A Preview Of Government Run Health Care

[Diuretic]

No 0ne is advocating government RUN health care!

There's nothing wrong with government-run health care, if it's funded properly. If any health care system is under-funded it will fail, just like anything else. If a health-care system is run by government or for government makes no difference. A health care system - obviously this is just my opinion - should be run on a cost-recovery basis and not for-profit basis. The profit motive inflates prices of health services and the profit goes to private hands, it's just another transference of wealth, has nothing to do with the improvement of the service itself.

The discipline of the free market is fine if you want to buy a car but it shouldn't be involved in the provision of primary health care, it doesn't make the system more efficient, it just makes it more expensive for no gain.

 

[Diuretic]

As i said earlier vintij one of the reasons premiums are so high in the first place is because insurance companies are up to their eye balls in government red tape as it is. If government would actually let them run as a business healthcare would be far less expensive. Yet you want to add to the problem by getting the government even more involved.

It's got nothing to do with red tape. Premiums are high for the following reasons"

1. There's a profit to be made.
2. Health care service providers see a chance to put the price of their services up to increase their return.
3. Insurance companies want to make as big a profit as possible so they absorb the impact of 2. by passing on the cost to the consumer as price.

That's running it like a business. The provider sets a price. The insurance company sees that as a cost. The insurance company factors in that cost to the consumer who sees it as a price. It has nothing to do with red tape. It is about profit. If there was no profit motive then the system wouldn't be as expensive as it is and it wouldn't be as inefficient as it is.

Single-payer schemes are monopolies and one of those reasonably rare cases where a monopoly is useful. The government, as single-payer, can negotiate prices and costs on the basis of recovery not no the basis of profit so it can reduce its costs and thus the taxpayer's burden while running an effective and efficient health care service.

 

[Diuretic]

This is what the Dems want for all of us. The cost is incredible and not worth what it accomplishes


Cheese Headcases
Wisconsin reveals the cost of "universal" health care.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

When Louis Brandeis praised the 50 states as "laboratories of democracy," he didn't claim that every policy experiment would work. So we hope the eyes of America will turn to Wisconsin, and the effort by Madison Democrats to make that "progressive" state a Petri dish for government-run health care.

...............

This is simply an argument for a national, single-payer health scheme. Now I know the US is a large and complex country, 300 m people against our 21 m. So it's easier for us to institute a national scheme across our six states and two territories than it is for the US. However it's not impossible. That would remove this notion of competition between the states which is really a race to the bottom in terms of provision of health care. I know that's not going to be a popular view and the US will continue to be seen as having an unfair health system where the rich do very well and the middling and poor will struggle. But if the ideology was taken out of the health care system argument and replaced with a bit of pragmatism it could be vastly improved.

 

[Diuretic]

I suspect truthmatters did not return because of the fact that he cant debate with a someone who thinks that the only reason insurance companys rates are high is because of government regulation. There are a variety of reasons that do not even relate to the government, but it seems frustrating to convey that message to ignorance.

It's extremely frustrating when you put a point and it's met either with a Limbaugh-like derision, devoid of counter-argument or talking points are trotted out. It's a lot better to get some authentic personal views so that we can all be better educated by each other.

 

[Bern80]

It's got nothing to do with red tape. Premiums are high for the following reasons"

1. There's a profit to be made.
2. Health care service providers see a chance to put the price of their services up to increase their return.
3. Insurance companies want to make as big a profit as possible so they absorb the impact of 2. by passing on the cost to the consumer as price.

That's running it like a business. The provider sets a price. The insurance company sees that as a cost. The insurance company factors in that cost to the consumer who sees it as a price. It has nothing to do with red tape. It is about profit. If there was no profit motive then the system wouldn't be as expensive as it is and it wouldn't be as inefficient as it is.

Single-payer schemes are monopolies and one of those reasonably rare cases where a monopoly is useful. The government, as single-payer, can negotiate prices and costs on the basis of recovery not no the basis of profit so it can reduce its costs and thus the taxpayer's burden while running an effective and efficient health care service.

then I have some questions. First the same one I asked earlier: You honestly believe there is no government regulation in the insurance business in the U.S. and that complying with it is not a cost to those companies?

I'll save you the trouble and tell you the first one is they are regulated and it doesn cost money to meet said regulations. that being the case your argument would then have to be that if the industry was not regulated we would not see a decrease in healthcare premiums. the consumer I don't think would let the industry get away with that. Especially when the single biggest consumer of insurance premiums are businesses.

Then there are the social and capitalistic aspects involved. You are looking at one small facet when you say government healthcare can be good if properly funded. But this is also basic supply and demand economics. If price goes down (of healthcare) demand increases which reduces supply (of medical resources, i.e. physicians). There are even more issues with the supply problem. if there is greater demand and thus less supply then you have to start choosing who gets what, say a lung for example. Well we already know the problems with that because we're seeing it in the UK in the fact that smokers there are prioritized last or not at all in terms of these operation. Why? because they can't afford to treat all those people nor can a government run program justify giveing a lung to a smoker over someone who has cancer unrelated to smoking. The UKs options were increase funding of the program and somehow get more docs or priortize rights. they chose the latter because the cost of the former would have been astromical. Bringing us to our for profit system.....

The for profit healtchare system is the most fair system there is, but it is also at the heart of the debate, are you entitled to good health no matter what? and another philosophical debate I like basically asking will there be a better society where government tries to provide as many things as it can to as many people or will society be better if the people attain what they need on their own? I believe the latter because dependency breeds complacency. In other words you will not create a healthier country by showing people that no matter what they do to their bodies government will pick up the tab. You create a better society when people take responsibility for themselves. For instance that they will have to plan to pay for their healthcare and that if they don't want to rack of the bills they need to take care of themselves.

 

[Diuretic]

Thanks for a considered response. Just one point though. The law of demand and supply doesn't work in the manner you mentioned - or at least I think it doesn't.

I was always under the impression that it was about equilibrium.

You made the point that if the price of healthcare went down the demand would increase. I don't think it works that way. Generally speaking health needs exist independent of individual demand.

But there is a supply and demand mechanism that is being manipulated without shame by the medical profession.

If there were an increase in the number of doctors (family/general practitioners let's say) then the price of their services would go down as they competed with one another to sell those services. That's why the medical profession (well in my country at least) tightly regulates its profession in terms of how many people will be admitted to unversity medical schools to then graduate - too many and the earnings of their members would be reduced. Very strong union the Australian Medical Association

If there is a great demand for medical services then - speaking generally - decisions have to be made about how to allocate scarce resources. It's not done on a cost-price basis but on a needs basis. Those are ethics-based decisions, they're not motivated solely by economics.

Your final point is really a contrast of your ideology with mine. You asked me if I believe people should receive good health care no matter what. Yes I do. I wouldn't live in a society that decided only the wealthy were entitled to good health care because they could afford it.

You make it sound like "personal responsibility" determines one's health status. That's the sort of comment I would expect from someone firmly rooted in a pre-scientific society. We know now that genes have a great bearing on an individual's health and wellbeing. And we can't help our genetic maekup can we?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

well I dont wanna put words in your mouth, so what are you advocating. Heck, if you were president truthmatters, how would you handle the health care situation?

No 0ne is advocating government RUN health care!

 

[actsnoblemartin]

correct me if im wrong, but doesnt government run healthcare cost alot of money, meaning high taxes i think it is 70% in france, and very high in canada, anyone know for sure?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

health savings accounts, does anyone know about them, i thought they were tax free, so you could pay for healthcare


does anyone have the number about who the 46 million are. I heard 9.5 of them are illegals, and the rest, i dont remember but this was according to a very reputable source in the government, i just cant remember it. Anyone know any links for it?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The bottom line with health care is that it wasn't always so expensive. I don't know very much about the specifics of what law had which unintended consequence, but somewhere/somehow/someway it is the fault of government. You can blame greedy capitalists all you want, but you'd be ignoring how the truly filthy rich got to be that way: by coming up with clever ways to bring former luxury goods to the masses.

Sure, you can make a good living selling pricey goods to rich people. Whoever founded Neiman-Marcus or Aston-Martin are probably quite wealthy. But their fortunes made from selling botique goods to the rich pale in comparison to the fortunes made by Sam Walton, Henry Ford, and so forth. They worked hard to seek efficiency and relentlessly trim costs, bringing prices down. That's what happens in a healthy economy--prices actually go down in real terms. Businesses do not make big profits by killing customers and ripping them off. Not if they want to stay profitable, anyway.

For evidence of this, look at the price of LAZIK surgery, or cosmetic surgery. They've gradually become cheaper over the years. Why? Because they aren't covered by most insurance, which means a whole lot less government restrictions. It means that people are spending their own money too, not company money. They actually bother to shop around and look for a good deal. People would do this more if they bought their own insurance, but most don't, because the tax code massively favors employer-provided insurance over self-purchased insurance. Which is totally nonsensical; why should employers provide health insurance any more than car insurance or homeowner's insurance?

But there is a supply and demand mechanism that is being manipulated without shame by the medical profession.

If there were an increase in the number of doctors (family/general practitioners let's say) then the price of their services would go down as they competed with one another to sell those services. That's why the medical profession (well in my country at least) tightly regulates its profession in terms of how many people will be admitted to unversity medical schools to then graduate - too many and the earnings of their members would be reduced. Very strong union the Australian Medical Association

Our own AMA--the American Medical Association--was started for exactly the same reason: to unabashedly restrict the supply of graduating doctors in order to keep wages propped up. They accomplished this by getting government regulations passed of course. So now we have a situation where someone with the flu must visit someone who has 8 years of highly rationed schooling and pay them $200 in order to take some simple tests and get a prescription.

 

[Diuretic]

Some good points there Baron. On cosmetic surgery/Lazik. They are definitely the sorts of procedures that aren’t required to maintain health and wellbeing. I agree they shouldn’t be funded by the single payer or the government scheme. If people can afford it, fine, have it done, if not, they go without. And I do think that’s an area where market forces can sort things out pretty well.

On employers and health schemes. I agree as well. I don’t see the sense in it. I understand how it possibly came about, it features large in union labour contract negotiations, but the cost of health insurance is going to be passed on to the consumer anyway. I’m thinking in particular of the big auto companies as an example. If they’re competing with companies overseas who don’t have the burden of paying for health insurance then they’re immediately facing a problem with additional costs that their competitors may not have. If society is obliged to make sure people are educated to be ready for work then perhaps society should be obligated to ensure people are healthy as well.

Good point about going to a doctor for something that can be sorted out by a para-medical (not a paramedic). I believe that here in Au we’re starting to look at having nurses (who are all university degree trained anyway) who receive additional training to take on those sort of para-medic roles. The docs union of course is hanging on but they may have to give a bit of ground. It just makes much more sense.

 

[red states rule]

health savings accounts, does anyone know about them, i thought they were tax free, so you could pay for healthcare


does anyone have the number about who the 46 million are. I heard 9.5 of them are illegals, and the rest, i dont remember but this was according to a very reputable source in the government, i just cant remember it. Anyone know any links for it?

and libs were opposed to them. It would make it more difficult for the Dems to hijack the health care system and let the government take it over

 

[Bern80]

Thanks for a considered response. Just one point though. The law of demand and supply doesn't work in the manner you mentioned - or at least I think it doesn't.

I was always under the impression that it was about equilibrium.

You made the point that if the price of healthcare went down the demand would increase. I don't think it works that way. Generally speaking health needs exist independent of individual demand.

It is supply and demand and the system does work that way. think about it. Everyone here is saying people aren't going to the doctor because they can't afford healthcare. Thus there are fewer people consuming the supply which tranlsates into lower demand on the resource (medical care). If everyone can afford health care then demand/consumption of services goes up because people no longer have the need to put it off for financial reasons. If something costs less demand and consumption of it go up. it really is that simple.

If there were an increase in the number of doctors (family/general practitioners let's say) then the price of their services would go down as they competed with one another to sell those services. That's why the medical profession (well in my country at least) tightly regulates its profession in terms of how many people will be admitted to unversity medical schools to then graduate - too many and the earnings of their members would be reduced. Very strong union the Australian Medical Association

But there needs to be an incentive of some type or mechanism that causes the number of doctor's to increase. yet you seem to be arguing against one of those mechanisms. Amazingly what you are talking about right here is the equilibrium you mentioned earlier. If you what you say is true of Australia it really is the market that has determined the number of doctors. For there to be an increase in the number of doctors again there must be the incentive and part of that is the pay. As you say if more doctors are let into the system the physicians may make less money, but what would also happen is the incentive to become a doctor would decrease because the pay has decreased.

If there is a great demand for medical services then - speaking generally - decisions have to be made about how to allocate scarce resources. It's not done on a cost-price basis but on a needs basis. Those are ethics-based decisions, they're not motivated solely by economics.

But that runs contradictary to your later notion that everyone deserves healthcare. To me everyone means everyone. Not everyone except you deserve it a little more than her and you a little less than someone else. That's what happens with priortization. The rationale is that everyone deserves healthcare but not everyone can afford it, so our solution is we'll have government pay for it. So ask yourself, now that you've made healthcare cheap so that 100% of the population can get it have actually improved access to it? the answer is no, because now the increased demand is eating even more resources than before and you're forced to prioritize who get's what even more.

Remember the goal isn't just to make healthcare affordable. That's pointless if you don't have access to it when you need it. The goal really is for everyone to have equal access to healthcare and quite clearly government run medicine can't accomplish that either.

Your final point is really a contrast of your ideology with mine. You asked me if I believe people should receive good health care no matter what. Yes I do. I wouldn't live in a society that decided only the wealthy were entitled to good health care because they could afford it.

You make it sound like "personal responsibility" determines one's health status. That's the sort of comment I would expect from someone firmly rooted in a pre-scientific society. We know now that genes have a great bearing on an individual's health and wellbeing. And we can't help our genetic maekup can we?

I'm the last person you need to make that particular speech to. I had cancer when I was 4 and should be dead. That should speak a little to how much I believe what I believe. I got it through no fault of my own and through not fault of anyone else. Now obviously at 4 my parents paid the medical bills as their child that is their responsibility. For arguments sake let say the same thing happened now (I'm 26). Again contracted cancer threw no fault of my own and no one elses. Who's problem financially speaking is my condition? You certainly can't put the financial burden on someone else. They didnt' give me cancer, why shoudl they get stuck with the bill? The unsaid excuse is 'well it's not my fault this happened to me so I shouldn't have to pay for it.' My philosophy is not quite as you stated. Mine is that the situations you find yourself in through no one elses fault, whether by yours. act of god, freak accident, what have you, are still your responsiblity because they sure as hell aren't anyone elses.

IMO opinion that fosters a better set of behaviors in peopel then does the notion that accidents that happen to you will be taken care of by someone else. You aren't entitled to a risk free life and you need to plan accordingly for the unplanned and unexpected. Unfortunately our country has so many people that don't do that we're starting to come up solutions that breed dependency instead of encouraging certain behaviors.

 

[Diuretic]

It is supply and demand and the system does work that way. think about it. Everyone here is saying people aren't going to the doctor because they can't afford healthcare. Thus there are fewer people consuming the supply which tranlsates into lower demand on the resource (medical care). If everyone can afford health care then demand/consumption of services goes up because people no longer have the need to put it off for financial reasons. If something costs less demand and consumption of it go up. it really is that simple.

Okay – but if people do need to seek health care then doesn’t that mean that price (to them) shouldn’t be the determinant? Shouldn’t it be that their condition is the determinant? I content that the laws of supply and demand shouldn’t be allowed to operate in a health care scheme.

But there needs to be an incentive of some type or mechanism that causes the number of doctor's to increase. yet you seem to be arguing against one of those mechanisms. Amazingly what you are talking about right here is the equilibrium you mentioned earlier. If you what you say is true of Australia it really is the market that has determined the number of doctors. For there to be an increase in the number of doctors again there must be the incentive and part of that is the pay. As you say if more doctors are let into the system the physicians may make less money, but what would also happen is the incentive to become a doctor would decrease because the pay has decreased.

Since there’s no actual market at work because the AMA is manipulating the supply I think the whole idea of market mechanisms can be tossed out of the window on this. The way I see it is that the free market is fine with dealing with a good, say the auto industry. Since demand is going to be largely unknown and somewhat fickle (how are the big cars selling as against smaller, fuel-efficient ones these days?) in a consumer-oriented economy, businesses need to be fast to react, not necessarily anticipate, to the type of demand. With health care it’s a bit easier. There exists the ability to predict the healthcare needs of a society because unlike the fickle tastes of the consumer, healthcare needs are biologically and environmentally determined. So, we should be able to predict exactly how many doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc we need some years in advance. The reaction-based mechanism of the laws of supply and demand are not required in that context.

But that runs contradictary to your later notion that everyone deserves healthcare. To me everyone means everyone. Not everyone except you deserve it a little more than her and you a little less than someone else. That's what happens with priortization. The rationale is that everyone deserves healthcare but not everyone can afford it, so our solution is we'll have government pay for it. So ask yourself, now that you've made healthcare cheap so that 100% of the population can get it have actually improved access to it? the answer is no, because now the increased demand is eating even more resources than before and you're forced to prioritize who get's what even more.

Remember the goal isn't just to make healthcare affordable. That's pointless if you don't have access to it when you need it. The goal really is for everyone to have equal access to healthcare and quite clearly government run medicine can't accomplish that either.

There’s no contradiction. Everyone deserves healthcare and my position is that they should be able to get it without paying for it. That’s healthcare and not, say, cosmetic surgery (unless it were something such as might be carried out by a cranio-maxillo-facial unit). Triage is a form of decision-making about health care. The same form of decision-making can be carried out across society. I’m suggesting that need, not wealth, be the determinant.

I'm the last person you need to make that particular speech to. I had cancer when I was 4 and should be dead. That should speak a little to how much I believe what I believe. I got it through no fault of my own and through not fault of anyone else. Now obviously at 4 my parents paid the medical bills as their child that is their responsibility. For arguments sake let say the same thing happened now (I'm 26). Again contracted cancer threw no fault of my own and no one elses. Who's problem financially speaking is my condition? You certainly can't put the financial burden on someone else. They didnt' give me cancer, why shoudl they get stuck with the bill? The unsaid excuse is 'well it's not my fault this happened to me so I shouldn't have to pay for it.' My philosophy is not quite as you stated. Mine is that the situations you find yourself in through no one elses fault, whether by yours. act of god, freak accident, what have you, are still your responsiblity because they sure as hell aren't anyone elses.

IMO opinion that fosters a better set of behaviors in peopel then does the notion that accidents that happen to you will be taken care of by someone else. You aren't entitled to a risk free life and you need to plan accordingly for the unplanned and unexpected. Unfortunately our country has so many people that don't do that we're starting to come up solutions that breed dependency instead of encouraging certain behaviors.

You should be entitled to healthcare simply because you’re a member of your society. That should be all the justification needed. At 4 you were the responsibility of your parents, but society had a responsibility as well. That’s the definition of a society. Without that shared idea we’re just a big collection of little family groups and individuals who owe nothing to anyone or anything outside of themselves.

John Donne - "All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

That’s the way I see it. I’ll pay my taxes to help others and to help me. While I’m well I’ll work and pay taxes so that, among other things, healthcare is available to all. While I’m sick I’ll gratefully accept the help of my fellow citizens.

 

[Bern80]

Okay – but if people do need to seek health care then doesn’t that mean that price (to them) shouldn’t be the determinant? Shouldn’t it be that their condition is the determinant? I content that the laws of supply and demand shouldn’t be allowed to operate in a health care scheme.

I haven't decided on that one yet.

Since there’s no actual market at work because the AMA is manipulating the supply I think the whole idea of market mechanisms can be tossed out of the window on this. The way I see it is that the free market is fine with dealing with a good, say the auto industry.

Medical care falls under the gategory of a good in that it is a servie

Since demand is going to be largely unknown and somewhat fickle (how are the big cars selling as against smaller, fuel-efficient ones these days?) in a consumer-oriented economy, businesses need to be fast to react, not necessarily anticipate, to the type of demand.

and historically speaking government reacts very slowly. Say a new technology comes online that is necessary for many hospitals to have. Who honeslty believe the government will be the quickest to respond to that need? No, they will be deciding who get's what based on politics. So some senator can see look at the fancy new machine I was able to get for our hospital. Where another hospital somewhere else go screwed out of it.

With health care it’s a bit easier. There exists the ability to predict the healthcare needs of a society because unlike the fickle tastes of the consumer, healthcare needs are biologically and environmentally determined. So, we should be able to predict exactly how many doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc we need some years in advance. The reaction-based mechanism of the laws of supply and demand are not required in that context.

They most certainly are. Supply and demand are not reactionary forces. The work the same whether you know the future or not. In this instance you just happen to know what demand will be. the rules still apply.

There’s no contradiction. Everyone deserves healthcare and my position is that they should be able to get it without paying for it. That’s healthcare and not, say, cosmetic surgery (unless it were something such as might be carried out by a cranio-maxillo-facial unit). Triage is a form of decision-making about health care. The same form of decision-making can be carried out across society. I’m suggesting that need, not wealth, be the determinant.

that everyone deserves healthcare but later stating who gets will need to be prioritized is a contradiction. Again what is the point of everyone being able to afford healthcare if they don't have access to it? You will have the ezact same situation you have now. There is still going to be a group of people w/o access. All you've done is changed form the group that can't afford it to a group that the government has decided doesn't need or deserve it.

You should be entitled to healthcare simply because you’re a member of your society. That should be all the justification needed. At 4 you were the responsibility of your parents, but society had a responsibility as well. That’s the definition of a society. Without that shared idea we’re just a big collection of little family groups and individuals who owe nothing to anyone or anything outside of themselves.

As I said earlier I believe a scoiety grows for the better the more people take responsiblility for themselves. An entitlement mentality runs quite contradictory to that.

That’s the way I see it. I’ll pay my taxes to help others and to help me. While I’m well I’ll work and pay taxes so that, among other things, healthcare is available to all. While I’m sick I’ll gratefully accept the help of my fellow citizens.

Again incorrect. Healthcare is affordable to all. Not available to all. Look at the smokers in the UK. They're paying taxes into a system which they will need the use of, but are possibly never going to be able to use.

 

[Diuretic]

Just on the prioritisation bit for a moment (I think we may have come to an impasse on the others but it was an interesting discussion for sure).

I have this idea that individuals should be able to gain access to health care on the basis of individual need and not capacity to pay. I stress I'm not talking about someone getting a cute, retrousse nose, but health care that relates to life maintenance and wellbeing. Given that market forces favour those with the ability to pay, I believe that market forces should be kept out of this decision-making process. Would you like to critique that view?

 

[Bern80]

Just on the prioritisation bit for a moment (I think we may have come to an impasse on the others but it was an interesting discussion for sure).

I have this idea that individuals should be able to gain access to health care on the basis of individual need and not capacity to pay. I stress I'm not talking about someone getting a cute, retrousse nose, but health care that relates to life maintenance and wellbeing. Given that market forces favour those with the ability to pay, I believe that market forces should be kept out of this decision-making process. Would you like to critique that view?

I agree with some of that (the boob job vs. lung transplant part of it). But there are still a few problems here. If a gal wants a boob job in the U.S. she isn't depriving someone else of say a life saveing lung transplant. Because the assumption would have to be that the doc is doing a boob job instead of a lung transplant. Well we know that to not be the case. Doctors that do boob jobs or cosmetic surgeries pretty much just do that. They're specialists in that sense. Just like surgeon that do perform lung tansplants predominantly aren't doing cosmetic surgery on the side. And for the most part cosmetic surgery is out of pocket unless it's like facial reconstruction or some form of cosmetic surgery to repair a deformity or somethign of that nature.

On to the market forces: So if you take those out what is determing who is treated? Priortization of need. So again I want you to answer a specific question. Do you want healthcare to be affordable to all or do you want all people who need it to have access to it? Takeing out the price is not going to change the fact that some people still won't ahve access to healthcare even though they are now unvoluntarily paying for it through taxes. You will still have moral dilemas under the latter as well. They'll just be different. To people need a lung transplant, one smoked all his life, one has a rare form of cancer. Are you prepared to tell the smoker your going to let hime die over his poor choices? the fact is even if you go that route the market forces of supply and demand or still present. You've just changed the price variable is all by reducing it.

 

[Diuretic]

I agree with some of that (the boob job vs. lung transplant part of it). But there are still a few problems here. If a gal wants a boob job in the U.S. she isn't depriving someone else of say a life saveing lung transplant. Because the assumption would have to be that the doc is doing a boob job instead of a lung transplant. Well we know that to not be the case. Doctors that do boob jobs or cosmetic surgeries pretty much just do that. They're specialists in that sense. Just like surgeon that do perform lung tansplants predominantly aren't doing cosmetic surgery on the Yside. And for the most part cosmetic surgery is out of pocket unless it's like facial reconstruction or some form of cosmetic surgery to repair a deformity or somethign of that nature.

Yes, good points, without a hint of condescension may I say, conceded.

On to the market forces: So if you take those out what is determing who is treated? Priortization of need. So again I want you to answer a specific question. Do you want healthcare to be affordable to all or do you want all people who need it to have access to it? Takeing out the price is not going to change the fact that some people still won't ahve access to healthcare even though they are now unvoluntarily paying for it through taxes. You will still have moral dilemas under the latter as well. They'll just be different. To people need a lung transplant, one smoked all his life, one has a rare form of cancer. Are you prepared to tell the smoker your going to let hime die over his poor choices? the fact is even if you go that route the market forces of supply and demand or still present. You've just changed the price variable is all by reducing it.

Do you want healthcare to be affordable to all or do you want all people who need it to have access to it?

That's a really good question and it goes right to the guts of the debate. On the first part of your question, I can see what you're driving at (and I'm not being devious). Yes, I would like it to be affordable to all - hey I know where that's going but I can't deny something I believe in. Do I want all people who need it to have access to it? Yes, and here in Australia that is a huge issue because of our country. The metropolitan areas have the big hospitals, the isolated areas are less well served. We have the Royal Flying Doctor Service and state-based air ambulance services which are great but quick access to services is better in the major cities. That has to be addressed here, I agree.

Takeing out the price is not going to change the fact that some people still won't ahve access to healthcare even though they are now unvoluntarily paying for it through taxes

.

Why not? Sorry I re-read my response, too sparse. Why won't people have access to health care?

You will still have moral dilemas under the latter as well. They'll just be different. To people need a lung transplant, one smoked all his life, one has a rare form of cancer. Are you prepared to tell the smoker your going to let hime die over his poor choices? the fact is even if you go that route the market forces of supply and demand or still present. You've just changed the price variable is all by reducing it.

No, the price variable has been removed. You see I'm not trying to take away medical care from people. I don't care if someone who is as rich as Croesus has been smoking Cuban cigars since they were ten can afford a lung transplant. No problem at all. Good luck to them. But I do care that someone who isn't wealthy and who needs health care should be refused timely and appropriate health care because they couldn't afford to pay for it.

 

[Bern80]

Why not? Sorry I re-read my response, too sparse. Why won't people have access to health care?

First I'll clarify by stating access means the ability to receive health care when you need it. What i'm getting as far that specifc question was concerned is what is the real goal? To me it would seem to be that everybody have access to healthcare. Which I believe is quite different from everyone being able to afford healthcare. To anwer specifically your question people wont have access to health care because of the strain on the resources. I don't mean to beat a dead horse but it goes back to supply and demand. I will have to ask that you accept if something costs less consumption of it will go up. So what happens when a greater number of consumers attempt to consume an unchanged amount of supply? I will grant that it is an assumption on my part that supply (of doctors, facilitiesm technology, etc) isn't going to increase. It means some are not going to get that immediate access which was our original goal. Now we're forced to priortize who gets what.

What I'm getting is that if you agree that the real goal is that everyone have access to healthcare when they need it, then reducing the price isn't going to accomplish that goal. Again all that has happened is you have changed who isn't going to receive healthcare. Right now (in the U.S.) it's the cost that is preventing access for some. If we move to free healthcare or significantly reduced cost healthcare then it's going to be teh supply of resources that prevents access for some.

No, the price variable has been removed. You see I'm not trying to take away medical care from people. I don't care if someone who is as rich as Croesus has been smoking Cuban cigars since they were ten can afford a lung transplant. No problem at all. Good luck to them. But I do care that someone who isn't wealthy and who needs health care should be refused timely and appropriate health care because they couldn't afford to pay for it.

Got into the this in the above resposne. But what will happen if the cost is removed is someone will be redused care because the resources aren't there to treat them.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm no economist but I do understand - roughly - how the laws of supply and demand operate with one another to achieve equilibrium. In that sense you're quite right. If a demand is great and supply is low then price will go through the stratosphere. Higher prices will dampen demand and there will be a tendency to pull back to that state of equilibrium. I don't mean that to sound as if I know of what I'm writing about but that's simplistic understanding of it. The invisible hand and all that. And that's great for, say, manufactured goods. Now I can't afford a plasma tv set so I'm not going to buy one. I've made a sensible and conscious decision to use the money I have for other things that I need more like rent, food............and beer (just the basic necessities ya know )

If I save I can buy a plasma tv. In the meantime it's entirely likely that the price of plasma televisions will decrease because supply is pumped up by other manufacturers entering the market (let's hear it for China!). But until my capacity to pay the market price occurs I'll do without (besides we get nothing but crap on tv here so it's no biggie).

Someone's health needs are a long way from the want of a good such as a plasma tv. That's my central point, that market forces shouldn't be used to run health care for a nation. I'm not anti market forces, command economies are a bloody economic disaster. I've seen first hand command economies behind the old Iron Curtain when the Stalinist Brezhnev was in charge at the politburo). Empty shelves, rows of empty shelves. Anyway, enough of that.

Market forces mean that some people will miss out on the goods. And that's tough. We can't all own a BMW, but most of us can afford a car and that's a pretty good deal in my mind. Market forces are used in the pricing of food. But decent societies won't let the poor starve. Wisely though, they don't interfere in the free market when it comes to food pricing and instead use welfare to enable the poor to buy food. But I'll say it again, health care isn't like buying a bag of carrots. The free market mechanism should be removed.

To this point thank you for your considered responses, they're helping me work out my own ideas much better than before the conversation began.