BF2S Forums The Problems with Socialized Health Care

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

BN wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

It is more or less. However the competition between the private companies is a lot less than what I would like to see.

Me too. I went to MIA on Wed and it was $360 for an ECG. Other than waiting 2 weeks for the hospital I am not sure what other options I had.

But I did get $235 of that back through Medicare.

Wait. was it just a regular ECG? I got one recently and it was only like $60....

I think it was a regular one. I dont know the difference. Consisted of an ultrasound of my heart for about 30 mins.

Places like MIA charge whatever they want.

You know what's funny and sad at the same time, with the democrats about to get a super majority in the Senate there's really nothing we can do to stop them from implementing whatever plan they want to do.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This much is true, prices pushed higher than necessary more in a private system. You fail to account for the inflexibility in a socialist structure however that is the trade off for those lower costs.

Socialist structures are, in many cases, more flexible.  In most countries that have a socialized system, the universal care covers basic things while a smaller private system covers advanced procedures.  Ideally, this is what every country's medical system should have.  Basic care isn't very profitable and should therefore be a government service, while advanced care is very profitable and ahould be a private enterprise.

If the government is running things, you either have an opportunity for corruption or miles of red tape to swim through to change the system. That much is inherent in the idea of socialism. In a private system, you trade essentially one person's or one board's honest opinion on how to make a profit (assuming no Enron bullshit) for the risk implied in doing so. They each have trade-offs, but how can you say the government is more flexible?

Profit margins for either basic or advanced medical services can be adjusted to make either more profitable than the other. You can turn a profit in either business without price gouging, so I don't understand your argument. It's not as if there would be no low-cost healthcare if the government decided not to provide it. That would encourage entrepreneurs to look for low-cost basic care business models right? Kind of like what we have seen with the advent of these doc-in-a-box places like Care Now.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Opposite. There is more incentive to reduce operating costs if you are a business rather than the government.

As for my evidence I point to the physical size of the U.S. Government haha. No one gets fired.

Wikipedia has a good summary of what I'm talking about.  It throws in the counterarguments as well, but I side with the general idea of socialized medicine's administrative costs being lower due to things like economies of scale.  They use Finland as an example that shows this in action.

"A 2003 study examined costs and outputs in the U.S. and other industrialized countries and broadly concluded that the U.S. spends so much because its health care system is more costly. It noted that "...the United States spent considerably more on health care than any other country...[yet] most measures of aggregate utilization such as physician visits per capita and hospital days per capita were below the OECD median. Since spending is a product of both the goods and services used and their prices, this implies that much higher prices are paid in the United States than in other countries.". The researchers examined possible reasons and concluded that input costs were high (salaries, cost of pharamaceutical), and that the complex payment system in the U.S. added higher administrative costs. Comparison countries in Canada and Europe were much more willing to exert monopsony power to drive down prices, whilst the highly fragmented buy side of the U.S. health system was one factor which could explain the relatively high prices in the United States.

Other studies have found no consistent and systematic relationship between the type of financing of health care and cost containment; the efficiency of operation of the health care system itself appears to depend much more on how providers are paid and how the delivery of care is organized than on the method used to raise these funds.

Some supporters argue that government involvement in health care would reduce costs not just because of the exercise of monopsony power, e.g. in drug purchasing, but also because it eliminates profit margins and administrative overhead associated with private insurance, and because it can make use of economies of scale in administration. In certain circumstances, a volume purchaser may be able to guarantee sufficient volume to reduce overall prices while providing greater profitability to the seller, such as in so-called 'purchase commitment' programs. Economist Arnold Kling attributes the present cost crisis mainly to the practice of what he calls "premium medicine," which overuses expensive forms of technology that is of marginal or no proven benefit.

Milton Friedman has argued that government has weak incentives to reduce costs because "nobody spends somebody else’s money as wisely or as frugally as he spends his own".  Others contend that health care consumption is not like other consumer consumption. Firstly there is a negative utility of consumption (consuming more health care does not make one better off) and secondly there is an information asymmetry between consumer and supplier.

Paul Krugman and Robin Wells argue that all of the evidence indicates that public insurance of the kind available in several European countries achieves equal or better results at much lower cost, a conclusion that also applies within the United States. In terms of actual administrative costs, Medicare spent less than 2 percent of its resources on administration, while private insurance companies spent more than 13 percent. The Cato Institute argues that the 2 percent Medicare cost figure ignores all costs shifted to doctors and hospitals, and alleges that Medicare is not very efficient at all when those costs are incorporated. Some studies have found that the US wastes more on bureaucracy (compared to the Canadian level), and that this excess administrative cost would be sufficient to provide health care to the uninsured population in the US.

Notwithstanding the arguments about Medicare, there is overall less bureaucracy in socialized systems than in the present mixed US system. Spending on administration in Finland is 2.1% of all health care costs, and in the UK the figure is 3.3% whereas the US spends 7.3% of all expenditures on administration."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

Highlighted what I think is the most important part, I feel the rest is either counterarguments agreeing with me or points we have at least touched on.

It's kind of amusing how you point to monopolistic practices as the bane of an efficient economy, yet these are exactly the practices that the governments in other countries have abused in order to make the system more efficient. Of course with that inefficiency you give the government a stranglehold over suppliers, crushing R&D incentives without government money and counting on the reliability of government bureaucracy to distribute medical supplies appropriately.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Influence, but not power. Power is the ability to invariably get what you want - everyone but the politicians do what they can to influence those in powerful positions. You and I have the same ability to go and attempt to influence politicians, we do not have the ability to vote at the Capitol.

Money talks much more than votes.  Lobbyists essentially determine who can run for office.  So before you or I can even vote for these people, they are essentially screened by special interests.  The reason for this is the high cost of running for office.  You have to make a lot of connections and get substantial funding -- most of which comes from lobbyism.

The only way to counter this is to support politicians that lean more towards the will of the people in policymaking.

The people's indifference gives the power to money gives the power to lobbyists. Lobbyists only get to determine who can run for office because nobody gives a shit.

The worst thing we could do is fail to recognize that we are handing the lobbyists huge influence on a silver platter because of our apathy, and instead blame it on a system that has given "power" to a group that we prop up ourselves.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I never said either is more beneficial to society than the other - neither is beneficial at all. The fact is however that these groups are logical entities that know what they want, and can be counted on as such. The masses on the other hand hold control over the very fabric of society, and are not restrained by any scruples of the irrational.

At least you can count on the liar to lie; you don't know when the honest man is going to start lying.

Uh....  While I would agree that the public is fickle, trusting lobbyists is tantamount to selling your soul to the devil.

I still never said I trust lobbyists.

You can work against a system that works on a basis of logic, or at least a system that operates on principles that you can comprehend.

Not a sore looser.  I'm just stating the fact that the democrats can pretty much put whatever plan they want right now with what will be a super majority in the Senate. 

For those who don't know in the Senate if you have 60 of the 100 seats (2 representatives per state), then you can vote to stop discusson on a bill and bring it to the floor for a vote - this is called Closure. 

Look, we voted in the Democrats and they are now in power.  We can bitch and moan all we want, but they will put in whatever health care plan they want.

That's assuming Al Franken gets seated.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If the government is running things, you either have an opportunity for corruption or miles of red tape to swim through to change the system. That much is inherent in the idea of socialism. In a private system, you trade essentially one person's or one board's honest opinion on how to make a profit (assuming no Enron bullshit) for the risk implied in doing so. They each have trade-offs, but how can you say the government is more flexible?

Your idea of socialism is pretty screwed up.

The big question here is whether the government or large financial corporations are more corrupt. Which of course depends on the country. Within Europe, state run healthcare has flourished and is widely regarded as being amongst the best healthcare services in the world - which shows it can work, it is simply a case of whether it can work in the US. This is largely dependent on the relative levels of corruption and money grabbing within big financial corporations who provide the healthcare schemes and the government - of course competence of both this bodies also needs to be taken into account. The government get an instant boost when you look at this dispassionately, since they have no need to make a profit on it, whereas for the corporations it is their entire reason for doing it. The entire profit line of all these companies is money that is being "wasted".

So it all boils down to the question of whether you think the government are so much more corrupt and incompetent than big financial corporations. Personally I would be surprised if they are, given the track record for such corporations.

The government is more flexible in virtually every way. How can you say it isn't? They can change the rules, they can set the budgets, they can change every aspect of the framework the system works in - private companies just work with that framework, the government makes it. That is real flexibility.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-05-03 05:01:43)

kylef wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The government is more flexible in virtually every way. How can you say it isn't? They can change the rules, they can set the budgets, they can change every aspect of the framework the system works in - private companies just work with that framework, the government makes it. That is real flexibility.

The problem is, our Government is restricted heavily by Parliament. Where private companies can use tax avoidance schemes and workarounds to pay lower costs, the Government framework is often loopholed.

How is that benefiting the country?

How on earth do you connect businesses avoiding taxes to being in the best interests of the country?

In any case, the point is nonsense since the NHS doesn't pay any tax. It's not a profit making organisation.

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If the government is running things, you either have an opportunity for corruption or miles of red tape to swim through to change the system. That much is inherent in the idea of socialism. In a private system, you trade essentially one person's or one board's honest opinion on how to make a profit (assuming no Enron bullshit) for the risk implied in doing so. They each have trade-offs, but how can you say the government is more flexible?

Your idea of socialism is pretty screwed up.

The big question here is whether the government or large financial corporations are more corrupt. Which of course depends on the country. Within Europe, state run healthcare has flourished and is widely regarded as being amongst the best healthcare services in the world - which shows it can work, it is simply a case of whether it can work in the US. This is largely dependent on the relative levels of corruption and money grabbing within big financial corporations who provide the healthcare schemes and the government - of course competence of both this bodies also needs to be taken into account. The government get an instant boost when you look at this dispassionately, since they have no need to make a profit on it, whereas for the corporations it is their entire reason for doing it. The entire profit line of all these companies is money that is being "wasted".

Between the and the last paragraph I really wish you were sitting next to me so I could poke you in the ribs for being dumb.

First of all, holy shit, the profit is not wasted. Those corporations can build a new facility, put money into R&D, or hire people directly. It creates more jobs, those people with jobs have money to spend, good god I hope you can take it from there. Money is a worthless product in an of itself - unless a corporation is holding onto some amount of it strategically (perfectly reasonable, and something a government should do with a healthcare system anyways) it has absolutely no value to them. They want to spend it somewhere.

Berster7 wrote:

So it all boils down to the question of whether you think the government are so much more corrupt and incompetent than big financial corporations. Personally I would be surprised if they are, given the track record for such corporations.

You miss the point. A government does not have to be corrupt, but the only way to avoid that is placing heavy restrictions on how much power one person has. The problem is while a corporation is working for its own money, in a government you have a lot of people handling other peoples' money. It's in a corporations best interest to make sure none of its money is disappearing, but in government the incentive is not for the government directly to check, but for the people to check. Because the people as a whole aren't in a position to be an effective watchdog (though the media is important) the people have to demand strict procedures and checks of power. This inevitably leads to red tape. Of course you want to meet somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, but the problems of a corporation are inherently different.

As for the "track record"...there have been a few recent incidents it's true, and the perpetrators are rank up there for the biggest assholes on the planet without a doubt. Still, the number of these cases relative to the number of huge corporations is tiny.

Berster7 wrote:

The government is more flexible in virtually every way. How can you say it isn't? They can change the rules, they can set the budgets, they can change every aspect of the framework the system works in - private companies just work with that framework, the government makes it. That is real flexibility.

1) That's a monopoly. I don't understand why you guys find this a huge fault in the free market, then plead the government to become one.

2) In order to make any decision there is a very long process that has to be undertaken. It's a product of the huge potential for corruption in the government. In a free market corporations would make the framework as well, or at least the framework they are forced to work in is identical to or smaller than the one government would have to set up for itself anyways.

Every corporation is essentially a monarchy or oligarchy...I don't understand how you can't see how this is more nimble than any Western government.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The government is more flexible in virtually every way. How can you say it isn't? They can change the rules, they can set the budgets, they can change every aspect of the framework the system works in - private companies just work with that framework, the government makes it. That is real flexibility.

The part of the government in the US that executes the law (the Executive Branch) does not make the law. It must follow the law that is created in the Legislative Branch...a branch that appears to be made of Rube Goldberg fanbois.

So the Executive Branch--the one that would be running the socialized health care system--has no flexibility when it comes to running the system. The most they could hope for is a change to the next fiscal year's laws...and hope is not a valid course of action.

That could be problematic. Clearly that wouldn't be as flexible within the constraints of that system.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If the government is running things, you either have an opportunity for corruption or miles of red tape to swim through to change the system. That much is inherent in the idea of socialism. In a private system, you trade essentially one person's or one board's honest opinion on how to make a profit (assuming no Enron bullshit) for the risk implied in doing so. They each have trade-offs, but how can you say the government is more flexible?

Your idea of socialism is pretty screwed up.

The big question here is whether the government or large financial corporations are more corrupt. Which of course depends on the country. Within Europe, state run healthcare has flourished and is widely regarded as being amongst the best healthcare services in the world - which shows it can work, it is simply a case of whether it can work in the US. This is largely dependent on the relative levels of corruption and money grabbing within big financial corporations who provide the healthcare schemes and the government - of course competence of both this bodies also needs to be taken into account. The government get an instant boost when you look at this dispassionately, since they have no need to make a profit on it, whereas for the corporations it is their entire reason for doing it. The entire profit line of all these companies is money that is being "wasted".

Between the and the last paragraph I really wish you were sitting next to me so I could poke you in the ribs for being dumb.

First of all, holy shit, the profit is not wasted. Those corporations can build a new facility, put money into R&D, or hire people directly. It creates more jobs, those people with jobs have money to spend, good god I hope you can take it from there. Money is a worthless product in an of itself - unless a corporation is holding onto some amount of it strategically (perfectly reasonable, and something a government should do with a healthcare system anyways) it has absolutely no value to them. They want to spend it somewhere.

If you're so stupid you can't see the obvious disadvantages to the healthcare system of it being a profit making system then I really can't help you.

What you need is a school.

It is so blatantly obvious that the company having no profit margin is beneficial to the consumer that I find it hilarious (much like the rest of your take on this) that you can't grasp why but instead focus on the ticking over of the machinations of the capitalist system - which is scarcely relevant, since that money would be spent in exactly the same way (or rather in ways that are more profitable to the government) by the consumers themselves. Why do you need health insurance companies making money? They're not exporting any goods or services and so are not bringing anything into the system. The only impact would be on taxation in this sector, the revenues from which would be lost. as well as if the companies are spending a higher proportion of their profits, rather than investing them - this is highly unlikely, as the shareholders are more likely to invest the money, whereas the consumers are more likely to spend the money, which of those is of more beneficial, eh?

They are financial services companies. They will invest the money. Not put it into R&D, because that's not what they do, they sell insurance and invest the profits.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

So it all boils down to the question of whether you think the government are so much more corrupt and incompetent than big financial corporations. Personally I would be surprised if they are, given the track record for such corporations.

You miss the point. A government does not have to be corrupt, but the only way to avoid that is placing heavy restrictions on how much power one person has. The problem is while a corporation is working for its own money, in a government you have a lot of people handling other peoples' money. It's in a corporations best interest to make sure none of its money is disappearing, but in government the incentive is not for the government directly to check, but for the people to check. Because the people as a whole aren't in a position to be an effective watchdog (though the media is important) the people have to demand strict procedures and checks of power. This inevitably leads to red tape. Of course you want to meet somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, but the problems of a corporation are inherently different.

Of course governments don't have to be corrupt. It's in a governments best interest to make sure none of their money is disappearing. The government are responsible to the voters and the corporations are responsible to their shareholders. If you think the same sort of red tape proceedures aren't in place in big businesses you need to think again. If you think shareholders are any better at keeping an eye on a complex financial business than the voters (or rather the media, as you so astutely pointed out) are at keeping an eye on the government, then you're fooling yourself.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

As for the "track record"...there have been a few recent incidents it's true, and the perpetrators are rank up there for the biggest assholes on the planet without a doubt. Still, the number of these cases relative to the number of huge corporations is tiny.

Not at all. Particularly in the financial sector which is where these companies are. You really see the financial sector as being competent, uncorrupt and stable? I don't share your confidence in it.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

The government is more flexible in virtually every way. How can you say it isn't? They can change the rules, they can set the budgets, they can change every aspect of the framework the system works in - private companies just work with that framework, the government makes it. That is real flexibility.

1) That's a monopoly. I don't understand why you guys find this a huge fault in the free market, then plead the government to become one.

2) In order to make any decision there is a very long process that has to be undertaken. It's a product of the huge potential for corruption in the government. In a free market corporations would make the framework as well, or at least the framework they are forced to work in is identical to or smaller than the one government would have to set up for itself anyways.

Every corporation is essentially a monarchy or oligarchy...I don't understand how you can't see how this is more nimble than any Western government.

1) It's not a monopoly if there is competition. Virtually all countries that have nationalised health services also have private healthcare available. Canada being the notable exception.

2) "In a free market corporations would make the framework as well" - is utter nonsense. You have laws defined by companies now? I knew lobbying was big in Washington, but wow.

Corporations have to work within the framework, governments make the framework. A vote or two later and something can be totally changed. Governments also have more resources available to them and typically have more stability than your average financial institution. These things, amongst others, give governments more flexibility.

I live in a country where I've had the opportunity to see what happens when you privatise everything. In Britain countless services have been privatised. In most instances it has been an absolute disaster. The only real success story of the hundreds of privatisation deals brought in under Thatcher is that of BT. In most cases there are big, big problems. I can think of countless examples.

Also, your response to Turq about government monopolies driving down prices is laughable. It's totally unrelated to higher taxation and you can't have a very good grasp of how these economic models work if you think otherwise - what it is related to is profit and the lack of it. A concept that you don't seem to understand as being good for the consumer, which it is.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The government is more flexible in virtually every way. How can you say it isn't? They can change the rules, they can set the budgets, they can change every aspect of the framework the system works in - private companies just work with that framework, the government makes it. That is real flexibility.

The part of the government in the US that executes the law (the Executive Branch) does not make the law. It must follow the law that is created in the Legislative Branch...a branch that appears to be made of Rube Goldberg fanbois.

So the Executive Branch--the one that would be running the socialized health care system--has no flexibility when it comes to running the system. The most they could hope for is a change to the next fiscal year's laws...and hope is not a valid course of action.

That could be problematic. Clearly that wouldn't be as flexible within the constraints of that system.

I am relatively sure that your system is not very different than ours. I doubt any one person/committee/organization has complete control over decisions without serious checks by other parties in government.

Bertster7 wrote:

If you're so stupid you can't see the obvious disadvantages to the healthcare system of it being a profit making system then I really can't help you.

It is so blatantly obvious that the company having no profit margin is beneficial to the consumer that I find it hilarious (much like the rest of your take on this) that you can't grasp why but instead focus on the ticking over of the machinations of the capitalist system - which is scarcely relevant, since that money would be spent in exactly the same way (or rather in ways that are more profitable to the government) by the consumers themselves. Why do you need health insurance companies making money? They're not exporting any goods or services and so are not bringing anything into the system. The only impact would be on taxation in this sector, the revenues from which would be lost. as well as if the companies are spending a higher proportion of their profits, rather than investing them - this is highly unlikely, as the shareholders are more likely to invest the money, whereas the consumers are more likely to spend the money, which of those is of more beneficial, eh?

The disadvantage is clear - you fail to see the trade off is the problem.

When there is no profit, there is no incentive to perform. If people are not rewarded for making the system more efficient, the system will not become more efficient. Putting healthcare completely in government hands is putting your faith in the integrity of people to do the right thing because it is right - to spend reasonably, to fire appropriately, to put their best foot forward with no appreciable difference in reward over doing the bare minimum. I doubt you are that naive.

The fact remains that companies don't just stockpile money for the sake of stockpiling money. It serves no one's best interest.

Berster7 wrote:

They are financial services companies. They will invest the money. Not put it into R&D, because that's not what they do, they sell insurance and invest the profits.

_{also referring to part of the quote above that touches on taxing health insurance companies}

Healthcare is not just health insurance. Maybe that's what you think of because that's who everyone has to work with when paying for healthcare, but it's just a form of investment. It is a byproduct, not an integral part of some level of private healthcare. As for the other aspects of healthcare that actually pertain to keeping people healthy, your argument does not apply. They will invest in capital.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

So it all boils down to the question of whether you think the government are so much more corrupt and incompetent than big financial corporations. Personally I would be surprised if they are, given the track record for such corporations.

You miss the point. A government does not have to be corrupt, but the only way to avoid that is placing heavy restrictions on how much power one person has. The problem is while a corporation is working for its own money, in a government you have a lot of people handling other peoples' money. It's in a corporations best interest to make sure none of its money is disappearing, but in government the incentive is not for the government directly to check, but for the people to check. Because the people as a whole aren't in a position to be an effective watchdog (though the media is important) the people have to demand strict procedures and checks of power. This inevitably leads to red tape. Of course you want to meet somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, but the problems of a corporation are inherently different.

Of course governments don't have to be corrupt. It's in a governments best interest to make sure none of their money is disappearing. The government are responsible to the voters and the corporations are responsible to their shareholders. If you think the same sort of red tape proceedures aren't in place in big businesses you need to think again. If you think shareholders are any better at keeping an eye on a complex financial business than the voters (or rather the media, as you so astutely pointed out) are at keeping an eye on the government, then you're fooling yourself.

In government your direct superior's paycheck doesn't depend so much on how well you specifically perform. In business every single person along the chain is more likely to pay attention to the people below them than in government.

Of course big business is bulky compared to small businesses, but at least they have incentive to pare down the excess. You are more likely to lose votes in government by cutting everyone's jobs than handing more out.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

As for the "track record"...there have been a few recent incidents it's true, and the perpetrators are rank up there for the biggest assholes on the planet without a doubt. Still, the number of these cases relative to the number of huge corporations is tiny.

Not at all. Particularly in the financial sector which is where these companies are. You really see the financial sector as being competent, uncorrupt and stable? I don't share your confidence in it.

Besides the obvious bias because we happen to be going through this right now...

What happened happened because of pure incompetence. If we were in a free market the incompetent would have been allowed to fail. It's stupid to blame evolution when you are nursing those unfit to survive.

I was primarily referring to Enron-type bullshit and ponzi schemes, there is corruption you should be pointing out. Still, it happens, but it does not happen very often and I doubt as often as in government.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

The government is more flexible in virtually every way. How can you say it isn't? They can change the rules, they can set the budgets, they can change every aspect of the framework the system works in - private companies just work with that framework, the government makes it. That is real flexibility.

1) That's a monopoly. I don't understand why you guys find this a huge fault in the free market, then plead the government to become one.

2) In order to make any decision there is a very long process that has to be undertaken. It's a product of the huge potential for corruption in the government. In a free market corporations would make the framework as well, or at least the framework they are forced to work in is identical to or smaller than the one government would have to set up for itself anyways.

Every corporation is essentially a monarchy or oligarchy...I don't understand how you can't see how this is more nimble than any Western government.

1) It's not a monopoly if there is competition. Virtually all countries that have nationalised health services also have private healthcare available. Canada being the notable exception.

2) "In a free market corporations would make the framework as well" - is utter nonsense. You have laws defined by companies now? I knew lobbying was big in Washington, but wow.

Corporations have to work within the framework, governments make the framework. A vote or two later and something can be totally changed. Governments also have more resources available to them and typically have more stability than your average financial institution. These things, amongst others, give governments more flexibility.

I live in a country where I've had the opportunity to see what happens when you privatise everything. In Britain countless services have been privatised. In most instances it has been an absolute disaster. The only real success story of the hundreds of privatisation deals brought in under Thatcher is that of BT. In most cases there are big, big problems. I can think of countless examples.

Also, your response to Turq about government monopolies driving down prices is laughable. It's totally unrelated to higher taxation and you can't have a very good grasp of how these economic models work if you think otherwise - what it is related to is profit and the lack of it. A concept that you don't seem to understand as being good for the consumer, which it is.

1) In your example you described a monopoly. If you don't want it to be a monopoly now, you have to give up your alleged unlimited freedom and flexibility.

2) There need not be any but the most basic of consumer protection laws. You don't need a law saying if x company has an abnormally high rate of deaths, you should go somewhere else. Of course we don't want anyone dying in the first place, blah blah blah, you get the point. A de facto framework would be made by the interactions of the various corporations.

Flexibility is the exact opposite of stability.

2 seconds in google

You'll have to provide some examples then, because I'm not familiar with exactly what privatization has been undergone in England. We're more than a little egocentric when it comes to our history education lol.

The mosopony of the government can only reduce the cost of the medical supplies so much. Medical supplies really are expensive to produce, that's all there is to it. Sure they can cut into the profits to some degree with a hard bargain, but eventually they will either drive the suppliers out of business and be forced to nationalize that too if they want at cost medical supplies. If you're going to "drive down" prices anymore past that, to levels where healthcare is actually affordable to everyone, you have to subsidize, and you get the money from that by taxing more.

You know you are being a real prick right? If I felt you were actually explaining something in a way that I could understand it, or at least avoiding contradicting yourself about this whole government stability/flexibility bit maybe I could give you the benefit of the doubt about you being so infallible and me so naive. As it is, chill.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People cannot always recognize what is best for them.

We didn't exactly follow the crowd with the Constitution either....

That's a pretty weak argument considering that most countries now have a form of a Constitution but still haven't gone fully private with healthcare.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lol, of course they are. Everything is much more serene in a world without competition, it's just not as good..

It seems odd to me that you're using competition as the defense for your argument when that's exactly what's lacking in our healthcare market.  There are 5 major pharmaceutical companies, which behave in an oligopolistic/cartel manner.

When it comes to local markets in mid-size cities, competition is also scarce enough to keep prices much higher than in bigger cities when taking into account differences in average income.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Then so long as you recognize the inefficiencies presented by a socialized healthcare system and accept them on moral/ethical grounds, we are on the same page.

Agreed, but I think you underestimate how inefficient our own system is.

This will likely get buried, given the wall of text debates happening  but:

I see two problems with socialized health care above all others:
1) It's largely paid for by companies.  The additional expenses will result in creating the opportunity for more monopolies as smaller players have a larger hurdle to cover then a large company.  For example the "Make Work Pay" act Obama sign (google it) is an extreme pain in the ass.

2) I believe that socialized health care will tie the hands of the doctors.  What I'm afraid of: you will fill out a questionaire, and then the gov't denies service based on "X" or tells the doc what to do because other options are too expensive.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The government is more flexible in virtually every way. How can you say it isn't? They can change the rules, they can set the budgets, they can change every aspect of the framework the system works in - private companies just work with that framework, the government makes it. That is real flexibility.

The part of the government in the US that executes the law (the Executive Branch) does not make the law. It must follow the law that is created in the Legislative Branch...a branch that appears to be made of Rube Goldberg fanbois.

So the Executive Branch--the one that would be running the socialized health care system--has no flexibility when it comes to running the system. The most they could hope for is a change to the next fiscal year's laws...and hope is not a valid course of action.

That could be problematic. Clearly that wouldn't be as flexible within the constraints of that system.

I am relatively sure that your system is not very different than ours. I doubt any one person/committee/organization has complete control over decisions without serious checks by other parties in government.

As I said, two votes - one in the commons, one in the lords. On issues surrounding the NHS no one opposes the votes, because it makes them look bad, because everyone wants to be seen to be doing the right thing by the NHS.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

If you're so stupid you can't see the obvious disadvantages to the healthcare system of it being a profit making system then I really can't help you.

It is so blatantly obvious that the company having no profit margin is beneficial to the consumer that I find it hilarious (much like the rest of your take on this) that you can't grasp why but instead focus on the ticking over of the machinations of the capitalist system - which is scarcely relevant, since that money would be spent in exactly the same way (or rather in ways that are more profitable to the government) by the consumers themselves. Why do you need health insurance companies making money? They're not exporting any goods or services and so are not bringing anything into the system. The only impact would be on taxation in this sector, the revenues from which would be lost. as well as if the companies are spending a higher proportion of their profits, rather than investing them - this is highly unlikely, as the shareholders are more likely to invest the money, whereas the consumers are more likely to spend the money, which of those is of more beneficial, eh?

The disadvantage is clear - you fail to see the trade off is the problem.

When there is no profit, there is no incentive to perform. If people are not rewarded for making the system more efficient, the system will not become more efficient. Putting healthcare completely in government hands is putting your faith in the integrity of people to do the right thing because it is right - to spend reasonably, to fire appropriately, to put their best foot forward with no appreciable difference in reward over doing the bare minimum. I doubt you are that naive.

The fact remains that companies don't just stockpile money for the sake of stockpiling money. It serves no one's best interest.

Because the trade off is so insignificant as to make no difference. People don't care about their employers profit levels. Equally, people do care about getting their job done right and keeping it and progressing through the system. As it is their are plenty of people working for the NHS (largest employer in London) getting reasonably paid and doing a good job. They're not neccessarily doing what they do because it is right, they are doing it because to be successful in their job is in their best interests. The same as in any other job.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

They are financial services companies. They will invest the money. Not put it into R&D, because that's not what they do, they sell insurance and invest the profits.

_{also referring to part of the quote above that touches on taxing health insurance companies}

Healthcare is not just health insurance. Maybe that's what you think of because that's who everyone has to work with when paying for healthcare, but it's just a form of investment. It is a byproduct, not an integral part of some level of private healthcare. As for the other aspects of healthcare that actually pertain to keeping people healthy, your argument does not apply. They will invest in capital.

It is just health insurance. That's all these companies are. They are big money shifting organisations, financiers, insurers - whatever. They don't provide the actual healthcare. They outsource. They outsource to hospitals many of whose main source of income is the government anyway - since they pay out 45% of the ~$2.3 trillion spent on healthcare in the US each year. Obviously that is completely out of line with per capita spending anywhere else in the world which highlights the extreme inefficiencies of the current system. The government currently spend as much per capita on healthcare as most countries with universal healthcare schemes. Why do you need insurance companies as well? Just manage the money better.

Obviously from looking at the figures the American healthcare system is rubbish and absurdly inefficient which has driven healthcare costs up outrageously and continues to do so - look at the projections for future healthcare spending, the situation is only getting worse (at a much faster rate than in the rest of the world on universal government run systems). You might SAY all this drivel about privatised healthcare being more efficient and profit creating more drive to succeed - all the FACTS tell a very different story.

You pay more for healthcare than anywhere else, probably twice as much on average. Yet you get a worse overall quality of service. But you continue to claim your system is the more efficient - which I suppose is why the US is the only major Western nation using anything remotely resembling it.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

So it all boils down to the question of whether you think the government are so much more corrupt and incompetent than big financial corporations. Personally I would be surprised if they are, given the track record for such corporations.

You miss the point. A government does not have to be corrupt, but the only way to avoid that is placing heavy restrictions on how much power one person has. The problem is while a corporation is working for its own money, in a government you have a lot of people handling other peoples' money. It's in a corporations best interest to make sure none of its money is disappearing, but in government the incentive is not for the government directly to check, but for the people to check. Because the people as a whole aren't in a position to be an effective watchdog (though the media is important) the people have to demand strict procedures and checks of power. This inevitably leads to red tape. Of course you want to meet somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, but the problems of a corporation are inherently different.

Of course governments don't have to be corrupt. It's in a governments best interest to make sure none of their money is disappearing. The government are responsible to the voters and the corporations are responsible to their shareholders. If you think the same sort of red tape proceedures aren't in place in big businesses you need to think again. If you think shareholders are any better at keeping an eye on a complex financial business than the voters (or rather the media, as you so astutely pointed out) are at keeping an eye on the government, then you're fooling yourself.

In government your direct superior's paycheck doesn't depend so much on how well you specifically perform. In business every single person along the chain is more likely to pay attention to the people below them than in government.

Nor does it in big business. Like with these medical insurers.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Of course big business is bulky compared to small businesses, but at least they have incentive to pare down the excess. You are more likely to lose votes in government by cutting everyone's jobs than handing more out.

How is that relevant? Are you saying it's a good thing to cut the essential healthcare workforce?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

As for the "track record"...there have been a few recent incidents it's true, and the perpetrators are rank up there for the biggest assholes on the planet without a doubt. Still, the number of these cases relative to the number of huge corporations is tiny.

Not at all. Particularly in the financial sector which is where these companies are. You really see the financial sector as being competent, uncorrupt and stable? I don't share your confidence in it.

Besides the obvious bias because we happen to be going through this right now...

What happened happened because of pure incompetence. If we were in a free market the incompetent would have been allowed to fail. It's stupid to blame evolution when you are nursing those unfit to survive.

I was primarily referring to Enron-type bullshit and ponzi schemes, there is corruption you should be pointing out. Still, it happens, but it does not happen very often and I doubt as often as in government.

What happened, which routinely happens, is that major financial institutions made a complete mess of things by acting irresponsibly (all fueled by greed of course - which you seem to believe is the only thing that makes stuff work efficiently) and had to be bailed out to avoid the devastating consequences for consumers - because these financial instutions run on having a good deal of fiscal stability, if they don't then everything screws up. These are the people governing your healthcare system.

I hardly regard Enron type schemes as relevant to this - so no, I shouldn't be bringing them up. That's totally the wrong way of looking at it.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1) That's a monopoly. I don't understand why you guys find this a huge fault in the free market, then plead the government to become one.

2) In order to make any decision there is a very long process that has to be undertaken. It's a product of the huge potential for corruption in the government. In a free market corporations would make the framework as well, or at least the framework they are forced to work in is identical to or smaller than the one government would have to set up for itself anyways.

Every corporation is essentially a monarchy or oligarchy...I don't understand how you can't see how this is more nimble than any Western government.

1) It's not a monopoly if there is competition. Virtually all countries that have nationalised health services also have private healthcare available. Canada being the notable exception.

2) "In a free market corporations would make the framework as well" - is utter nonsense. You have laws defined by companies now? I knew lobbying was big in Washington, but wow.

Corporations have to work within the framework, governments make the framework. A vote or two later and something can be totally changed. Governments also have more resources available to them and typically have more stability than your average financial institution. These things, amongst others, give governments more flexibility.

I live in a country where I've had the opportunity to see what happens when you privatise everything. In Britain countless services have been privatised. In most instances it has been an absolute disaster. The only real success story of the hundreds of privatisation deals brought in under Thatcher is that of BT. In most cases there are big, big problems. I can think of countless examples.

Also, your response to Turq about government monopolies driving down prices is laughable. It's totally unrelated to higher taxation and you can't have a very good grasp of how these economic models work if you think otherwise - what it is related to is profit and the lack of it. A concept that you don't seem to understand as being good for the consumer, which it is.

1) In your example you described a monopoly. If you don't want it to be a monopoly now, you have to give up your alleged unlimited freedom and flexibility.

Bollocks I did. Where? What example? Banning private healthcare is very different to providing universal healthcare.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

2) There need not be any but the most basic of consumer protection laws. You don't need a law saying if x company has an abnormally high rate of deaths, you should go somewhere else. Of course we don't want anyone dying in the first place, blah blah blah, you get the point. A de facto framework would be made by the interactions of the various corporations.

Flexibility is the exact opposite of stability.

2 seconds in google

FINANCIAL STABILITY! Take it in context man!

Financial stability provides flexibility. Governments provide more financial stability than anyone else.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You'll have to provide some examples then, because I'm not familiar with exactly what privatization has been undergone in England. We're more than a little egocentric when it comes to our history education lol.

Rail services, where fares have risen vastly out of line with inflation despite falling standards.

Postal services, where prices have risen out of line with inflation and services are worse than they were.

There are many more examples. Thatcher privatised virtually everything.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The mosopony of the government can only reduce the cost of the medical supplies so much. Medical supplies really are expensive to produce, that's all there is to it. Sure they can cut into the profits to some degree with a hard bargain, but eventually they will either drive the suppliers out of business and be forced to nationalize that too if they want at cost medical supplies. If you're going to "drive down" prices anymore past that, to levels where healthcare is actually affordable to everyone, you have to subsidize, and you get the money from that by taxing more.

You know you are being a real prick right? If I felt you were actually explaining something in a way that I could understand it, or at least avoiding contradicting yourself about this whole government stability/flexibility bit maybe I could give you the benefit of the doubt about you being so infallible and me so naive. As it is, chill.

You know you're being a real moron right?

You seem incapable of grasping the most basic concepts and keep arguing against all the statistical data there is. You have NOTHING to support your argument.

Bertster7 wrote:

Pug wrote:

This will likely get buried, given the wall of text debates happening  but:

I see two problems with socialized health care above all others:
1) It's largely paid for by companies.  The additional expenses will result in creating the opportunity for more monopolies as smaller players have a larger hurdle to cover then a large company.  For example the "Make Work Pay" act Obama sign (google it) is an extreme pain in the ass.

2) I believe that socialized health care will tie the hands of the doctors.  What I'm afraid of: you will fill out a questionaire, and then the gov't denies service based on "X" or tells the doc what to do because other options are too expensive.

1) No it isn't. Where do you get that from?

2) It doesn't anywhere that uses it, which is - oh yes, every developed nation outside the US.

Don't get upset.  I'm just telling you what I believe & heard.

On #1 - google "Make Work Pay" - re: COBRA payments.  Indirectly shows what Obama believes in doing...

On #2 - I've seen stories from the UK about people denied the best healthcare because of cost, and also about monsterously long waits.  I understand that is part of the game.