduced because it works like insurance.  You have a pool of money to work with rather than relying on charging people higher rates due to people that don't pay up (like how the private market works).  Everyone pays for each other in effect.

If someone doesn't have money to be treated...you just don't treat them haha. They don't add any more money to the system if it is paid by the government, it just means that someone else paid more in taxes to cover their bill. As opposed to raising prices in the private sector for the people that don't pay, exactly like you said. Except that if you hand the price fixing responsibility to the private sector, there is more incentive to be efficient.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Tyranny? lol. Manipulation, maybe. There is nothing tyrannical about it. If constituents don't like the way their representative is voting, they can put someone else in his place. If not one can be found, special interest groups are the least of our worries.

Lobbyism is inevitable.  There's no way around it, but the only way to neutralize it somewhat is to have policies that favor the will of the people.  Lobbyism is just as much a tyranny in healthcare as it is in many other industries.  For example, pharmaceutical lobbies continually push for extending patents on drugs, so that they can postpone when generics come out.  That dicks over millions of people because of the costs that incurs on everyone.

There is nothing wrong with lobbying, and there is nothing tyrannical about it. Someone saying what they thinks is not tyranny, someone even giving money to someone in hopes they will vote their way is not tyranny. The final decision rests with the Congress person, that's just all there is to it. Lobbies have no real power.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't understand how you couldn't fear a group that you are powerless to fight directly, controls societal definitions at whim, and is far more susceptible to hype than rationality. It's power is unlimited, it's movement sporadic, it's logic nearly nonexistent. No group that clearly defines what it wants and how it wants it, funded by people that openly desire the same outcome, can even be considered to approach the same level of power or potential level of corruption.

If that's the way you feel, then you should understand why I fear lobbyism.

Not a single one of the above adjectives apply to lobbying.

- You can fight them directly by either voting out your corrupt representative or giving money to an opposing lobby.
- They control no definitions. At most they attempt to abuse the media in order to influence the majority.
- They almost always work against hype. I think it is rare that the public is knowingly on the side of big tobacco.
- Their power is null, or at most precisely as large as their bank roll.
- Their movement is calculated.
- They are possibly the most logical entities on the planet. Work against legislation that would adversely effect the money going into my pocket.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Who exactly are you talking about Diesel? Because the hypocrisy in the alleged argument is so blatant I can't believe a politician or anyone else could let that come out of their mouth without their brains exploding from the cognitive dissonance. Source/example?

What hypocrisy? If the right wants a market free from regulation then let's see what it looks like. Let's remove the barriers that permit doctors and big pharma to operate in a monopoly. and that is the main point, health care isn't a natural monopoly, its a monopoly that is created by regulation. The problem is that the regulation is skewed in favor of doctors and big pharma. What the left is proposing is that regulation is skewed in favor of the public. What I am pointing out is that the conservative are crying don't regulate while they are in fact showing preference for the regulations that set up health care as it now exists. Therefore their argument of regulation versus no regulation is a false one and the market isn't free as it now exists.

As for the Mexican healthcare example. A person living on the border can go get the prescription drugs they need and its cheaper that carrying insurance, paying copays, and paying for the drugs here in the US. If a Mexican style system were available in the US then the 40 million people without insurance would receive better health care that they currently get, and that's just lolz to think about it like that.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If someone doesn't have money to be treated...you just don't treat them haha. They don't add any more money to the system if it is paid by the government, it just means that someone else paid more in taxes to cover their bill. As opposed to raising prices in the private sector for the people that don't pay, exactly like you said. Except that if you hand the price fixing responsibility to the private sector, there is more incentive to be efficient.

Well, the Hippocratic Oath pretty much ensures there will always be people who get served that don't pay.  So, we can already assume that rising costs are inevitable.  However, this process of rising costs is slowed down quite a bit if you're working with a massive pool of money via taxes.  Under the private system, hospitals have to anticipate a certain amount of freeloaders, so they keep prices high.  There's not as much of an incentive to do that with socialization.

As far as efficiency goes, it depends on your perspective.  For example, our private system has far more bureaucracy than the socialized system of Canada.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There is nothing wrong with lobbying, and there is nothing tyrannical about it. Someone saying what they thinks is not tyranny, someone even giving money to someone in hopes they will vote their way is not tyranny. The final decision rests with the Congress person, that's just all there is to it. Lobbies have no real power.

Ok then.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.  The existence of K Street pretty much proves you wrong anyway.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Not a single one of the above adjectives apply to lobbying.

- You can fight them directly by either voting out your corrupt representative or giving money to an opposing lobby.
- They control no definitions. At most they attempt to abuse the media in order to influence the majority.
- They almost always work against hype. I think it is rare that the public is knowingly on the side of big tobacco.
- Their power is null, or at most precisely as large as their bank roll.
- Their movement is calculated.
- They are possibly the most logical entities on the planet. Work against legislation that would adversely effect the money going into my pocket.

You definitely have a unique way of looking at it....

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If someone doesn't have money to be treated...you just don't treat them haha. They don't add any more money to the system if it is paid by the government, it just means that someone else paid more in taxes to cover their bill. As opposed to raising prices in the private sector for the people that don't pay, exactly like you said. Except that if you hand the price fixing responsibility to the private sector, there is more incentive to be efficient.

Well, the Hippocratic Oath pretty much ensures there will always be people who get served that don't pay.  So, we can already assume that rising costs are inevitable.  However, this process of rising costs is slowed down quite a bit if you're working with a massive pool of money via taxes.  Under the private system, hospitals have to anticipate a certain amount of freeloaders, so they keep prices high.  There's not as much of an incentive to do that with socialization.

Dude, you have to realize the massive pool of money comes directly out of your pocket. Whether costs are "low" because they are subsidized by money you paid elsewhere, or are "high" because that is the actual cost of the procedure, it is irrelevant. The money comes from and goes to the same place. The only question is whether you want to add a middleman.

Turquoise wrote:

As far as efficiency goes, it depends on your perspective.  For example, our private system has far more bureaucracy than the socialized system of Canada.

How? FDA regulation? lol

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There is nothing wrong with lobbying, and there is nothing tyrannical about it. Someone saying what they thinks is not tyranny, someone even giving money to someone in hopes they will vote their way is not tyranny. The final decision rests with the Congress person, that's just all there is to it. Lobbies have no real power.

Ok then.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.  The existence of K Street pretty much proves you wrong anyway.

You are saying groups with no power written into the Constitution, with zero direct influence over a Congressional vote are powerful. At best they are influential, and yeah, money is influential. There is nothing wrong with that.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Not a single one of the above adjectives apply to lobbying.

- You can fight them directly by either voting out your corrupt representative or giving money to an opposing lobby.
- They control no definitions. At most they attempt to abuse the media in order to influence the majority.
- They almost always work against hype. I think it is rare that the public is knowingly on the side of big tobacco.
- Their power is null, or at most precisely as large as their bank roll.
- Their movement is calculated.
- They are possibly the most logical entities on the planet. Work against legislation that would adversely effect the money going into my pocket.

You definitely have a unique way of looking at it....

I'm glad we aren't ruled completely by the majority then, lest my arguments be considered wrong solely because they can be described as unique.

As it is, care to explain why?

some_random_panda wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Unless you think doctors won't work unless paid...?

...you don't?

You do realise that over here doctors in hospitals (not private clinics) don't get any variation in pay for the number of patients they treat?  They just get a much higher chance of referral if they take more/better standing in the medical world, and that feeds into the whole "contributing to society" thing.

Would they continue being doctors if they weren't paid?

/rhetorical