USA healthcare overhaul

Öwen;8786512 said:
I'm sorry, but I do groan every time I read this statement, who decides these things? It just smacks as totally blind sighted patriotism.

It's an opinion, not a fact and it's pretty much an opinion rooted in the fact that you live there. :goggly:

+1

There is no greatest country on Earth; they're all pretty shit. :Smokin:
 
Aaron, does the module you have described work anywhere else in the world at the moment?

Joe

No, but I understand free markets, and I've read enough on the subject of health care to convince me that it can be done much more soundly than it is being done anywhere as of current. I'm aware that one can learn a lot by looking at health care systems elsewhere in the world, and in turn use those ideas (or parts of ideas) as guidance for change in the US, but doing so is based on the incredibly large assumption that the best answer for health care already exists somewhere right now in the world. I say, it does not. Why is everyone so quick to assume that the best system is already in practice?

A good example of free market medicine currently in place on a smaller scale, is cosmetic medicine and laser eye surgery. Prices continue to drop, service is great, and people pay out of pocket.

Also, for a good basic look at the history of health care and regulation in the US, check out this article:

http://mises.org/daily/1588

What started the US off in the wrong direction initially, was the AMA pushing to limit the amount of students who could enter medical schools, with the goal of protecting doctors' wages (less doctors = higher wage paid per doctor). This was largely accomplished with The Flexner Report in 1910.
 
A good example of free market medicine currently in place on a smaller scale, is cosmetic medicine and laser eye surgery. Prices continue to drop, service is great, and people pay out of pocket.

This example always annoys the hell out of me. Sure, free market regulation has worked in the areas of cosmetic medicine and laser eye surgery, but those services are only utilized by the upper-middle class and above. The average schoolteacher making $25,000 a year doesn't get a boob-job.

A free market healthcare system might ensure that wealthy people get quality care at an affordable price, but it will do nothing for the poor. The poor do not have enough buying power to effectively influence the market.
 
Well, that is pretty much the way taxes work with heathcare. Majority of people pay taxes "for nothing", until you have to go to the hospital. Lets say you are insured, the way it would change: Like I counted earlier, it would be like 3 dollars a day that you would spend on average to the healthcare as taxes, compared to the current system where you don't pay anything if you aren't insured, then you get a huge jackpot when hospitalized, which can cause personal bankruptcy on worst cases.

Why are you so sure that the government is the best mechanism for all of this? Why not promote personal responsibility and allow people to save for their own health care needs, rather than expect the government to spend funds in a responsibly way? The system becomes needlessly more complex and moral hazards arise when the government is involved.
 
This example always annoys the hell out of me. Sure, free market regulation has worked in the areas of cosmetic medicine and laser eye surgery, but those services are only utilized by the upper-middle class and above. The average schoolteacher making $25,000 a year doesn't get a boob-job.

A free market healthcare system might ensure that wealthy people get quality care at an affordable price, but it will do nothing for the poor. The poor do not have enough buying power to effectively influence the market.

Whether or not a schoolteacher gets a boob-job is irrelevant, you're missing the point. The point is that it is a field where there is good quality services available, and prices continue to decrease, and this is because of the free market. Prices don't decrease because those services are only utilized by the upper-middle class and above, that's ridiculous.

I don't, however, disagree with your assessment that the poor do not have enough buying power to influence the market, and that can be remedied by people giving to charities, as well as hospitals and doctors offering free or reduced-rate services for those in need, as they largely did before Medicare and Medicaid came into existence.
 
Why are you so sure that the government is the best mechanism for all of this? Why not promote personal responsibility and allow people to save for their own health care needs, rather than expect the government to spend funds in a responsibly way? The system becomes needlessly more complex and moral hazards arise when the government is involved.

we have to deal with the realities we have now, not some dream that suddenly everyone will start thinking differently. and how the hell should the average working class family be able to save fuck all for health care, eh?
 
we have to deal with the realities we have now, not some dream that suddenly everyone will start thinking differently. and how the hell should the average working class family be able to save fuck all for health care, eh?

Yep, Aaron seems to assume poor people can afford luxuries (like eye surgery or boob jobs) in a so called "free market", which they quite obviously still can't, even if prices have been 'driven down', luxuries are something that the poor cannot afford, so what makes anyone think that somehow prices for an often more complicated and thus more expensive essential service will be competitively driven down by a free market enough for poor people to afford it? Fairy stories.

And the other option was to rely on the compassion of others? Given the lack of compassion in this thread for other people that seems to be a very unreliable option when you put someones health on the line.
 
we have to deal with the realities we have now, not some dream that suddenly everyone will start thinking differently.

Well of course no one is going to start thinking differently if the government continues to act like it's the only solution to our problems. But what if Obama, instead of pushing for more government involvement and touting it as "THE ANSWER", came out and told the country that he was committed to having serious debate and discussion about any and all possibilities for health care reform, and that it is important that we do not necessarily operate based on the assumption that the government always knows best. He likely doesn't believe that, hence why he hasn't said anything like that, but my point is that public opinion can change very drastically about something when the facts are put in front of them. For the majority of people, they'll just listen to their leaders or their political parties and spend no time whatsoever researching something on their own.

and how the hell should the average working class family be able to save fuck all for health care, eh?

People should be allowed to direct a portion of their pre-tax income to a medical savings account, so in a way their wage would increase. Voilà- more money "in your pocket".
 
I don't get it. Healthcare shouldn't be seen as a commodity, it should be given to those who need it, rich or poor, not those who can afford it. Savings accounts and the like are all well and good but that doesn't even remotely address the issues of people who can't afford insurance at all. To me your argument doesn't even make sense Aaron.

Joe
 
Öwen;8787430 said:
And the other option was to rely on the compassion of others? Given the lack of compassion in this thread for other people that seems to be a very unreliable option when you put someones health on the line.

Yep dude, you totally nailed it- I am completely devoid of compassion, and I do not care at all for those in need :goggly:

Here's a bit from congressman Ron Paul's book "The Revolution: A Manifesto" which I think puts things very well. Keep in mind, he is a doctor, and speaks from the perspective of someone who has spent a lot of time working in the medical field.

In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, for instance, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at about the same rate they are now, and received good care. As a physician I never accepted Medicare or Medicaid money from the government, and instead offered cut-rate or free services to those who could not afford care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility toward the less fortunate, and free medical care for the poor was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn't fit into the typical by-the-script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector. Laws and regulations that inflated the cost of medical services and imposed unreasonable liability standards on medical professionals even when they were acting in a volunteer capacity later made offering free care cost prohibitive, but free care for the poor was common at a time when American wasn't so "governmentish" (to borrow a word from William Penn). We have lost our belief that freedom works, because we no longer have the imagination to conceive of how a free people might solve its problems without introducing threats of violence- which is what government solutions ultimately amount to.
 
Yep dude, you totally nailed it- I am completely devoid of compassion, and I do not care at all for those in need :goggly:

With all due respect Aaron, I wasn't referring to you, just a few of the rather foul 'I don't want to see my tax money going to help other people' comments earlier in the thread.
 
Öwen;8787477 said:
I believe the question really is, in a civilised society, should we let people starve?

EXACTLY, you are starting to get it. We who have money to give, should give to charities that support those in need, so that they can get health care. Doctors should offer free or cut-rate services to those in need, as an act of compassion, as they used to. And the government should do absolutely nothing that would make it more difficult for charities to operate, or for doctors to act in a volunteer capacity. But buying into the idea that the government can figure it all out and take care of everyone, and that all I have to do to care about my fellow man is scribble on a tax form...this is absurd and helps nothing.
 
By this logic, a hungry person should be allowed to steal food as they please.

by the logic implicit in that remark, poor people should just be decent enough to die, without expecting to get health care they can't pay for, the dirty bums... or perhaps just hope for charity that may or may not come, and be willing to accept the result of that.

i like Ron Paul too.. but he's talking about a bygone age that will never come back... much like "sock hops", Drive-in Movie Theaters, and being able to eat unwrapped, home-made treats given out by strangers on Halloween without worry... gone, and it won't be back.

let's deal with the reality at hand, not some cool old dude's reminiscences of a bygone age.