Healthcare: Not a Human Right

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Food, air, water - not "basic human entitlements"....

I'm just wondering if anyone here can provide a justification as to why health care should be a "human right". Disregard all of the rhetoric of good intentions and explain why the government should legally provide healthcare to everyone?

From a legal and perhaps economical standpoint please and not from an ethical standpoint.

Thank you.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1017/p09s01-coop.html



The way to better, cheaper healthcare: Don't make it a human right
By Donald J. Boudreaux
FAIRFAX, VA.

Everyone complains about the rising cost of healthcare. And now is the season when politicians and pundits propose solutions. Unfortunately, too many of these proposals spring from the wrongheaded notion that healthcare is, as a recent New York Times letter-writer asserted, "a human right and a universal entitlement."

Sounds noble. But not everything that is highly desirable is a right. Most rights simply oblige us to respect one another's freedoms; they do not oblige us to pay for others to exercise these freedoms. Respecting rights such as freedom of speech and of worship does not impose huge demands upon taxpayers.

Healthcare, although highly desirable, differs fundamentally from these rights. Because providing healthcare takes scarce resources, offering it free at the point of delivery would raise its cost and reduce its availability.

To see why, imagine if government tried to supply food as a universally available "right."

To satisfy this right, government would raise taxes to meet all anticipated food needs. Store shelves across the land would then be stocked. Citizens would have the right to enter these storehouses to get "free" food.

Does anyone believe that such a system would effectively supply food? It's clear that with free access to food, too many people would take too much food, leaving many others with no food at all. Government would soon realize that food storehouses are emptying faster than expected. In response, it might hike taxes even higher to produce more food - raising the price that society pays for nutrition.

Stocking stores with more food, though, won't solve the problem. With food free at the point of delivery, consumers would take all that they can carry. People would quickly learn that if they don't grab as much food as possible today, the store might run out of the foods that their families need tomorrow. This creates a vicious cycle of moral hazard that unwittingly pits neighbor against neighbor.

Eventually, to avoid spending impossibly large chunks of society's resources producing food, government would start restricting access to it. Bureaucrats would enforce rations, such as "two gallons of milk per family per week." There might be exceptions for those with special needs, but most of us would be allowed to take only those foods that officials decide we need.

Food would be a universal entitlement in name only. In practice, it would be strictly limited by government rules.

Of course, by keeping what food it does supply "free," government might ensure that at least basic foodstuffs are available to everyone as a right. And maybe this is the sort of outcome that universal healthcare advocates have in mind: Only essential care is a right to be enjoyed by everyone free of charge.

The problem is that notions of "essential care" are vague. Is medical care essential if doctors say it might improve by 50 percent an 80-year-old's chances of living an additional year? What about care that improves by 10 percent a 25-year-old's chances of living an additional 50 years? Such questions are wickedly difficult to answer.

Despite these difficulties, many Americans demand that government do more to guarantee access to healthcare. Although their concern is understandable, those who make such demands forget that government intervention itself is a major cause of today's high and rising healthcare costs. Indeed, this intervention has created a situation akin to what would happen if government supplied our food for "free."

Medicare, Medicaid, and tax-deductibility of employer-provided health insurance created a system in which patients at the point of delivery now pay only a small fraction of their medical bills out of pocket.

This situation leads to monstrously inefficient consumption of healthcare. Some people consume too much, while many others with more pressing needs do without.

Because the wasteful consumption caused by heavily subsidized access drives up healthcare costs, taxpayers must pay more and more to fund Medicare and Medicaid, while private insurers must continually raise premiums. The sad and perverse result is that increasing numbers of people go without health insurance.

The solution is less, not more, government involvement in healthcare. Market forces have consistently lowered the cost and improved the quality and accessibility of food - which is at least as important to human survival as is healthcare. There's no reason markets can't do the same for healthcare.

It's ironic but true: Only by abandoning attempts to provide healthcare as a "right" that's paid for largely by others will we enjoy surer access to it.

[bezdomni]

Why does the government provide education to citizens? Because that way you don't have a bunch of illiterate idiots unable to contribute anything to society.

Why should the government provide healthcare? That way you don't have a bunch of sick people unable to contribute anything to society.

Anyway, doesn't it bother you that people die from easily prevented illness because they weren't able to afford healthcare? This isn't a movement to create a "welfare state" for the unemployed, but these are people who work two jobs 80+ hours a week.

Healthcare is fucking expensive in the US, and insurance is ridiculous.

How can you justify NOT having socialized healthcare, even in an otherwise capitalist country?

Logically, if you reject public healthcare, you should also reject public education.

Cuba's socialized healthcare system is better than the privatized one in the US. It is empirically workable.

Anyway, I'd rather wait in line for healthcare than get nothing at all.

[black magick hustla]

human rights are not inherent to society.

they are won through violence or atleast, the threat of imminent violence.

[colonelguppy]

you can't provide evidence for any "human right". thats why pragmatism rules.

[colonelguppy]

Healthcare is fucking expensive in the US, and insurance is ridiculous.

you know there are ways to fix that without nationalizing the whole industry


How can you justify NOT having socialized healthcare, even in an otherwise capitalist country?

because its not the best system.


Anyway, doesn't it bother you that people die from easily prevented illness because they weren't able to afford healthcare?

no in the same way it doesn't bother me that people die in accidents or other ways that happen as a result from day to day life.



Logically, if you reject public healthcare, you should also reject public education.

well yeah


Cuba's socialized healthcare system is better than the privatized one in the US. It is empirically workable.

no it isn't

[apathy maybe]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/dev/index...showtopic=57657 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/dev/index.php?showtopic=57657)
Healthcare not a human right.
This is an interesting point. It also shows an obvious difference in opinion on how humans would operate. I think that if food were free, people would not horde it, people would take what they needed, in the knowledge that they could wander down to the warehouse at any time and get more. Just like they do now. Yes some people might horde large quantities of food, but we see that today in the capitalist system, nuts, survivalists and people living a fair distance from shops or major centres all horde food. Does it cause a problem for the system? No.

Similarly, only nuts, survivalists and people living away from major centres or food distribution points will horde food if it is free. The vicious cycle proposed by the author is obviously not correct.



Originally posted by article+--> (article)Does anyone believe that such a system would effectively supply food? It's clear that with free access to food, too many people would take too much food, leaving many others with no food at all. Government would soon realize that food storehouses are emptying faster than expected. In response, it might hike taxes even higher to produce more food - raising the price that society pays for nutrition.[/b]Here we have the problem. As I said above, people will not take too much food. There would be no point, people would rapidly realise that the food they horde is not being eaten and that food continues to be free. They will stop hoarding. Food storehouses will thus not empty faster then expected (except perhaps initially), taxes will not then have to be raised etc. The fundamental flaw in this argument is the premise that people will horde. If it is available for free, why will people hoard? People (and other animals) only hoard in scarcity situations.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Stocking stores with more food, though, won't solve the problem. With food free at the point of delivery, consumers would take all that they can carry. People would quickly learn that if they don't grab as much food as possible today, the store might run out of the foods that their families need tomorrow. This creates a vicious cycle of moral hazard that unwittingly pits neighbor against neighbor.Etc. Crap basically. The stores would not run out of food, people will not take as much as they could carry. See above for more info.




colonelguppy
you can't provide evidence for any "human right". thats why pragmatism rules.I actually have some hope for you. You might yet turn away from the 'dark-side'. Yes the concept of natural rights is a completely flawed one. That is why capitalism is a load of shit. The idea of a 'right' is more an ideal. It would be ideal if ... Capitalism does not do that though.

(And I can't be bothered responding to the rest of your 'points'.

(Please note: I'm an anarchist, I don't think the government should exist at all, let alone run around regulating people's lives or providing free healthcare. My position is just as valid, if not more so then the statist of any stripe.)

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 22, 2006 08:54 pm
From a legal and perhaps economical standpoint please and not from an ethical standpoint.
Its your job to find semantics in the law that require something or entitle someone to something, not ours. The simple fact of the matter is we dont care about your current laws.

[Trent Steele]

From a pure, capitalist, Austrian school of economics point of view, healthcare and education should be provided either free or at a greatly reduced cost.

Both healthcare and educatino are merit goods, they contribute both to the individual who is receiving the service and to society as a whole. A well educated, healthy workforce will mean a better society for everyone, not just a happier life for those who receive the services.

This means that a consumer will not spend as much as they should on healthcare or education, becuase they only take into account the benefit to themselves, and not to society (I'm working with all the silly assumptions made by the Austrian school, including that consumers have perfect knowledge of the product that they buy). This means that they will not purchase as much of the education/healthcare as would provide maximum benefit to society.

Free or reduced cost healthcare/education means that consumers will use them more, meaning that society can receive the maximum benefit from them, which it would not do if healthcare/education was provided by non-subsidised, privately owned businesses.

Add to this that most people simply cannot afford to purchase heathcare or education at free market prices, however much they want to, and you have a solid economic case for public sector provision of healthcare and education.

[t_wolves_fan]

Rights are not "things", like health care services, that can be given. Rights are activities that individuals or groups choose to do themselves for their own purposes.

For instance, people have the right to speak, to assemble, to petition the government, to operate a press, to practice religion, etc.

Things given by society or the government are entitlements. Entitlements are not rights, because things given by the government can be taken away.

There is also a huge problem in deciding that an entitlement is a right. Since government provides entitlements, equating the two means your "right" is to be provided to you in a way decided not by you but by the government. This is problematic because government cannot provide an entitlement in a way that satisfies everyone. When it comes to health care, do you want people claiming that cosmetic plastic surgery is health care therefore they have a "right" to it? Hell no.

These things being the case,


Add to this that most people simply cannot afford to purchase heathcare or education at free market prices, however much they want to, and you have a solid economic case for public sector provision of healthcare and education.

This is rapidly becoming true. Our health care system is poorly constructed because it forces everyone to pay for the often unneccesary consumption of high-cost health care services by everyone else. Higher prices forced onto the risk pool = higher costs for the risk pool = fewer people can afford to belong to the risk pool = higher costs for remaining members.

The question is, can or should government replace this system? I would argue not, because as another poster pointed out, once it's "free" at the point of service demand will skyrocket because people will have no incentive to consider the costs of the service provided to them. The solution seems to be to put consumers in control by showing them the price of the service they want and making them partially responsible for the cost of that service. The fact is, many medical services provided to patients today are totally unneccessary which leads to increased costs. I advise you to not argue with me on this point, as my spouse is a healthcare provider.

What government should do is help those who cannot afford care because it is true that society does benefit when people are as healthy as possible.

[KC]

Rights are nonexistent.

[Sadena Meti]

Calculate the cost of healthcare in the USA. (A)
Add up the profits of insurance companies, medical technology companies, hospitals, and the pharmaceutical industry. (B)
Add up price markups, over billing, etc. ( C)
Nationalize the above.

Subtract (B+C) from A. Final Cost 550 Billion. Final per person cost $1833. Utterly manageable, 4% of the US GDP. We spend that much on defense a year.

Cost of free healthcare in the US = 4¢ on the dollar.


Hmm... defense vs. healthcare. The last time the US was invaded was... 194 years ago. The last time someone died from an illness was... 6 seconds ago.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

That way you don't have a bunch of sick people unable to contribute anything to society.

But, we have plenty of healthCARE in this country.


Anyway, doesn't it bother you that people die from easily prevented illness because they weren't able to afford healthcare?

Do you have any evidence of this occuring in the USA?

[Guerrilla22]

This article is typical ignorance perpetuated by capitalism driven Americans who, for some reason believe that healthcare in the US is the best in the world. Unfortunately studies done by experts in the field, specifically the World Health Organization, have found this not to be the case. In fact in their 2000 report, in which they ranked every healthcare system in the world by country, the US came in at 37, just three spots above Cuba. France, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, all of which have socialized health care systems were at the top.

So maybe if you don't believe that it is the inherent duty of a government to take care of those which it governs over, which includes providing healthcare, maybe you should be in favoe of socialized medicine, because socialized healthcare systems are simply much better!

[/QUOTE]But, we have plenty of healthCARE in this country.[QUOTE]
For those who can afford it. 46% of the country's population doesn't have healthcare, look it up.

[Ol' Dirty]

Food, air, water - not "basic human entitlements"....

It's okay for you to be stupid, but really, must you be millitant about it? :huh:

Under the laws of evolution, yes, you would be correct. We do all need to work for our food; if we don't deserve it, we don't get it. This is how things would work (if we were non-social, non-lingual beings). Case closed.

Yet you completely ignore the fact that we live in a thing called society. We have evolved past the hunter-gatherer individualist lifestyle (and I'm bloody well thankfull for it.) We can abbandon the "no pain, no gain" attitude towards life that we have (or, at least, minimize its effectiveness) by simply sharing.

Besides, "rights" are constructs of the human imagination, nothing more that concepts, really. Still, in society, we do have "rights" that are entitled upon us by the ruling body (e.g. the bourgoise, hopefully soon to be the proletariat).

The same goes for health care. :)


I'm just wondering if anyone here can provide a justification as to why health care should be a "human right". Disregard all of the rhetoric of good intentions and explain why the government should legally provide healthcare to everyone?

If this "government" is truly democratic (literaly, by the people), it would be in its best intrest to do so.

[colonelguppy]

This is rapidly becoming true. Our health care system is poorly constructed because it forces everyone to pay for the often unneccesary consumption of high-cost health care services by everyone else. Higher prices forced onto the risk pool = higher costs for the risk pool = fewer people can afford to belong to the risk pool = higher costs for remaining members.

The question is, can or should government replace this system? I would argue not, because as another poster pointed out, once it's "free" at the point of service demand will skyrocket because people will have no incentive to consider the costs of the service provided to them. The solution seems to be to put consumers in control by showing them the price of the service they want and making them partially responsible for the cost of that service. The fact is, many medical services provided to patients today are totally unneccessary which leads to increased costs. I advise you to not argue with me on this point, as my spouse is a healthcare provider.

What government should do is help those who cannot afford care because it is true that society does benefit when people are as healthy as possible.

i think we should just make the industry more competitive and probably do something to lower insurance fees, say tort reform and medical malpractice suit reform.

[Demogorgon]

Because a government's job is to make the country it governs as strong and well off as possible. (In theory anyway). Part of that is to have the healthiest population possible. That can only be achieved through universal healthcare.

[KC]

(In theory anyway)

You mean in rhetoric.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 05:50 pm
Because a government's job is to make the country it governs as strong and well off as possible. (In theory anyway). Part of that is to have the healthiest population possible. That can only be achieved through universal healthcare.
Some would say it's government's job to protect people and that's about it.

You run into a lot of problems when you start saying government needs to do more for people. You understand that, right?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 04:16 pm
maybe you should be in favoe of socialized medicine, because socialized healthcare systems are simply much better!


I can see a specialist in about 2 weeks tops. In a socialized system I'm going to wait months.

Explain why that's better for me.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 05:48 pm
i think we should just make the industry more competitive and probably do something to lower insurance fees, say tort reform and medical malpractice suit reform.
It's much more systemic than that.

Right now, if you need to visit a specialist you don't even know which specialist costs more or is of better quality, do you? Because all you have is your co-pay and your deductible and that's pretty much it.

Health care needs to be separated from employment, and needs to be made much more transparent.

I kind of like what they're attempting in Mass. It'll be interesting to see how it works, because I think a public-private partnership is the way to go.

[colonelguppy]

you don't know how much your doctor charges? i always look at the insurance report that my carrier sends me.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 08:25 pm
you don't know how much your doctor charges? i always look at the insurance report that my carrier sends me.
But that's after the fact.

[colonelguppy]

oh i see what you're saying

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 23, 2006 06:27 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 23, 2006 06:27 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2006 05:50 pm
Because a government's job is to make the country it governs as strong and well off as possible. (In theory anyway). Part of that is to have the healthiest population possible. That can only be achieved through universal healthcare.
Some would say it's government's job to protect people and that's about it.

You run into a lot of problems when you start saying government needs to do more for people. You understand that, right? [/b]
And you run into many more problems when you wish to pick and choose what the governt should protect people from. If it's their to protect us sure, what about protecting us from ill health?

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 23, 2006 06:29 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 23, 2006 06:29 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2006 04:16 pm
maybe you should be in favoe of socialized medicine, because socialized healthcare systems are simply much better!


I can see a specialist in about 2 weeks tops. In a socialized system I'm going to wait months.

Explain why that's better for me. [/b]
If I was millionaire I could be flown in my private Jet to the Mayo clinic in the snap of my finger if anything ever went wrong.

You arent going to convince any of us that privatization is the way to go by saying that somebody like you, (im assuming) a well-to-do middle class white man has no problem seeing a medical specialists. Our concern is much broader, the inequality of medical care.

Have you ever dealt with socialized healthcare at any time, mate. You know that Canada has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the good ol' US of A., and the much-hated Cuba has the same life expectancy and a lower infant mortality rate than the US by a considerable margin, right?


Sidenote: colonelpuppy, could you please capitalize your sentences if you don't mind? Just a personal thing :wub:

[colonelguppy]

nEVER

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 09:39 pm
nEVER
:(

[Cryotank Screams]

So basically your saying;

Healthcare: Right of the rich!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 09:31 pm
And you run into many more problems when you wish to pick and choose what the governt should protect people from. If it's their to protect us sure, what about protecting us from ill health?
You didn't answer my question.

Do you understand that the more you expect government to provide, the more problems you're going to have with providing that assistance?

Do you understand why that is?

[t_wolves_fan]

You arent going to convince any of us that privatization is the way to go by saying that somebody like you, (im assuming) a well-to-do middle class white man has no problem seeing a medical specialists. Our concern is much broader, the inequality of medical care.

How do you intend to provide equal healthcare, specifically?


Have you ever dealt with socialized healthcare at any time, mate. You know that Canada has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the good ol' US of A., and the much-hated Cuba has the same life expectancy and a lower infant mortality rate than the US by a considerable margin, right?

I have no experience with it, but I know the empirical data of which you speak, which is why it's an interesting idea. These things being the case, I'd rather we provided assistance only for those who need it without causing me to wait weeks or months to see a specialist as happens in socialized systems due to rationing.

Our system is much more expensive for one main reason: for those of us who can afford it, it's far superior to the socialized model because we get high-tech care right away instead of having it rationed to us in the name of equality. The problem with that is that we overconsume these high-tech services which drives up the price. A middle ground has to be found where, if we want the best right now and can pay for it, we should get it. Those who cannot afford the best right now should get the best possible care as soon as possible for the very reasons that socialized medicine is successful.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 24, 2006 01:31 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 24, 2006 01:31 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2006 09:31 pm
And you run into many more problems when you wish to pick and choose what the governt should protect people from. If it's their to protect us sure, what about protecting us from ill health?
You didn't answer my question.

Do you understand that the more you expect government to provide, the more problems you're going to have with providing that assistance?

Do you understand why that is? [/b]
That sounds more like dogma than fact to me. What do you expect me to say to this? There is no factual evidence to back this up.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 03:04 pm
That sounds more like dogma than fact to me. What do you expect me to say to this? There is no factual evidence to back this up.
:lol:

How about this: I manage the spending of millions of government dollars, so I'm going to have to ask that you take my word for it.

This is simple fact: the more you want government to be involved in people's lives, the more you have to figure out how to make it work. That means involving more people and their opinions of right & wrong, fair & unfair.

Take healthcare. How do you protect people from ill health considering ill health is often self-inflicted? Do you ban smoking? Do you ban junk food? Do you force people to work out? How do you allocate resources given different diseases affect different people differently? How do you manage the fact that many people form tight personal bonds with their doctors?

European countries and Canada have done well with socialized medicine, but there are still problems with it, and they're getting more severe as people live longer (it's more expensive to treat the elderly) and get fatter.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 24, 2006 03:21 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 24, 2006 03:21 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2006 03:04 pm
That sounds more like dogma than fact to me. What do you expect me to say to this? There is no factual evidence to back this up.
:lol:

How about this: I manage the spending of millions of government dollars, so I'm going to have to ask that you take my word for it.

This is simple fact: the more you want government to be involved in people's lives, the more you have to figure out how to make it work. That means involving more people and their opinions of right & wrong, fair & unfair.

Take healthcare. How do you protect people from ill health considering ill health is often self-inflicted? Do you ban smoking? Do you ban junk food? Do you force people to work out? How do you allocate resources given different diseases affect different people differently? How do you manage the fact that many people form tight personal bonds with their doctors?

European countries and Canada have done well with socialized medicine, but there are still problems with it, and they're getting more severe as people live longer (it's more expensive to treat the elderly) and get fatter. [/b]
Do you think in the private sector all these difficulties and problems suddenly vanish? Do you think the private sector is immune from the beureaucratic difficulties associated wth government spending?

I do not pretend the government can get involved in everytrhing, indeed it would not be desirable to do so, I see the ideal world as being one where most goods and services are supplied by social co-operatives, but there are certain industries where government provision is either vital or vvery much for the best. These include electricity provision, road building and management, education and healthcare.

The irony of claiming privitised healthcare is somehow more efficient due to it's lack of government involvement, it is in fact still going to have huge levels of government involvement anyway, as it is not the form of industry a government can simply leave to it's own devices. You are not going to avoid any of the problems you mention by privitising healthcare. Nor in the case of America would many new problems arise by nationalising it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 03:52 pm

Do you think in the private sector all these difficulties and problems suddenly vanish? Do you think the private sector is immune from the beureaucratic difficulties associated wth government spending?

I do not pretend the government can get involved in everytrhing, indeed it would not be desirable to do so, I see the ideal world as being one where most goods and services are supplied by social co-operatives, but there are certain industries where government provision is either vital or vvery much for the best. These include electricity provision, road building and management, education and healthcare.

The irony of claiming privitised healthcare is somehow more efficient due to it's lack of government involvement, it is in fact still going to have huge levels of government involvement anyway, as it is not the form of industry a government can simply leave to it's own devices. You are not going to avoid any of the problems you mention by privitising healthcare. Nor in the case of America would many new problems arise by nationalising it.
You know, on this issue we are much closer in agreement than we probably are on a lot of other issues.

No, these issues do not magically disappear if the system is privatized. And no, I do not believe the healthcare system can or should be totally privatized.

I do think drastic reform of the system that would include a different mix of privatization and government involvement would make a huge difference. Right now there are so many government paperwork requirements for any service that it's ridiculous.

Completely socializing medicine would create a lot of new headaches, trust me. The moment people find out they're going to have to wait 5 weeks for a specialist instead of the 3 days they wait now, there's going to be complete outrage.

I am also against socializing medicine at the federal level for one important reason: if the feds control it, it's incredibly difficult to change it. It's better that states be allowed to come up with their own systems because the states are our policy laboratories. Also, what works in New York probably will not work or is not necessary in Arkansas.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 04:31 pm

You know, on this issue we are much closer in agreement than we probably are on a lot of other issues.

No, these issues do not magically disappear if the system is privatized. And no, I do not believe the healthcare system can or should be totally privatized.

I do think drastic reform of the system that would include a different mix of privatization and government involvement would make a huge difference. Right now there are so many government paperwork requirements for any service that it's ridiculous.

Completely socializing medicine would create a lot of new headaches, trust me. The moment people find out they're going to have to wait 5 weeks for a specialist instead of the 3 days they wait now, there's going to be complete outrage.

I am also against socializing medicine at the federal level for one important reason: if the feds control it, it's incredibly difficult to change it. It's better that states be allowed to come up with their own systems because the states are our policy laboratories. Also, what works in New York probably will not work or is not necessary in Arkansas.
I am not America, so I won't pretend to know whether it should be federal run. Certainly I would have no problem with the states individually running their health care. I am not a fan of centralisation.

In this country (Scotland) healthcare is mostly nationalised. And no it is not perfect, but I do not see the problems you talk about, at least not to the extent you mention them. In many respects we are better off and in some areas are seen a lot faster than you are. Indeed, the main area where the Government only has minimal involvement-dentistry-is by far the worst aspect of our health system

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+October 24, 2006 05:10 pm--> (Demogorgon @ October 24, 2006 05:10 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2006 04:31 pm

You know, on this issue we are much closer in agreement than we probably are on a lot of other issues.

No, these issues do not magically disappear if the system is privatized. And no, I do not believe the healthcare system can or should be totally privatized.

I do think drastic reform of the system that would include a different mix of privatization and government involvement would make a huge difference. Right now there are so many government paperwork requirements for any service that it's ridiculous.

Completely socializing medicine would create a lot of new headaches, trust me. The moment people find out they're going to have to wait 5 weeks for a specialist instead of the 3 days they wait now, there's going to be complete outrage.

I am also against socializing medicine at the federal level for one important reason: if the feds control it, it's incredibly difficult to change it. It's better that states be allowed to come up with their own systems because the states are our policy laboratories. Also, what works in New York probably will not work or is not necessary in Arkansas.
I am not America, so I won't pretend to know whether it should be federal run. Certainly I would have no problem with the states individually running their health care. I am not a fan of centralisation.

In this country (Scotland) healthcare is mostly nationalised. And no it is not perfect, but I do not see the problems you talk about, at least not to the extent you mention them. In many respects we are better off and in some areas are seen a lot faster than you are. Indeed, the main area where the Government only has minimal involvement-dentistry-is by far the worst aspect of our health system [/b]
Well if it works, I'd be willing to take a look at it.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 22, 2006 08:54 pm
Food, air, water - not "basic human entitlements"....

I'm just wondering if anyone here can provide a justification as to why health care should be a "human right". Disregard all of the rhetoric of good intentions and explain why the government should legally provide healthcare to everyone?


Thank you.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1017/p09s01-coop.html



The way to better, cheaper healthcare: Don't make it a human right
By Donald J. Boudreaux
FAIRFAX, VA.

Everyone complains about the rising cost of healthcare. And now is the season when politicians and pundits propose solutions. Unfortunately, too many of these proposals spring from the wrongheaded notion that healthcare is, as a recent New York Times letter-writer asserted, "a human right and a universal entitlement."

Sounds noble. But not everything that is highly desirable is a right. Most rights simply oblige us to respect one another's freedoms; they do not oblige us to pay for others to exercise these freedoms. Respecting rights such as freedom of speech and of worship does not impose huge demands upon taxpayers.

Healthcare, although highly desirable, differs fundamentally from these rights. Because providing healthcare takes scarce resources, offering it free at the point of delivery would raise its cost and reduce its availability.

To see why, imagine if government tried to supply food as a universally available "right."

To satisfy this right, government would raise taxes to meet all anticipated food needs. Store shelves across the land would then be stocked. Citizens would have the right to enter these storehouses to get "free" food.

Does anyone believe that such a system would effectively supply food? It's clear that with free access to food, too many people would take too much food, leaving many others with no food at all. Government would soon realize that food storehouses are emptying faster than expected. In response, it might hike taxes even higher to produce more food - raising the price that society pays for nutrition.

Stocking stores with more food, though, won't solve the problem. With food free at the point of delivery, consumers would take all that they can carry. People would quickly learn that if they don't grab as much food as possible today, the store might run out of the foods that their families need tomorrow. This creates a vicious cycle of moral hazard that unwittingly pits neighbor against neighbor.

Eventually, to avoid spending impossibly large chunks of society's resources producing food, government would start restricting access to it. Bureaucrats would enforce rations, such as "two gallons of milk per family per week." There might be exceptions for those with special needs, but most of us would be allowed to take only those foods that officials decide we need.

Food would be a universal entitlement in name only. In practice, it would be strictly limited by government rules.

Of course, by keeping what food it does supply "free," government might ensure that at least basic foodstuffs are available to everyone as a right. And maybe this is the sort of outcome that universal healthcare advocates have in mind: Only essential care is a right to be enjoyed by everyone free of charge.

The problem is that notions of "essential care" are vague. Is medical care essential if doctors say it might improve by 50 percent an 80-year-old's chances of living an additional year? What about care that improves by 10 percent a 25-year-old's chances of living an additional 50 years? Such questions are wickedly difficult to answer.

Despite these difficulties, many Americans demand that government do more to guarantee access to healthcare. Although their concern is understandable, those who make such demands forget that government intervention itself is a major cause of today's high and rising healthcare costs. Indeed, this intervention has created a situation akin to what would happen if government supplied our food for "free."

Medicare, Medicaid, and tax-deductibility of employer-provided health insurance created a system in which patients at the point of delivery now pay only a small fraction of their medical bills out of pocket.

This situation leads to monstrously inefficient consumption of healthcare. Some people consume too much, while many others with more pressing needs do without.

Because the wasteful consumption caused by heavily subsidized access drives up healthcare costs, taxpayers must pay more and more to fund Medicare and Medicaid, while private insurers must continually raise premiums. The sad and perverse result is that increasing numbers of people go without health insurance.

The solution is less, not more, government involvement in healthcare. Market forces have consistently lowered the cost and improved the quality and accessibility of food - which is at least as important to human survival as is healthcare. There's no reason markets can't do the same for healthcare.

It's ironic but true: Only by abandoning attempts to provide healthcare as a "right" that's paid for largely by others will we enjoy surer access to it.
"From a legal and perhaps economical standpoint please and not from an ethical standpoint."

Ecomonic standpoint- SO I can come to work tomorrow and do a better job. Cause when Im sick shit isnt happening.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

no it isn't

Persons per doctor: Cuba 169, U.S. 421
Persons per hospital bed: Cuba 185, U.S. 303
Infant mortality rate: Cuba 5.8, U.S. 7.0

Sources: CIA factbook, UNICEF, World Development Indicators, (World Bank, 1997), "World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004," "Student Atlas of World Politics 4th Edition," Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 2000 & Encarta Encylopedia.

[Tungsten]

Soviet Pants

Why does the government provide education to citizens? Because that way you don't have a bunch of illiterate idiots unable to contribute anything to society.

Why should the government provide healthcare? That way you don't have a bunch of sick people unable to contribute anything to society.
How silly of people to think that someone other than the government should provide us with healthcare and education.

How can you justify NOT having socialized healthcare, even in an otherwise capitalist country?
Because it contridicts the idea that people should not be forced to provide others with good or services without their consent.

Cuba's socialized healthcare system is better than the privatized one in the US. It is empirically workable.
Define "better".

Anyway, I'd rather wait in line for healthcare than get nothing at all.
And I'd rather you had nothing at all than the government force me to foot the bill.

apathy maybe

This is an interesting point. It also shows an obvious difference in opinion on how humans would operate. I think that if food were free, people would not horde it, people would take what they needed, in the knowledge that they could wander down to the warehouse at any time and get more. Just like they do now. Yes some people might horde large quantities of food, but we see that today in the capitalist system, nuts, survivalists and people living a fair distance from shops or major centres all horde food. Does it cause a problem for the system? No.

Similarly, only nuts, survivalists and people living away from major centres or food distribution points will horde food if it is free. The vicious cycle proposed by the author is obviously not correct.
Anything "free" is going to be abused; it's a fact of life. In addition, your anaology is poor and it's focus is extremely range-of-the-moment. If food were free, there would be no incentive to produce it and less of it would be produced. There would not necessarily be enough to meet everyone's needs and the main producers might begin to horde.

The fundamental flaw in this argument is the premise that people will horde.
The fundemental flaw in yours is you think that a commodity can genuinely be provided free of charge. The only way you're going to get free goods is through slave labour.
rev-stoic

Calculate the cost of healthcare in the USA. (A)
Add up the profits of insurance companies, medical technology companies, hospitals, and the pharmaceutical industry. (B)
Add up price markups, over billing, etc. ( C)
Nationalize the above.

Subtract (B+C) from A. Final Cost 550 Billion. Final per person cost $1833. Utterly manageable, 4% of the US GDP.
And add the great big fuck-off bureaucratic system that will end up running it, as well as the inevitable health tourists etc. and it'll probably be double if not triple that.

If you want some healthcare advice, here- your government is obese and needs to go on a diet.

We spend that much on defense a year.

Cost of free healthcare in the US = 4¢ on the dollar.

Hmm... defense vs. healthcare. The last time the US was invaded was... 194 years ago.
I think the purpose of spending so much on defence is so that it remains that way.
Guerrilla22

In fact in their 2000 report, in which they ranked every healthcare system in the world by country, the US came in at 37, just three spots above Cuba. France, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, all of which have socialized health care systems were at the top.
Well of course they do. It's easy to run the best healthcare sytem in the world when you're legally entitled to force everyone in the entire country to be your customer.


Yet you completely ignore the fact that we live in a thing called society. We have evolved past the hunter-gatherer individualist lifestyle (and I'm bloody well thankfull for it.) We can abbandon the "no pain, no gain" attitude towards life that we have (or, at least, minimize its effectiveness) by simply sharing.
This is a common and facile argument used by socialists of all stripes- the belief that sharing = producing. Sharing is overrated- if we all pull our weight equally, there's no point to it. Imagine we were all sitting at a round table and each of us had a dollar, and everyone passes that dollar to the person to their right. Who's better off after this? No one.

If this "government" is truly democratic (literaly, by the people), it would be in its best intrest to do so.
Why, given my previous statement?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

If food were free, there would be no incentive to produce it and less of it would be produced.

Good point.

The communists keep dodging this question.

What's the incentive to do anything in a communist society?

Just for the "love of the work" itself? Right?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Dodging it? It's been answered so many times on this site alone that I can barely stand to see it asked again.

Search the forums.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 23, 2006 06:29 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 23, 2006 06:29 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2006 04:16 pm
maybe you should be in favoe of socialized medicine, because socialized healthcare systems are simply much better!


I can see a specialist in about 2 weeks tops. In a socialized system I'm going to wait months.

Explain why that's better for me. [/b]
Yet another myth, in many countries with socialized healthcare systems, there are more doctors per person than in the United States, such as the case in Cuba.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 01:47 pm
Rights are not "things", like health care services, that can be given. Rights are activities that individuals or groups choose to do themselves for their own purposes.

For instance, people have the right to speak, to assemble, to petition the government, to operate a press, to practice religion, etc.

Things given by society or the government are entitlements. Entitlements are not rights, because things given by the government can be taken away.
This is just semantics. You've created a definition of "right" that includes demands you feel necassary and excludes the demands of others. Not only is semantic wizardry worthless but you are also incorrect; the state can take away the right to free speech if it so wishes.

But you're almost there; a right does not exist as anything more than a definition, but where you say "Rights are activities that individuals or groups choose to do themselves for their own purposes" you're along the correct lines. The ability for the working class to secure free healthcare; to remove private ownership protected by the force of the state; would mean it is no longer what you call an "entitlement" and becomes what you call a "right," as no-one is there to take it away. This (and many other demands) can only be won through struggle.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+October 25, 2006 04:32 pm--> (Matty_UK @ October 25, 2006 04:32 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2006 01:47 pm
Rights are not "things", like health care services, that can be given. Rights are activities that individuals or groups choose to do themselves for their own purposes.

For instance, people have the right to speak, to assemble, to petition the government, to operate a press, to practice religion, etc.

Things given by society or the government are entitlements. Entitlements are not rights, because things given by the government can be taken away.
This is just semantics. You've created a definition of "right" that includes demands you feel necassary and excludes the demands of others. Not only is semantic wizardry worthless but you are also incorrect; the state can take away the right to free speech if it so wishes.

But you're almost there; a right does not exist as anything more than a definition, but where you say "Rights are activities that individuals or groups choose to do themselves for their own purposes" you're along the correct lines. The ability for the working class to secure free healthcare; to remove private ownership protected by the force of the state; would mean it is no longer what you call an "entitlement" and becomes what you call a "right," as no-one is there to take it away. This (and many other demands) can only be won through struggle. [/b]
This is an entirely semantic debate.

Of course government can violate the right to free speech, but it cannot "provide" it to you - only you can excercise such a right.

Transforming an entitlement into a right is dangerous, however, because it makes the individual entirely dependent upon government to excercise that right. Government may change his right based on the whims of those in power.

Now I know you're going to claim that someone's right to speak or own a firearm can be violated by the whims of those in power too, and that is correct but different for a subtle reason: I do not require any government intervention to excercise my right to speak or to worship or to own a gun, I can do it myself. That's not the case with the provision of health care.

There is also another subtle difference: it is quite easy to satisfy 99.9 percent of the population with regard to the "right to free speech": you get to stand in the park or on the sidewalk and talk, or you get to post stuff on the net. About the only real conflict is over libel, yelling fire in a theatre and pornography.

Can you say the same thing about health care? No, you can't. People are going to disagree on what is medically necessary, on what treatment they need, on how quickly they need to be seen, etc.

If society decides it is entitled to government-provided health care, so be it. But that's an entitlement, not a right.

[Guerrilla22]

[QUOTE]Well of course they do. It's easy to run the best healthcare sytem in the world when you're legally entitled to force everyone in the entire country to be your customer.[QUOTE]

So having the best healthcare system in the world and being able to have access to it for free is a bad idea because someone is not profiting immensely off of people's need for healthcare? Great argument.

[ichneumon]

once you spend 5hrs in a waiting room, only to be told to go die somewhere else because you're too poor to live, yes, you will understand. and may it happen sooner rather than later.

socialized healthcare clearly works. this is empirical evidence. what matters theory and rhetoric in the face of facts?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 07:26 pm
So having the best healthcare system in the world and being able to have access to it for free
It isn't free.

[t_wolves_fan]

once you spend 5hrs in a waiting room, only to be told to go die somewhere else because you're too poor to live, yes, you will understand. and may it happen sooner rather than later.

Except that it doesn't happen in the U.S.


socialized healthcare clearly works. this is empirical evidence. what matters theory and rhetoric in the face of facts?

I ask the same question about communism every day.

You are correct though that on an aggregate societal level, socialized medicine produces better results and is cheaper (because it's rationed). I'd rather have socialized medicine than what we have now, if I had to choose between the two. But I also think a mix of private and public insurance, if done right, would do even better.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 25, 2006 08:43 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 25, 2006 08:43 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2006 07:26 pm
So having the best healthcare system in the world and being able to have access to it for free
It isn't free. [/b]
Its paid for with tax money, last time I checked Americans pay taxes too, maybe not quite as much as Europeans, but they get a lot more return out of their tax dollars. The US government could easily provide healthcare for its citizens without raisng taxes, if it tweaked its budget. 450 billion annually for "defense"

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 25, 2006 08:43 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 25, 2006 08:43 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2006 07:26 pm
So having the best healthcare system in the world and being able to have access to it for free
It isn't free.
Its paid for with tax money,[/b]

Hence it is not free.


The US government could easily provide healthcare for its citizens without raisng taxes, if it tweaked its budget. 450 billion annually for "defense"

I'd rather the states did it, if anyone.

[Tungsten]

Guerrilla22

So having the best healthcare system in the world and being able to have access to it for free is a bad idea because someone is not profiting immensely off of people's need for healthcare? Great argument.
Nice try at skewing the argument into a debate about "profit", when I was talking about the issue of force.

[ichneumon]

Except that it doesn't happen in the U.S.

you live in a fantasy world. it most certainly DOES happen. it has happened to me more than once. if you have no insurance and no money, the ER will not treat you until you are on the absolute verge of death. nevermind that it would be cheaper and safer to, say, remove the tumor before it spreads. they don't have to treat you then, so they won't. i know people who sell their pain medications to junkies to pay for their chemotherpay. it happens every day - sickness and suffering lead to profit, so it will always exist under capitalism. the doctors have ZERO interest in preventive medicine or actual cures. that's not profitable. malaria kills 3,000 people EVERY DAY and we get billions spent on erectile dysfunction drugs. THAT is dysfunction. despite the existence of extreme drug resistance TB, which is 75% lethal in two weeks and total incurable, there are NO new antibiotics being developed. why? only poor people get those diseases. will that stop a global pandemic once it starts? not at all.

healthcare MUST be managed by the state in a global-socialist context because capitalism promotes and profits from the existence of disease and suffering. under capitalist healthcare, there is no incentive WHATSOEVER to end disease and suffering. we are LOSING the war against disease, on a global scale, and the american health care system is a part of this. we cannot tolerate the existence of endemic diseases within a population, because they evolve faster than we can invent drugs, not to mention that we have NO social mechanism to encourage the eradication of diseases. this is NOT about your fucking WALLET. it is about the future of the human race.

i'm a phd student in the disease ecology. i deal with this every day. it's a fact. providing free health care to every human being is far more important than building bombs or giant fences because of the very nature of the evolution of diseases. it is war, and the tide is turning in favor of the enemy, in no small part thanks to people like YOU.

[t_wolves_fan]

you live in a fantasy world. it most certainly DOES happen. it has happened to me more than once. if you have no insurance and no money, the ER will not treat you until you are on the absolute verge of death.

Assuming your anecdotal story is truthful, what the ER did was illegal and you should sue.


i'm a phd student in the disease ecology. i deal with this every day. it's a fact. providing free health care to every human being is far more important than building bombs or giant fences because of the very nature of the evolution of diseases. it is war, and the tide is turning in favor of the enemy, in no small part thanks to people like YOU.

If you're a student doesn't your school have health services?

Please don't pretend I'm a fan of our foreign policy.

[ichneumon]

people who can't afford lawyers can't sue. student health care doesn't deal with serious problems.


you are ignoring the point. diseases operates on a global scale. a system that create stratified levels of access to health care creates an evolutionary ladder that leads directly to more virulent diseases. privatized health care does not create the infrastructure needed to deal with global health issues, including pandemics.

furthermore, capitalism will never cure disease. capitalism allows for individuals to profit from human suffering, thus directly promulgating the continuance of suffering and disease.

when it was thought the iraqis were developing bioweapons, we went to war. when extreme drug resistance TB appeared in south africa, it didn't even make the evening news. i absolutely promise that XDRTB is a more serious threat to you than any amount of anthrax.

consider: you go to a meadow and find this pretty little flower, growing randomly throughout the field. it has a few bugs, but mostly it's healthy. so you mow down the field and plant just that flower. for a few months, la - a field full of flowers. then the bugs eat it down to the ground. nature in action.

the 7 billion human beings on this planet are just such a field of flowers. we have basically no generally useful antiviral drugs, and our industry and stupidity have created completely incurable bacterial and protozoal diseases.

in a private health care system, the rich get the medicine. this is not an effective way of preventing a pandemic - it would actually make it worse. imagine birdflu in the US. who gets the tamiflu? who will make the 20million doses and keep them on hand to GIVE AWAY just in case we need them? what infrastructure would deal with it? 20% of americans have inadequate healthcare and know for a cold hard fact that the USgov doesn't care if they live or die. what are they going to do? riot and burn.

what would have happened if SARS had broken out in compton, LA instead of toronto? see the difference?

the nature of disease demands a centralized response. worried about your rights? try getting TB in NYC. they will come to your house every day to see if you take your pills, and if you don't, they will tie you down and inject the medicine into you. and the ACLU won't touch your case with a ten foot pole.

what we need as a species is more important that what you want as an individual. period.

[t_wolves_fan]

people who can't afford lawyers can't sue.

Yes they can.


student health care doesn't deal with serious problems.

They often cover preventative care and can point you towards community resources that will help. Further, your state or local unit of government probably has a program to help.


you are ignoring the point.

No I'm not, I'm questioning your slogans.


diseases operates on a global scale.

Right, which is why it's up to the political process in other countries to do what is right, including to help fight disease and give assistance to those who cannot afford it. While I am not convinced that socialized medicine is the answer, I am also not opposed to government programs that help people like you (claim to be).

With regard to your field of flowers analogy, consider that we people are simply animals at the top of the food chain. Disease is population control, we're not going to overcome it.


what we need as a species is more important that what you want as an individual. period.

And I see you're arrogant enough to have appointed yourself grand ayatollah of deciding what people need.

[Tungsten]

What, another socialist delaring himself a spokesman for the masses? So what's new?

[ichneumon]

They often cover preventative care and can point you towards community resources that will help. Further, your state or local unit of government probably has a program to help.

type I insulin dependent diabetic without insurance. 1)preventive care for my problems would involve a retroactive abortion 2)there is no help. 3)you are advising me to rely on socialized medicine. in six months, i will have some limited medical coverage - at the moment i have only free doctor visits, which do not includes tests or drugs.

we are a community of scientists advising the human race on a course of action that might prevent a global die off. if you want to scream "commie" and stick your head in the sand, go ahead, you'll be in good company.


Right, which is why it's up to the political process in other countries to do what is right, including to help fight disease and give assistance to those who cannot afford it. While I am not convinced that socialized medicine is the answer, I am also not opposed to government programs that help people like you (claim to be).

address the point, please - privatized health care allows individuals to profit from human suffering and disease and thus promulgates the spread of disease and evolution of new, more virulent strains. diseases do not care about class boundaries or political borders. only a global centralized approach has a chance to curb the evolution of new plagues. the US has no mechanism for dealing with an epidemic, and no means of developing one. we lack the infrastructure because we depend on profit motive to provide health care, and there's no money in *preventing* a plague.

[t_wolves_fan]

type I insulin dependent diabetic without insurance. 1)preventive care for my problems would involve a retroactive abortion 2)there is no help. 3)you are advising me to rely on socialized medicine. in six months, i will have some limited medical coverage - at the moment i have only free doctor visits, which do not includes tests or drugs.

I am sorry for your health problems. And yes, I have no problem recommending that you rely on a partially-socialized system that I wish were more effective in helping you and people like you.

Please remember: I do not favor complete privatization of health care.


we are a community of scientists advising the human race on a course of action that might prevent a global die off. if you want to scream "commie" and stick your head in the sand, go ahead, you'll be in good company.

You know what's ironic? When I argue with religious loons and other conservative typies, I'm the one who gets labelled a soulless technocrat.

Here is the problem. Why I do not doubt your scientific expertise nor your motivation to rid the world of disease, your status as a scientist doesn't make you an expert in devising governmental policies to fight diseases, in fact it can make you just the opposite. Plenty of research into public policy has shown that while experts like yourself can and should play a role in formulating policy, folks like you tend to completely lack any comprehension of how difficult, expensive or inefficient it would be to implement the policies you folks tend to advocate. I know that these problems mean little to you when it means people's lives and is centered on an issue with which you deal personally.


address the point, please - privatized health care allows individuals to profit from human suffering and disease and thus promulgates the spread of disease and evolution of new, more virulent strains.

But diseases develop new, more virulent strains regardless of whether our health care system is socialized or privatized. Your statement here seems to rest on the proposition that drug companies create diseases in order to supply a steady stream of customers, which is absurd. It also ignores the fact that from a purely capitalist perspective, a dead customer is no customer at all; therefore a laissez-faire capitalist would tell you that capitalism provides an incentive for drug companies to seek ways to reduce the cost of their product so as to reach more paying customers (innovation), while socialized health care would seek to provide equal benefits and must reduce quality in order to ration care equally since the resources do not exist to provide everyone the highest-quality care.


diseases do not care about class boundaries or political borders. only a global centralized approach has a chance to curb the evolution of new plagues. the US has no mechanism for dealing with an epidemic, and no means of developing one. we lack the infrastructure because we depend on profit motive to provide health care, and there's no money in *preventing* a plague.

Actually, and you should know this, many countries collaborate on such health issues. In the United States the CDC works with other nations to track communicable diseases. We are well aware of outbreaks in other countries that may be spread here.

Second, with regard to prevention, we have such a system in place now using a mix of government and the private sector. The United States government is providing money to states and local governments to stockpile vaccinations and create response plans to outbreaks. Local and state governments purchase these supplies from private companies, and because there is competition among companies along with volume discounts, the governments get a decent price for these supplies. So while you are correct that a purely private system probably would not provide prevention measures because of lack of profit, this system works for political organizations that choose to implement them. Further, it is far superior to have state or regional governments charge of this process for efficiency's sake and because one state may do it better than another state (whereas if the process were completely centralized, you would run into intertia in changing policy as you always do with bureaucracies).

You see, hopefully, that while you are an expert in which vaccine might stop which disease, you don't know a lot about how to shape the policy that would provide the vaccine on which you worked. It's a hell of a lot more complex than slogans about helping people.

[Raj Radical]

t wolves fan, , "there is not enough resources for providing quality care for everyone' thats completely unfounded.

The world health organization estimated that our planet has the resources to provide for the survival of a population 8 times our current size, it is a testament to the tragic success of capitalism that 24,000 people die of hunger and porverty-related diseases each day.

You ignore the successes and quality of socialized medicine across the globe (take a look at Cuba, even with the ongoing illegal embargo by the US) and even across our own fruited plains (see the Veteran Administration) and instead spit out the same dogmatic, rush limbaugh programmed "SHUT UP SHUT UP socialized medicine means that you wait in line for 13 years before you can get a vaccination...I heard that someehre!!!"

The profit-driven corporate private sector should have no say in the survival of another human being.


I will end with a Wesley Willis Tribute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja62ys0JVlw

[ichneumon]

therefore a laissez-faire capitalist would tell you that capitalism provides an incentive for drug companies to seek ways to reduce the cost of their product so as to reach more paying customers (innovation)

this is not happening. there is a drug that absolutely cures sleeping sickness, which is otherwise brutally lethal. it is no longer manufactured.


Here is the problem. Why I do not doubt your scientific expertise nor your motivation to rid the world of disease, your status as a scientist doesn't make you an expert in devising governmental policies to fight diseases, in fact it can make you just the opposite. Plenty of research into public policy has shown that while experts like yourself can and should play a role in formulating policy, folks like you tend to completely lack any comprehension of how difficult, expensive or inefficient it would be to implement the policies you folks tend to advocate. I know that these problems mean little to you when it means people's lives and is centered on an issue with which you deal personally.

actually, no. this is EXACTLY what we model. ecology is the study of energy flow through complex systems, and it so happens that our equations can model a human societies as well as wetland ecologies or whatnot. a lab mate's dissertation was on the comparitive benefits of vaccinations and population control given the dynamics of the poverty trap of the developing world (he was already a phd in economics and math, this was for ecology).




But diseases develop new, more virulent strains regardless of whether our health care system is socialized or privatized. Your statement here seems to rest on the proposition that drug companies create diseases in order to supply a steady stream of customers, which is absurd.

again, no. the point is that there is no profit in preventing disease. there is no profit in curing disease. only prolonging it. true, death isn't profitable, but suffering is. if everyone in the US got cancer, the GNP would skyrocket due to the spending.

consider: when you go to a dr and he sees a smudge on your x-ray, is he thinking of your health, or his vacation home in aruba? it's probably not cancer, but hell, we outta be sure...and who needs both kidneys? that's assuming you have insurance, of course. if you don't, then why bother starting a fuss over something that's probably nothing? if he acknowledges it, he has to treat it. and he's not going to get paid for doing it....

also, if you have a pool of people who get inferior health care, especially a *small* pool (say 20% of N), there is VERY strong selective pressure for a disease contained in that pool to spill over. if you let a proportion of the the population not be vaccinated, the disease will become endemic in that population and then overcome/outmutate the vaccine and re-establish.

don't even get me started about feeding antibiotics to cows...GRRRRR


You see, hopefully, that while you are an expert in which vaccine might stop which disease, you don't know a lot about how to shape the policy that would provide the vaccine on which you worked.

i don't develop vaccines. i don't deal with biochemistry. i model how diseases spread and why. this includes government policies. what do YOU know about those policies? tell me about polio eradication. tell me about the economics of developing a malaria vaccine.


It's a hell of a lot more complex than slogans about helping people.

in fact, it involves multivariable calculus, jacobean matrices and forms of statistics that verge on voodoo. but "GROW UP OR DIE - TAKE CARE OF YOUR HOME OR DROWN IN YOUR OWN SHIT" does pretty much sum it up. "ecology" actually means "study of the home", after all.

[LoneRed]

Well, according to their logic, a government is set up to ensure the safety of the people. What is more safe than universal healthcare?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I'm still waiting for someone to actually read the article and try to refute it point by point and not go off on tangents.

Thank you.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27, 2006 03:39 am
I'm still waiting for someone to actually read the article and try to refute it point by point and not go off on tangents.

Thank you.
Your Welcome.


Perhaps we didnt respond to it because it is one huge false analogy. It is theorizing about the potential failures of something that has been successful in practice for years.

But seriously? I stopped reading after this:

"offering it free at the point of delivery would raise its cost.."

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 02:29 am
Well, according to their logic, a government is set up to ensure the safety of the people. What is more safe than universal healthcare?
A system that is more efficient than universal healthcare, which I believe can be achieved with a private/public mix that looks almost nothing like what the United States has today.

[t_wolves_fan]

therefore a laissez-faire capitalist would tell you that capitalism provides an incentive for drug companies to seek ways to reduce the cost of their product so as to reach more paying customers (innovation)

this is not happening.

Yes it is, it happens every day that generic drugs go on the market once a patent has run out.




aactually, no. this is EXACTLY what we model. ecology is the study of energy flow through complex systems, and it so happens that our equations can model a human societies as well as wetland ecologies or whatnot. a lab mate's dissertation was on the comparitive benefits of vaccinations and population control given the dynamics of the poverty trap of the developing world (he was already a phd in economics and math, this was for ecology).

But your model does not figure in political considerations. It is a technocratic model that no doubt assumes the resources to provide a global vaccination program are easily provided, and that people will accept how it is delivered.

A perfectly efficient global system designed by a technocrat is useless if the people of a society prefer something else, for whatever reason. This is what non-political experts and technocrats can never seem to grasp.




again, no. the point is that there is no profit in preventing disease. there is no profit in curing disease. only prolonging it. true, death isn't profitable, but suffering is. if everyone in the US got cancer, the GNP would skyrocket due to the spending.

consider: when you go to a dr and he sees a smudge on your x-ray, is he thinking of your health, or his vacation home in aruba? it's probably not cancer, but hell, we outta be sure...and who needs both kidneys? that's assuming you have insurance, of course. if you don't, then why bother starting a fuss over something that's probably nothing? if he acknowledges it, he has to treat it. and he's not going to get paid for doing it....

Your assumption here that all doctors and pharma companies are interested in prolonging disease is absurd and hardly worth addressing. The phalanx of vaccinations our baby is expected to get refutes your assumption because these vaccinations were developed by private companies that profit off the prevention of these diseases. You seem to think that because pharamceutical companies are pushing medications that alleviate the symptoms of diseases, they must not be interested at all in cures or vaccinations, which simply isn't true.

Basically you simply assume that since profit is bad, any motivation to earn a profit must have sinister motives. False from the beginning.


also, if you have a pool of people who get inferior health care, especially a *small* pool (say 20% of N), there is VERY strong selective pressure for a disease contained in that pool to spill over. if you let a proportion of the the population not be vaccinated, the disease will become endemic in that population and then overcome/outmutate the vaccine and re-establish.

In the United States we have local public health agencies that seek herd immunity. Once a disease is identified the person with that disease is, as you've stated, quarantined by law. Now certainly a robust and effective government policy in this direction is required, such as we have in my community, but that can include private partnerships.

You rely too much on a false dichotomy that says if anything is privatized it's bad.

don't even get me started about feeding antibiotics to cows...GRRRRR


i don't develop vaccines. i don't deal with biochemistry. i model how diseases spread and why. this includes government policies. what do YOU know about those policies? tell me about polio eradication. tell me about the economics of developing a malaria vaccine.

Done. (http://www.polioeradication.org/content/publications/AnnualReport2005_ENG04.pdf)

Governments and NGOs such as the WHO are worknig with private companies to stockpile polio vaccines. Read page 3 under "Vaccine Stockpile".

Now part of the problem in our argument I think is that I've offered the laissez-faire capitalist defense for some of your accusations, which has you thinking that I'm a laissze-faire capitalist. I'm not. If there is a market failure where private firms are not providing drugs for problems because it's not profitable, then I firmly support government assistance to NGOs or direct government action, such as problems like this. (http://www.newscientist.com/special/us/mg19225725.000)


in fact, it involves multivariable calculus, jacobean matrices and forms of statistics that verge on voodoo. but "GROW UP OR DIE - TAKE CARE OF YOUR HOME OR DROWN IN YOUR OWN SHIT" does pretty much sum it up. "ecology" actually means "study of the home", after all.

Well that's part of it. We can only teach you to not drink your own bathwater so much before it becomes useless.

[ichneumon]

But your model does not figure in political considerations. It is a technocratic model that no doubt assumes the resources to provide a global vaccination program are easily provided, and that people will accept how it is delivered.

a quote from a seminar about cholera "always hire a sociologist". we do consider these things. this experiment in particular reduced cholera by 50% by teaching women in Bangladesh to filter their drinking water through sari-cloth, after the ecologist discovered that the pathogens concentrate in the guts of micro-crustaceans. the sociologist worked out how to get it technology accepted, and it worked.

what bothers you more, the idea that scientists can study this kind of thing and know more than politicians, or that we don't agree with you?

what you mean by "politics" is that our plans have no room for financial parasites to grow fat and bloated sucking up the misery and pain of the third world. yes, those people should be dragged into the street and shot through the head from crimes against humanity. then we can get on with the job at hand.



Your assumption here that all doctors and pharma companies are interested in prolonging disease is absurd and hardly worth addressing. The phalanx of vaccinations our baby is expected to get refutes your assumption because these vaccinations were developed by private companies that profit off the prevention of these diseases. You seem to think that because pharamceutical companies are pushing medications that alleviate the symptoms of diseases, they must not be interested at all in cures or vaccinations, which simply isn't true.

what i'm saying is that the general american policy of "let business do it" is not functional. we need tax-payer funded research into vaccines and cures for diseases ranked in importance by the number of people they kill, worldwide.

consider:

Eflornithine (difluoromethylornithine or DFMO), the most modern treatment, was developed in the 1970s by Albert Sjoerdsmanot and underwent clinical trials in the 1980s. The drug was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1990, but Aventis, the company responsible for its manufacture, halted production in 1999. In 2001, however, Aventis, in association with Médecins Sans Frontières and the World Health Organization, signed a long-term agreement to manufacture and donate the drug.


You rely too much on a false dichotomy that says if anything is privatized it's bad.

privatized industry works well for most things. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. it *used* to work for health care, largely due to the humanitarian concerns at the level of individual doctors, but it is growing more and more dysfunctional.

the US is the only industrialized democracy without the medical infrastructure to deal with a pandemic.

" Medical infrastructure exists everywhere, in some form. It also tends to be the least corrupt of institutions in regions where that is a problem. Medical centers and clinics would be expected to investigate the cause of ailments in a large number of their patients, even in cases where the symptoms seem common. A small amount of additional scientific expertise and lab equipment would need to be added to a public health system that serves ordinary needs.

Enhancing existing resources would be effective for two reasons. First, illness is more likely to be reported in a city hospital than at a specialist institute. Second, the investment would boost latent public health in that region. For poor regions, investment in equipment and training would have to come from wealthier counterparts. Rich countries could justify the expense in terms of the savings that would result from early detection of a major threat. Tropical climates and urban slums are humanity's front line against pandemics, and they should be equipped properly.

Public health is an important asset for any nation. With so much at stake, it makes sense to place sentinels near every swamp, city, public market, and farmyard on earth. "

--from Primer for Pandemics (http://www.globalenvision.org/library/9/1025/)

[Tungsten]

ichneumon

address the point, please - privatized health care allows individuals to profit from human suffering and disease
So does any system in which doctors and people in the medical profession are paid.

and thus promulgates the spread of disease and evolution of new, more virulent strains.
If that were true, the US would be as disease-ridden as Africa.

only a global centralized approach has a chance to curb the evolution of new plagues.
And to protect us from the terrible secret of space.

what you mean by "politics" is that our plans have no room for financial parasites to grow fat and bloated sucking up the misery and pain of the third world.
Anything offered for free is a parasite magnet. I can assure you- they have plenty of room.
LoneRed

Well, according to their logic, a government is set up to ensure the safety of the people.
Safety = prevent the initiation of force.

Raj Radical

But seriously? I stopped reading after this:

"offering it free at the point of delivery would raise its cost.."
That's because you're used to reacting without thinking and giving knee-jerk responses in place of reasoned debate.

The people running this "free" health service know that they can demand as much money as they like from the taxpayer in order to support it, and they know that the taxpayer has no choice but to pay up (or face imprisonment). They don't have to care whether they run the system effectively or cost-efficently not. A private healthcare system does not have that luxury and must appease it's customers if it wants to remain in business.

[t_wolves_fan]

a quote from a seminar about cholera "always hire a sociologist".

If we did that our tax rate would be 106%.


we do consider these things. this experiment in particular reduced cholera by 50% by teaching women in Bangladesh to filter their drinking water through sari-cloth, after the ecologist discovered that the pathogens concentrate in the guts of micro-crustaceans. the sociologist worked out how to get it technology accepted, and it worked.

Great, what should the policy be? An education program, buying the women new Saris, buying them a year's supply of bottled water, building a new filtration plant, what?


what bothers you more, the idea that scientists can study this kind of thing and know more than politicians, or that we don't agree with you?

I know that scientists know more about cholera than a politician will. What a scientist will not know is how best to allocate social resources to combat cholera, because if you left it up to the social scientists they'd spend the total tax revenue a community is willing to spend 13 times over.


what you mean by "politics" is that our plans have no room for financial parasites to grow fat and bloated sucking up the misery and pain of the third world. yes, those people should be dragged into the street and shot through the head from crimes against humanity.

Oh here we go.

:wacko:


what i'm saying is that the general american policy of "let business do it" is not functional. we need tax-payer funded research into vaccines and cures for diseases ranked in importance by the number of people they kill, worldwide.

We basically do that right now, except that we allocate resources based on what's politically feasible (precisely what you technocrats don't understand).

If you scientists wanted to spend $450 billion on vaccines but the American public wants to spend $225 billion, who should win?


Eflornithine (difluoromethylornithine or DFMO), the most modern treatment, was developed in the 1970s by Albert Sjoerdsmanot and underwent clinical trials in the 1980s. The drug was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1990, but Aventis, the company responsible for its manufacture, halted production in 1999. In 2001, however, Aventis, in association with Médecins Sans Frontières and the World Health Organization, signed a long-term agreement to manufacture and donate the drug.

Right, that supports my argument.


privatized industry works well for most things. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. it *used* to work for health care, largely due to the humanitarian concerns at the level of individual doctors, but it is growing more and more dysfunctional.

Hell I agree with you.


the US is the only industrialized democracy without the medical infrastructure to deal with a pandemic.

Which we're constructing as we type.


Public health is an important asset for any nation. With so much at stake, it makes sense to place sentinels near every swamp, city, public market, and farmyard on earth. "

How much is that going to cost, and how am I going to pay for it considering the public doesn't want me to raise their taxes, I've got 500 miles of highway to fix, I've got 2000 mental health patients to serve, I've got 3000 prisoners to take care of, I've got 12 major parks to operate, and I've got 1,000 staff to employ? What is the probability that a pandemic will come out of the swamp or the public market? 100%? 50%? .0002%? Should that probability play a role in my decision to allocate resources?

Do you understand, just a little bit?

[RedKnight]

In response to the article, while we do not have "free" food in this country, we do however have food stamps as well as food banks. So why not have public healthcare assistance for those who need it. Those who do not need vouchers will still use there current private health coverage. This is of course descriptive of pre-socialist capitalist society. After the establisment of socialism, private service industry as well as the welfare state will become obsolete. As for "rights", I feel that livelihood is just as much a right as life and liberty. Social justice is as fundamental as personal freedom.

[ichneumon]

Great, what should the policy be? An education program, buying the women new Saris, buying them a year's supply of bottled water, building a new filtration plant, what?

it's done. we created a self-replicating meme and set it free. it spread from village to village via women-only communications channels. we only need the money for research to discover the cause, a reasonable solution, an a sociological plan to implement it.

the telling bit is that when the film crew returned to the original village, using glass jars to show the difference in water quality, they couldn't *pay* one single person, male or female, to drink unfiltered water.




Eflornithine (difluoromethylornithine or DFMO), the most modern treatment, was developed in the 1970s by Albert Sjoerdsmanot and underwent clinical trials in the 1980s. The drug was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1990, but Aventis, the company responsible for its manufacture, halted production in 1999. In 2001, however, Aventis, in association with Médecins Sans Frontières and the World Health Organization, signed a long-term agreement to manufacture and donate the drug.


Right, that supports my argument.

no, it doesn't. WHO are the ineffectual technocrats you so despise. the ones that are getting things done, despite the failure of market-driven drug production.



Which we're constructing as we type.


i really don't see many free clinics being built in slums and ghettos. i see "medical-defense-contractors" siphoning up taxpayer dollars to do nothing. parasites. do you know that US aid for african HIV goes directly to the pharma-comps to buy PATENTED full price drugs? ie, directly into the bloated guts of humanticks.



I know that scientists know more about cholera than a politician will. What a scientist will not know is how best to allocate social resources to combat cholera, because if you left it up to the social scientists they'd spend the total tax revenue a community is willing to spend 13 times over.

what can't you understand this? we study the allocation of resources. politicians know how to get elected. period. the above is a perfect example. we had NO money to work with, so we found a no money solution. why do you assume that social scientists are idiots? admittedly, that stuff back in the '80's was weak, but science marches on. it is possible to understand how societies work and to model those systems. it's the politicians and bureaucrats who bungle things.

and it's not about hating profit. we ADORE bill gates. he sucks money from american lack-brains and sends it to the desparately needy in africa. good for him!


We basically do that right now, except that we allocate resources based on what's politically feasible (precisely what you technocrats don't understand).

we tell the politicians the price tag. they get the money. if they can't get the money, we do our best to find another way. we give facts. they sell stories. we have to work together, but when the underfunded project crashes and burns, don't blame the scientists. the only function of a politician is as a fund raiser. if they can't do that, we need better ones.

and i'm not a technocrat. i'm a faceless soldier/agent in the war on disease. i work every day to save lives and promote human health, and i get paid dick to do it. i do it because it's one way i can help make the world a better place. what do YOU do?


How much is that going to cost, and how am I going to pay for it considering the public doesn't want me to raise their taxes, I've got 500 miles of highway to fix,


progressive gasoline tax - tax only the people who use the roads.


I've got 2000 mental health patients to serve,


socialized medicine, which you are now in favor of? or are we going to find a way to make housing and caring for the insane profitable?


I've got 3000 prisoners to take care of,

decriminalize drugs, then tax them




I've got 12 major parks to operate, and I've got 1,000 staff to employ? What is the probability that a pandemic will come out of the swamp or the public market? 100%? 50%? .0002%? Should that probability play a role in my decision to allocate resources?

the probability is basically 100%. it has to happen. it has already happened (smallpox genocide in the americas, black plague, spanish flu, HIV), and there have been several near misses (SARS, birdflu, Marburg). if there were asteroids whizzing through our atmosphere once a decade, would that impress? have you any idea how much HIV has COSTS? it could have been stopped, but we didn't have the technology in 1952.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 05:35 pm




it's done. we created a self-replicating meme and set it free. it spread from village to village via women-only communications channels. we only need the money for research to discover the cause, a reasonable solution, an a sociological plan to implement it.

the telling bit is that when the film crew returned to the original village, using glass jars to show the difference in water quality, they couldn't *pay* one single person, male or female, to drink unfiltered water.

Go for it, I'm sure it will be as successful as other educational programs that have completely wiped out dangerous or irrational behavior.


i really don't see many free clinics being built in slums and ghettos.

I work across the street from one. I tell you what, what state are you located in?


i see "medical-defense-contractors" siphoning up taxpayer dollars to do nothing. parasites.

Really? Tell me how the federal Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Grant is being spent these days.


do you know that US aid for african HIV goes directly to the pharma-comps to buy PATENTED full price drugs? ie, directly into the bloated guts of humanticks.

Probably, thanks to this administration. Like anything else, you have to do it right.



it's the politicians and bureaucrats who bungle things.

What you call "bungling" things is actually bureaucrats telling you that we don't have the resources to do what you want, that for political reasons (people won't support it), it won't work.


and it's not about hating profit. we ADORE bill gates. he sucks money from american lack-brains and sends it to the desparately needy in africa. good for him!

Agreed.


the only function of a politician is as a fund raiser. if they can't do that, we need better ones.

Where does a politician raise funds for programs from?


and i'm not a technocrat. i'm a faceless soldier/agent in the war on disease. i work every day to save lives and promote human health, and i get paid dick to do it. i do it because it's one way i can help make the world a better place. what do YOU do?

I try to funnel funds between programs run by technocrats like you in a way that makes sense and in a way the taxpayers will support. It's about making priority decisions: do we build a new free clinic on the off chance that a disease will strike, or do we widen the highway that is needed right now?



How much is that going to cost, and how am I going to pay for it considering the public doesn't want me to raise their taxes, I've got 500 miles of highway to fix,


progressive gasoline tax - tax only the people who use the roads.

How do you plan to implement a progressive gasoline tax when the tax is collected at the point of sale? Are we to bring our tax forms with us when we get gas so a rich person can be charged more?

Otherwise we already have a gasoline tax that people are not crazy about raising. If we raise it, people pay more for gas meaning they can spend less on food, health care, child care, and everything else they have to buy. You understand that, right?



I've got 2000 mental health patients to serve,


socialized medicine, which you are now in favor of? or are we going to find a way to make housing and caring for the insane profitable?

Hey! Great! Socialized medicine. Hey everyone, this poster on the net just declared that we should have socialized medicine. It is certain to be adopted now. I guess we can close up the mental health center and let all the patients out into the streets because the feds will be here any day now. Never mind that the public is currently against it and the federal government is against it, this poster I found is for it so problem solved. Wooppeee!



I've got 3000 prisoners to take care of,

decriminalize drugs, then tax them

Give me a realistic solution, please, because the public has repeatedly voted against drug decriminalization. At the local level I cannot unilaterally announce that drugs are now legal and taxed.


the probability (of disease) is basically 100%. it has to happen. it has already happened (smallpox genocide in the americas, black plague, spanish flu, HIV), and there have been several near misses (SARS, birdflu, Marburg). if there were asteroids whizzing through our atmosphere once a decade, would that impress? have you any idea how much HIV has COSTS? it could have been stopped, but we didn't have the technology in 1952.

According to you we can stop AIDS by releasing a self-replicating meme into the world via womens'-only communications networks (I guess men need not apply).

Serious question: why isn't the public, at least in the U.S., buying your message?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 09:24 pm
Guerrilla22

So having the best healthcare system in the world and being able to have access to it for free is a bad idea because someone is not profiting immensely off of people's need for healthcare? Great argument.
Nice try at skewing the argument into a debate about "profit", when I was talking about the issue of force.
That basically sums up your argument though. What exactly do you mean by "force?" You are being forced to accept whatever shitty healthcare plan your employer gives you ,or whatever you can afford on your own, so what's the problem with getting your healthcare gaurnteed from the state?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 08:17 pm

For the past four years the cost of my health ins. have gone up every year while what what my policy covers has gone down. My co-pays on persciptions have from 8.00 4 years ago to 25.00 now. Healthcare cost gotten insane America needs it own free healthcare system.
One problem. Health care in the United States is not totally privatized. I am not advocating for total privatization, but I do advocate drastic reforms to the current system.

Also, I am curious how a health care system in which nobody pays for anything and nobody gets paid for anything would work. Remember, you called it "free".

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 08:29 pm
I understand nothing is free i was refering to Bill Clintons plan.
Then perhaps you should stop referring to it as "free".

What would Clinton's plan have done?

[colonelguppy]

well thats a stupid idea, i can't even imagine the vast shortages cause by that.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by patton+November 01, 2006 04:22 pm--> (patton @ November 01, 2006 04:22 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2006 09:19 pm
well thats a stupid idea, i can't even imagine the vast shortages cause by that.
How would it have caused vast shortages? [/b]
well all of the sudden people can get all sorts of procedures and drugs for $10, and then they're limiting how much companies and doctors charge so they can't compensate for the vast wave of demand that just hit them by raising prices.

[colonelguppy]

price controls don't work. what we need is to make the market more competitive and help to reduce insurace rates.

where are you getting this data?

[colonelguppy]

do you have insurance?

[colonelguppy]

hmm never experienced anyhting like that. however, do you understand why price caps don't work?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+November 01, 2006 09:26 pm--> (colonelguppy @ November 01, 2006 09:26 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 04:22 pm

[email protected] 01, 2006 09:19 pm
well thats a stupid idea, i can't even imagine the vast shortages cause by that.
How would it have caused vast shortages?
well all of the sudden people can get all sorts of procedures and drugs for $10, and then they're limiting how much companies and doctors charge so they can't compensate for the vast wave of demand that just hit them by raising prices. [/b]
Demand for healthcare is very inelastic. Price controls under such a situation won't lead to shortages. Rather they are a form of correcting market failure.

[colonelguppy]

how is it inelastic?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 05:28 am
how is it inelastic?
Because it is a neccessity rather than a luxuary. People need a given amount of treatment and will have to try and procure it regardless of price. That is why drug companies try to set their prices so high. The bastards know they can get away with it.

Low cost medicine doesn't suddenly lead to a bunch of healthy people saying "Oh, I must have that!"

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 09:58 pm
Do you like paying 10.00 2 asprin at the hospital? American drug makers charge Americans 400.00 for perscriptions and rest of world 100.00 for the exact same persrcription. We need price controls.
They charge us more becuase of foreign price controls and because our demand is much higher.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 02, 2006 02:46 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 02, 2006 02:46 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2006 09:58 pm
Do you like paying 10.00 2 asprin at the hospital? American drug makers charge Americans 400.00 for perscriptions and rest of world 100.00 for the exact same persrcription. We need price controls.
They charge us more becuase of foreign price controls and because our demand is much higher. [/b]
You forgot that they need to gather up as many debt tokens as they can.

Also, this is a wonderful example of capitalist sociopathic anti-humanist thought: "Our demand for medicine is higher, which means there are more ill people, let's charge them more!". No wonder most of us commies want to see you up against the wall - or maybe just treated by a trained psychaitrist.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 04:14 pm
No wonder most of us commies want to see you up against the wall - or maybe just treated by a trained psychaitrist.
You've got a thing for violence that makes you feel like a big man, don't you.

Prices are higher here because demand is higher here, which is caused by the fact that we Americans will not wait for care nor will we generally accept anything but the top quality product available, which is paid for with our expensive insurance.

This is not a value judgement thing, it's simple fact. In your socialized systems the higher cost, higher-quality specialized care is rationed out to the hilt. It seeks to provide lower-cost measures to keep costs (and taxes) down. This would be why there are more MRI machines in one of our medium-sized cities than there are in all of Canada - because we Americans want the best and we want it now and we're willing to pay for it.

Now, you can make an argument that your socialized system reduces costs by making preventative medicine free, which results in less need for more expensive specialized care later in life. The private market here is moving towards that direction by reducing premiums if customers join wellness programs that provide incentives for fitness and prevention. The fact is, our system while not perfect provides basically the same instant access to top specialized technology and practices to the uninsured via government assistance and mandated treatment of the uninsured, meaning we have more access to higher-tech, higher-quality health care than do folks in socialized systems. So basically while you've got better prevention, we've got better treatment. Based on the world health statistics, your systems promote better overall health. But culturally, we Americans aren't yet ready to trade better overall health for instant access to the best services. However, as our costs continue to rise faster, it's likely (however unfortunate) that we're going to adopt your socialized system.

I say unfortunate not because I hate the poor nor I think profit should trump health, I say it because I think the system can be reformed using a mix of government intervention and privatization that can do even better than socialized medicine. But then most of you are hacks, and hacks see only two options and are entirely unwilling to consider any other options because they're stupid enough to personalize these issues.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 02, 2006 10:06 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 02, 2006 10:06 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 04:14 pm
No wonder most of us commies want to see you up against the wall - or maybe just treated by a trained psychaitrist.
You've got a thing for violence that makes you feel like a big man, don't you. [/b]
Oh yes, that's me - the violence obssesed 'big man'. :rolleyes:


Prices are higher here because demand is higher here, which is caused by the fact that we Americans will not wait for care nor will we generally accept anything but the top quality product available, which is paid for with our expensive insurance. Ah yes, of course people should demand the lowest quality and slowest available healthcare, unless they can fork out extra - of course, silly me how could I forget :rolleyes:


This is not a value judgement thing, it's simple fact. In your socialized systems the higher cost, higher-quality specialized care is rationed out to the hilt. It seeks to provide lower-cost measures to keep costs (and taxes) down. This would be why there are more MRI machines in one of our medium-sized cities than there are in all of Canada - because we Americans want the best and we want it now and we're willing to pay for it. Cost, cost, cost - you can repeat it until your blue in the face but in a society where there are no debt tokens it is a meaningless concept.


I say unfortunate not because I hate the poor nor I think profit should trump health, I say it because I think the system can be reformed using a mix of government intervention and privatization that can do even better than socialized medicine. But then most of you are hacks, and hacks see only two options and are entirely unwilling to consider any other options because they're stupid enough to personalize these issues. The "public-private partnership" has been tried in Britian, look at the shambles the privateers made of our Trains.

[t_wolves_fan]

Oh yes, that's me - the violence obssesed 'big man'. :rolleyes:

Hey your posts speak for themselves.



Prices are higher here because demand is higher here, which is caused by the fact that we Americans will not wait for care nor will we generally accept anything but the top quality product available, which is paid for with our expensive insurance. Ah yes, of course people should demand the lowest quality and slowest available healthcare, unless they can fork out extra - of course, silly me how could I forget :rolleyes:


Cost, cost, cost - you can repeat it until your blue in the face but in a society where there are no debt tokens it is a meaningless concept.

These are typical nonresponses from you.

Do you really believe that a society of millions or billions of people can provide the best quality medical care - or the best quality of any product and service - to everyone pretty much the instant they demand it? Do you believe that would be sustainable? Do you believe the raw materials and the manpower exist to churn out everything of the highest quality?



The "public-private partnership" has been tried in Britian, look at the shambles the privateers made of our Trains.

Wow, if one attempt fails, just give up.

If that's your attitude, and you're also poor, perhaps you'll see a connection.

But I doubt it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 10:27 pm

Oh yes, that's me - the violence obssesed 'big man'. :rolleyes:

Hey your posts speak for themselves.
I make a policy of making no direct threats, and very rarely make reference to myself commiting an act of violence, this is not out of an unwillingness to be violent but more out of a desire to not threaten anyone over the internet.






Prices are higher here because demand is higher here, which is caused by the fact that we Americans will not wait for care nor will we generally accept anything but the top quality product available, which is paid for with our expensive insurance. Ah yes, of course people should demand the lowest quality and slowest available healthcare, unless they can fork out extra - of course, silly me how could I forget :rolleyes:


Cost, cost, cost - you can repeat it until your blue in the face but in a society where there are no debt tokens it is a meaningless concept.

These are typical nonresponses from you.

Do you really believe that a society of millions or billions of people can provide the best quality medical care - or the best quality of any product and service - to everyone pretty much the instant they demand it? Do you believe that would be sustainable? Do you believe the raw materials and the manpower exist to churn out everything of the highest quality? It depends, if you tried that immediatly after a scarcity society had been done away with, no. But maybe as quickly as a half century down the line, assuming no interruption from sociopathic reactionaries like yourself then yes, it is entriely possible. IF you see past your scarcity-fetish you would know that too.




The "public-private partnership" has been tried in Britian, look at the shambles the privateers made of our Trains.

Wow, if one attempt fails, just give up. Unfourtunatley you seem to have taken that attitude with suicide - why not try again. On a less serious note: People like you often make this argument about a whole plethora of things: like socialism.


If that's your attitude, and you're also poor, perhaps you'll see a connection. Die of ebola you classist.


But I doubt it. Maybe I'm just not a scab to my class.

[t_wolves_fan]

It depends, if you tried that immediatly after a scarcity society had been done away with, no. But maybe as quickly as a half century down the line, assuming no interruption from sociopathic reactionaries like yourself then yes, it is entriely possible. IF you see past your scarcity-fetish you would know that too.

Explain how it is possible to provide the highest quality of everything to everyone on earth without using up the world's resources within about 6 months.

Be specific.




The "public-private partnership" has been tried in Britian, look at the shambles the privateers made of our Trains.

Wow, if one attempt fails, just give up. Unfourtunatley you seem to have taken that attitude with suicide - why not try again. On a less serious note: People like you often make this argument about a whole plethora of things: like socialism.

Except that socialism is not only impractical, it has failed every single time it's been tried. On the other hand there are plenty of examples of successful public-private partnerships. Intelligent people usually accept trends like this and adapt their political beliefs.



If that's your attitude, and you're also poor, perhaps you'll see a connection. Die of ebola you classist.


But I doubt it. Maybe I'm just not a scab to my class.

I didn't mean this problem was specific to only you.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 03:13 pm

It depends, if you tried that immediatly after a scarcity society had been done away with, no. But maybe as quickly as a half century down the line, assuming no interruption from sociopathic reactionaries like yourself then yes, it is entriely possible. IF you see past your scarcity-fetish you would know that too.

Explain how it is possible to provide the highest quality of everything to everyone on earth without using up the world's resources within about 6 months.

Be specific.




The "public-private partnership" has been tried in Britian, look at the shambles the privateers made of our Trains.

Wow, if one attempt fails, just give up. Unfourtunatley you seem to have taken that attitude with suicide - why not try again. On a less serious note: People like you often make this argument about a whole plethora of things: like socialism.

Except that socialism is not only impractical, it has failed every single time it's been tried. On the other hand there are plenty of examples of successful public-private partnerships. Intelligent people usually accept trends like this and adapt their political beliefs.



If that's your attitude, and you're also poor, perhaps you'll see a connection. Die of ebola you classist.


But I doubt it. Maybe I'm just not a scab to my class.

I didn't mean this problem was specific to only you.
SHUT THE FUCK UP.

The public sector wants to take care of it's people

The private sector wants to make money at all costs.

Do I see a conflict of interests?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 04:42 pm
SHUT THE FUCK UP.

The public sector wants to take care of it's people

The private sector wants to make money at all costs.

Do I see a conflict of interests?
There's a reasoned response.

The public sector cannot just take care of its people regardless of cost.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

And the private sector can?
In every class society that has ever existed, there has been a tremendous section of the population who has depended on public healthcare... or died because of a lack of public healthcare.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 02, 2006 06:22 am--> (Demogorgon @ November 02, 2006 06:22 am)
[email protected] 02, 2006 05:28 am
how is it inelastic?
Because it is a neccessity rather than a luxuary. People need a given amount of treatment and will have to try and procure it regardless of price. That is why drug companies try to set their prices so high. The bastards know they can get away with it. [/b]
not necessarilly, namely because A) not all healthcare is truly necessary to live and function, and B)not everyone can afford current treatments that are necessary. making everything cost $10 for just about anything is to allow for alot of people who previsously thought that treatments weren't worth it or unnaffordable to have access to the system.

and even without the subsidation and just the price caps, an increasing poulation and inflation is enough to cause shortages within the system.


Low cost medicine doesn't suddenly lead to a bunch of healthy people saying "Oh, I must have that!"

actually that is often the case

[Tungsten]

Jazzratt

Die of ebola you classist.
You're not classist, of course.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 01:47 pm
Jazzratt

Die of ebola you classist.
You're not classist, of course.
-That's different.

The unsaid argument of the political hack.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 08, 2006 02:36 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 08, 2006 02:36 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2006 01:47 pm
Jazzratt

Die of ebola you classist.
You're not classist, of course.
-That's different.

The unsaid argument of the political hack. [/b]
I love you, I just like the things you do sometimes. :)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Muigwithania+November 13, 2006 04:47 am--> (Muigwithania @ November 13, 2006 04:47 am)
I love you, I just like the things you do sometimes. :)[/b]
Join the crowd.


Dr. Rosenpenis


And the private sector can?
In every class society that has ever existed, there has been a tremendous section of the population who has depended on public healthcare... or died because of a lack of public healthcare.

And this means what besides mindless sloganeering?

Of course some people are going to need public assistance for healthcare. The question is, do we want everyone to rely on it?

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:47 am

I love you, I just like the things you do sometimes. :)

Join the crowd.

I already have. I'm in the fanclub. I make sweet hot monkey love to a poster of you every night.

I'm watching you right now. :ph34r: :wub:

:lol:

Wait, why do you have a blow-up doll of Adam Smith in your room? :o

Ewww.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 04:50 am

Cuba's socialized healthcare system is better than the privatized one in the US. It is empirically workable.

no it isn't
o, yes it is.

i live in lansing, mi... we have a pretty goodsized cuban population... they might all hate the castro government, but it seems like they all like the healthcare system there alot better.

the 2 cuban immigrants i work with seem to prefer it.

i know one of them once had his leg broken by an irresponcible forklift driver when he worked in a warehouse in havana... he said he was taken to the hospital, didn't have to wait for treatment, was out 2 days later, fully recovered, and didn't have to pay a dime.

if i were run over by a forklift, i would be treated and all of that... but i would be paying for it for the rest of my life; i don't want to pay FOR my life WITH the rest of my life. Aflac insurance sucks and it's too expensive... sad thing is... it's the best one the company (FHI) for which i work has tried.

[TG0]

What I think you don't understand is that the US's current system is not how we (meaning libertarian capitalists) think the system should be. It is quite far from it. Pointing out flaws in the current system does your argument no good because everyone knows the current system is shit and no one wants it like this.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 04:23 am
What I think you don't understand is that the US's current system is not how we (meaning libertarian capitalists) think the system should be. It is quite far from it. Pointing out flaws in the current system does your argument no good because everyone knows the current system is shit and no one wants it like this.
there are some amerikkans who want it like this... consider the bourgeois (thieves) who profit from it - insurance companies, especially.

[TG0]

That's true, but they're just money hungry assholes and are a very, very small minority.