Health care as a commodity

[Diuretic]

now health insurance would pass the litmus test for a commodity but I don't think health care passes. you can shop for different health ins. plans and make a decision based on price vs payment in the event of. I'm not sure where you want to go with this notion of commodity. Universal health care hmmmm... just think of the post office type employee sitting at the reception desk as you wisk into the Drs office and are told they are o a break or take a number. Thats what I envision universal health care to be. I don't want the lowest bidder working on ME. I can still go to a specialist and pay the oveage from what my povider pays without asking permission from a bean counter. Control costs!!!

I deliberately tried to look at healthcare as a commodity to stay away from the blurred debate on how it should be paid for. I would have liked a better word than "commodity" because it does have a definition in economics but I wanted to try and get discussion on healthcare as something that is offered for sale and which is purchased and I couldn't think of a better word.

If healthcare is provided to citizens at no cost to them does that mean it ceases to become a commodity (still can't think of a better word). Or is it still a commodity but with a different purchaser?

 

[AllieBaba]

If you provide health care to citizens at no cost, stand by and watch this country sink into financial oblivion.

Try to find a place where such a plan has actually worked. There's a reason those who live in countries with socialist medicine come to the US to be treated.

It just doesn't work any way you slice it.

 

[Diuretic]

If you provide health care to citizens at no cost, stand by and watch this country sink into financial oblivion.

Try to find a place where such a plan has actually worked. There's a reason those who live in countries with socialist medicine come to the US to be treated.

It just doesn't work any way you slice it.

Yes, I keep reading that claim in various threads which is why I tried to look at it from a different angle.

If healthcare is provided to citizens at no cost to them does that mean it ceases to become a commodity (still can't think of a better word). Or is it still a commodity but with a different purchaser?

 

[boedicca]

Should health care be a commodity?

Show me where "health care" can be dug out of a mine or grown in a field, then you can call it a commodity.

It is absolutely horrifying to think that the product of intellect, skill, and years of training would be called a commodity - and I doubt you'd want anyone who did think of it as such to perform open heart surgery on you.

 

[Taomon]

If you provide health care to citizens at no cost, stand by and watch this country sink into financial oblivion.

Try to find a place where such a plan has actually worked. There's a reason those who live in countries with socialist medicine come to the US to be treated.

It just doesn't work any way you slice it.

I think the well being of our citizens should be more important than cost. I am willing to bet that if the insurance companies, medical services, pharma-companies and doctors were not allowed to profit from healthcare, we would be able to fund it.

 

[Diuretic]

Show me where "health care" can be dug out of a mine or grown in a field, then you can call it a commodity.

It is absolutely horrifying to think that the product of intellect, skill, and years of training would be called a commodity - and I doubt you'd want anyone who did think of it as such to perform open heart surgery on you.

I did point out earlier that I was using the word "commodity" because it was the best word I could come up with given the various debates on healthcare which have launched into full-blown ideological wars without anyone bothering to check the groundwork.

 

[Diuretic]

I think the well being of our citizens should be more important than cost. I am willing to bet that if the insurance companies, medical services, pharma-companies and doctors were not allowed to profit from healthcare, we would be able to fund it.

That suggests you may be in favour of a cost-recovery approach. Is that right or am I reading you wrongly?

 

[Taomon]

That suggests you may be in favour of a cost-recovery approach. Is that right or am I reading you wrongly?

I don't understand what you mean by cost recovery.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't understand what you mean by cost recovery.

A system where various mechanisms are set up in the overall healthcare system that work to ensure that goods and services used in the processes are paid for but where each mechanism is only working to recover costs and not to make a profit. I hope I explained that clearly enough, it's the old story, I know what I mean

 

[jeffex]

Although I think I'm hearing the intent of your idea( think of it as a staple of civilization) it still sounds like socialism to me. In a perfect world we could all have the STATE pay for our basic needs and everyone would get the best of everything. That may work for Kuwait and their oil money but here in America CAPITALISM IS KING. I don't want equal care. I want the best I can get. I have friend who whined and complained about how health care should be a right for everyone. A big liberal in some ways. I used to tell him to get a job that offered bennys and quit complaining or buy it yourself. He has a cell phone, a 52 inch HD TV a nice truck with a navigation system ..etc. shouldn't health care ins. be right after food clothing shelter? Well, he had a heart attack and was given excellent care!!! they put in stints and he was back to work in 4 wks. The bill came , he filled out some forms and pays a little each month but will never in this lifetime pay the entire bill. All I could say to him was you got the same care or better than I would get and I have paid for health Ins. either myself totally when I was self employed or in subsidised payments from myself and employer. On top of that some of what I pay is helping pay for bums like him who don't step up and pay their own way. Needless to say I never hear him complain about health care any more. he even got a job WITH health ins. A convert !!! sometimes I think health care is just a whipping boy for politicians to deceive us on to get elected. Remember how they would always scare the seniors about social security at election time. "Vote for me and I'll fix social security" vote fore me and I'll give universal health care" Same shi$ different year.
I don't want to hijack your thread but I believe the answer is in controlling costs. We already have semi-socialized medecine in clinics subsidized by profits as well as tax dollars.

 

[Taomon]

A system where various mechanisms are set up in the overall healthcare system that work to ensure that goods and services used in the processes are paid for but where each mechanism is only working to recover costs and not to make a profit. I hope I explained that clearly enough, it's the old story, I know what I mean

Then yes, that is what I am saying. But I believe the Canadians have a social safety net that is funded regionally (instead of federally). We should have the same safety net, but funded federally.

If we examine how our school system is funded, there are federal grants but most of the money is funded through local taxes. So wealthier areas have better teachers, better quality supplies, books, computers and so on. The poorer areas get the bad teachers, teachers who are retiring and do not care, they get hand me down books, and if they are lucky they will get computers and contacts with college recruiters.

We can make all the curicullums the same, but the schools will still be woefully imbalanced because of funding.

And that is one of the problems with Canada's health care system. And I brought up our school system to show that we can do it if we do it federally as opposed to regionally.

 

[Gunny]

I asked this question in one of the threads on healthcare. I don't expect it to be answered primarily I think because the thread has gone beyond that question. So I'll ask it in this thread.

Should health care be a commodity?

Just some ideas rather than leaving it for others to try and work out. In western economies (by that I mean the mixed economies that we have) we allow market forces (to a greater or lesser degree) to regulate scarce commodities. The laws of supply and demand separately but in conjunctionn with one another do a quite remarkable job of making sure we have what we need and what we want (and even what we don't need but just have to have - provided we can afford it).

We have made food a commodity. In our earlier societies food wasn't a commodity, it was something you did for yourself. Sure you might barter but food of itself was available to all who could grow it or hunt it or gather it. Now we usually toddle down to Safeway to buy our food commodity. But even though it's a commodity we won't allow people to starve. We give them food or we give them money (or negotiable instruments) so that they can buy food to avoid starvation. I think we'd agree that not allowing our fellow citizens to starve is a good thing. Having said that we also may agree that if they want fillet steak they can get it themselves.

Following that line of thought, should health care be a commodity? Is that the best way of regulating its provision?

Why should healthcare be a commodity? WHAT exactly entitles people to services they do not earn the money to pay for?

 

[Diuretic]

Why should healthcare be a commodity? WHAT exactly entitles people to services they do not earn the money to pay for?

I didn't say it should, I asked if it should be a commodity.

You must believe it should be a commodity judging by your second response. That's fair enough. So, should healthcare be denied to people who can't pay for it?

Try not to avoid the question by pointing to charities or Cook County Hospital ER services.

Just to add my own ideas to try to move this along. If healthcare is a commodity then who should pay for it? Should it be the individual consumer? Or should it be government as a single-payer or by a more radical scheme such as universal healthcare?

As always ideas outside of the direction of the questions are useful.

 

[Gunny]

I didn't say it should, I asked if it should be a commodity.

You must believe it should be a commodity judging by your second response. That's fair enough. So, should healthcare be denied to people who can't pay for it?

Try not to avoid the question by pointing to charities or Cook County Hospital ER services.

Just to add my own ideas to try to move this along. If healthcare is a commodity then who should pay for it? Should it be the individual consumer? Or should it be government as a single-payer or by a more radical scheme such as universal healthcare?

As always ideas outside of the direction of the questions are useful.

No issue is cut and dried, and this certainly isn't an exception to that rule.

Healthcare is a commodity. You get healthcare of the quality you are willing or are able to pay for.

At the same time, I do not believe those that are physically or mentally unable to provide for themselves should be left on the curb to rot. They should be provided the care it takes in order for them to subsist.

The government should provide that care and the money should come DIRECTLY from evey pork spending bill that gets submitted, to include pay raises for Congress for accomplishing nothing.

I don't think it should come out of the taxpayers pockets as an additional tax on top of what we already are being robbed of, and I don't think the people who DO pay their insurance should have to suck it up.