Universal Health Care

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='24 April 2010 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1272167744' post='2099553']
Now *that* is something that also responds (extremely well) to market conditions. Get the government out of the insurance business and watch the prices drop like crazy. At the end of the day, insurance companies, like any other companies, want more customers. The market equilibrium would make health insurance far better and more efficient than it is today.
[/quote]

the insurance companies want more customers, but certain kind of customers. just like car insurance. they want pts who pay their premiums but don't use thier service often. this again goes into pre-existing conditions. a person could be denied insruance because of a pre-existing condition he has no control over such as a genetic disorder.

not to mention, insurance companies being completly privatized would not allow everyone to be covered. yes, it would allow for more people to be covered. something i am not against. although it would still leave people uninsured due to pre-existing conditions, high cost of insurance(with the sher cost of medical supplies and drugs the cost would not drastically drop) and so on.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1272168191' post='2099563']
the insurance companies want more customers, but certain kind of customers. just like car insurance. they want pts who pay their premiums but don't use thier service often. this again goes into pre-existing conditions. a person could be denied insruance because of a pre-existing condition he has no control over such as a genetic disorder.

not to mention, insurance companies being completly privatized would not allow everyone to be covered. yes, it would allow for more people to be covered. something i am not against. although it would still leave people uninsured due to pre-existing conditions, high cost of insurance(with the sher cost of medical supplies and drugs the cost would not drastically drop) and so on.
[/quote]
The market for insurance would reach equilibrium without government interference. Some would choose not to buy, same with any products, and with healthcare itself.
The role of charity is to provide to the people who truly cannot get by on their own. In healthcare this is a small proportion of people, and without government interference they could certainly be looked after. The rest could get by through use of the free market.

If insurance costs are artificially high, we get a surplus supply, but when they're artificially low, we get a shortage. Let the market function on its own, and these would naturally move to long term sustainable levels.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272168395' post='2099565']
The market for insurance would reach equilibrium without government interference. Some would choose not to buy, same with any products, and with healthcare itself.
The role of charity is to provide to the people who truly cannot get by on their own. In healthcare this is a small proportion of people, and without government interference they could certainly be looked after. The rest could get by through use of the free market.

If insurance costs are artificially high, we get a surplus supply, but when they're artificially low, we get a shortage. Let the market function on its own, and these would naturally move to long term sustainable levels.
[/quote]


there is more than small portion of people who cannot get by on their own and afford insurance.

also how do you purpose we pay for thos without insurance who need medical attention? the hospitals can not just eat thost costs.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1272169289' post='2099587']
there is more than small portion of people who cannot get by on their own and afford insurance.

[/quote]
There is now. I highly doubt the market for healthcare or healthcare insurance is at a long term equilibrium.

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1272169289' post='2099587']

also how do you purpose we pay for thos without insurance who need medical attention? the hospitals can not just eat thost costs.
[/quote]
Charity, in an ideal world. Private charities. At this point in my quest for intellectually consistent political beliefs, I'm willing to allow for an extremely limited amount of government assistance, but I'm willing to bet there's a better private solution out there that I just haven't had explained to me.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1272169411' post='2099589']
There is now. I highly doubt the market for healthcare or healthcare insurance is at a long term equilibrium.


Charity, in an ideal world. Private charities. At this point in my quest for intellectually consistent political beliefs, I'm willing to allow for an extremely limited amount of government assistance, but I'm willing to bet there's a better private solution out there that I just haven't had explained to me.
[/quote]


which is kind of what i was talking about when i talked about ideal universal healthcare.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1272169763' post='2099596']
which is kind of what i was talking about when i talked about ideal universal healthcare.
[/quote]
Until you said that healthcare doesn't respond to market forces, which I think we have established was an incorrect assumption.

The role of the government ideally would become limited to the point of nonexistence. Market forces may drive the price down to the point where charity is enough to take care of any who are left behind.

Plus nobody's paying stupid enormous taxes on healthcare. Everyone wins.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1272170031' post='2099598']
Until you said that healthcare doesn't respond to market forces, which I think we have established was an incorrect assumption.

The role of the government ideally would become limited to the point of nonexistence. Market forces may drive the price down to the point where charity is enough to take care of any who are left behind.

Plus nobody's paying stupid enormous taxes on healthcare. Everyone wins.
[/quote]


the people who are paying the taxes are those who chose to use universal healthcare or refuse to buy private insurance. although everyone would pay some taxes for those people which are unable to provide for themselfs and need universal healthcare yet can't make any money to pay into it (children, adults in nursing homes unable to function, mentally and physically handicapped).

market forces will never be able to drive down the costs opf prices where charity alone would work. the free market will drive down prices, but not as much as you think it will. a healthcare system for a country, for it to be possible for everyone to be insured is not possible without the government being involved.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1272170499' post='2099601']

market forces will never be able to drive down the costs opf prices where charity alone would work. the free market will drive down prices, but not as much as you think it will. a healthcare system for a country, for it to be possible for everyone to be insured is not possible without the government being involved.
[/quote]
That really cannot be said with any credibility without observing it.

At the end of the day, everyone does indeed have access to healthcare. It might be more expensive than they like, but they have access to it. I'm not so sure that the government is justified in taking money from me to give to someone else just so that they have to pay less for something.

Access to healthcare is a right, but everyone already has access to it, and would probably have better access to it without government interference. People fall through the cracks in every system. It's sad, we can't deny that, but that is the role of private charity.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1272170775' post='2099602']
That really cannot be said with any credibility without observing it.

At the end of the day, everyone does indeed have access to healthcare. It might be more expensive than they like, but they have access to it. I'm not so sure that the government is justified in taking money from me to give to someone else just so that they have to pay less for something.

Access to healthcare is a right, but everyone already has access to it, and would probably have better access to it without government interference. People fall through the cracks in every system. It's sad, we can't deny that, but that is the role of private charity.
[/quote]


people do not have accesses to healthcare completely. what you meant to say is people have access to emergancy healthcare. people have access to go to the er for medical reasons but the er does not treat minor issues, reacurring issues, non emergancy issues such as knee replacements and so on. so people have access to a very limited amount of medical care.


the government has the right to take money from people to pay for its citizens who are unable to afford healthcare. its not about wanting a lower bill. its about wanting a bill that does not bankrupt your family and force your family to become homeless.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1272171253' post='2099608']
people do not have accesses to healthcare completely. what you meant to say is people have access to emergancy healthcare. people have access to go to the er for medical reasons but the er does not treat minor issues, reacurring issues, non emergancy issues such as knee replacements and so on. so people have access to a very limited amount of medical care.


the government has the right to take money from people to pay for its citizens who are unable to afford healthcare. its not about wanting a lower bill. its about wanting a bill that does not bankrupt your family and force your family to become homeless.
[/quote]
Well do people have the right to access to healthcare, or do they have the right to free healthcare? That gets right down to it.

Nobody pays your food bills, as far as I know.


Everybody already has access, if they're willing to pay up.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1272171942' post='2099612']
Well do people have the right to access to healthcare, or do they have the right to free healthcare? That gets right down to it.

Nobody pays your food bills, as far as I know.


Everybody already has access, if they're willing to pay up.
[/quote]


unless they are unable to pay up. thats the problem, the insane amount of cost for healthcare. its not like a burger at mcdonald's costs someone 100 dollars. yet some medications easily cost that much.

people have the right to access of healthcare at a resonable rate. getting healthcare should not bankrupt someone. i'm not saying free excluding those unable to care for themselfs. i am talking about making healthcare affordable for the average joe so he does not become homeless because of said healthcare.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='25 April 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1272174629' post='2099632']
unless they are unable to pay up. thats the problem, the insane amount of cost for healthcare. its not like a burger at mcdonald's costs someone 100 dollars. yet some medications easily cost that much.

people have the right to access of healthcare at a resonable rate. getting healthcare should not bankrupt someone. i'm not saying free excluding those unable to care for themselfs. i am talking about making healthcare affordable for the average joe so he does not become homeless because of said healthcare.
[/quote]
What's a reasonable rate for healthcare? Does it take into account the manpower needed to provide it? Does it take into account the cost of running a hospital?

More to the point, can you set price ceilings? Economic studies prove that price ceilings cause shortages if the ceiling is binding (and if it's not binding, then it's just literally useless legislation). That's a fact. So then we're back to subsidies. All that is, is charity enforced by a big stick. I say big stick because I don't want to sound like Stern and King.
I'd rather give to charity, rather than have the government take an arbitrary amount of my money and give it for me. Only God knows where that money goes. In Canada it goes to lots and lots of abortions. Soon it probably will in the US too. I don't want them having a cent of my money because it's going to keep going to croutons like that.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1272175293' post='2099637']
What's a reasonable rate for healthcare? Does it take into account the manpower needed to provide it? Does it take into account the cost of running a hospital?

More to the point, can you set price ceilings? Economic studies prove that price ceilings cause shortages if the ceiling is binding (and if it's not binding, then it's just literally useless legislation). That's a fact. So then we're back to subsidies. All that is, is charity enforced by a big stick. I say big stick because I don't want to sound like Stern and King.
I'd rather give to charity, rather than have the government take an arbitrary amount of my money and give it for me. Only God knows where that money goes. In Canada it goes to lots and lots of abortions. Soon it probably will in the US too. I don't want them having a cent of my money because it's going to keep going to croutons like that.
[/quote]


reasonable healthcare should be a price set so as not to bankrupt the average income. there problem with not having a price ceiling is you can end up out of most people's price ranges and yet still make a profit just by getting money from the rich who can afford such care.

if the average income is 50,000, let's just say. one medical visit should not cost 1,000 dollars. there has to be a price ceiling for the basic's. either that or reduced, cost saving cheaper care. although then that in of itself becomesn an issues. in other industry, this can work, but not in the medical field. in the food industry i have a choice. i can go all out for the 50 dollar steak dinner or i can go cheap and buy a can of tuna and a bananna. supply and demand works well for the food industry. not so much for healthcare. its not like there is some option of receiving medical care at a cheaper rate. i can't go receive medical care from a nurse for cheaper because a nurse can not provide care unless directly through a doctor. there is no cheaper option for healthcare like other markets.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='havok579257' date='25 April 2010 - 01:16 AM' timestamp='1272176175' post='2099643']
reasonable healthcare should be a price set so as not to bankrupt the average income. there problem with not having a price ceiling is you can end up out of most people's price ranges and yet still make a profit just by getting money from the rich who can afford such care.

if the average income is 50,000, let's just say. one medical visit should not cost 1,000 dollars. there has to be a price ceiling for the basic's. either that or reduced, cost saving cheaper care. although then that in of itself becomesn an issues. in other industry, this can work, but not in the medical field. in the food industry i have a choice. i can go all out for the 50 dollar steak dinner or i can go cheap and buy a can of tuna and a bananna. supply and demand works well for the food industry. not so much for healthcare. its not like there is some option of receiving medical care at a cheaper rate. i can't go receive medical care from a nurse for cheaper because a nurse can not provide care unless directly through a doctor. there is no cheaper option for healthcare like other markets.
[/quote]

I'm afraid that you witness the current problem (expensive healthcare) and fail to see its cause. The cause is not the price itself, for the price is not arbitrary.

All businesses have an economic incentive to serve as many people as they possibly can. Within this milieu, there are certain tiers of service and quality. For example, Hyundai wants to sell as many cars as possible for as much money as they possibly can. So does BMW. The companies are on different ends of the same business spectrum. Hyundai provides an affordable car that is sufficient for the transportation needs of most people. Some people demand a higher level of quality, and the price of that quality is determined by the price of resources and the amount of free market demand. You get what you pay for. But thanks to State-inflicted tariffs, used to subsidize the bad work put into poor-quality American cars, you're still paying about $1400 more for any imported car. In other words, you're unnecessarily paying $1400 more than you should, because politicians (and the voters who give them power) think they have the right to force you to pay that fee. And because the politicians get kickbacks from American car companies for their strong-arm "protection." It's quite a shame, too, because having to compete with foreign companies was the only thing that kept the American car companies from sliding into oblivion in the 1980's. But that's a topic for a different thread.

If, in this day and age, I offered you a bottle of city tap water for $10,000, would you buy it? Would even a millionaire buy it? Probably not! At that price, it is not a good that the free economy wants. The supply is plentiful. It outweighs demand. The free market price is much lower: look anywhere for Dasani or Aquafina. It sells for far less than $10,000.

What we're currently seeing are prices that are [i]not[/i] determined by market demand. They are determined by an interventionist/"politicians know how to run an economy from the top down" scheme. We see arbitrary regulations, ridiculous "malpractice" settlements prompting ever higher and ever more outrageous doctor's malpractice insurance rates, the State-enforced guild system being practiced in medical schools, keeping competition at a minimum and thus prices at a maximum. Pharmaceutical companies are given artificial monopolies by the State. There's a reason that the same exact drugs from the exact same manufacturers are so much cheaper in [i]other[/i] countries (without State subsidies, I might add.) Insurance tends to get a lot more expensive when companies are [i]forced[/i] to cover "reproductive services" at the point of a State gun under the regimes of at least 14 States. The problems you see, including the high prices, are not caused by the free market. They are caused by the "We are wiser than thou" interventionism on the part of worker-drones in the violent State. The same State thugs that mewl about trying to lower costs for you.

Ask anyone you like, in any legitimate (voluntarily paid-for) industry in the world: "would the quality of your service improve if certain outsiders, who have no clue about all the myriad aspects and intricate details of your business, came and told you how you had to perform the services that you already provide to willing consumers? Would your prices go [i]down[/i] if you had to comply with their arbitrary demands? Would you be maiming and killing your customers left and right and still be able to make money from the free market, if it weren't for their top-down intervention? Do you think your customers are are too stupid to select the service that they want, for a price you both agree upon, and that only a State bureaucrat living 2,000 miles away can save them from themselves?"

~Sternhauser

Edited April 25, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1272168395' post='2099565']
The market for insurance would reach equilibrium without government interference. Some would choose not to buy, same with any products, and with healthcare itself.
The role of charity is to provide to the people who truly cannot get by on their own. In healthcare this is a small proportion of people, and without government interference they could certainly be looked after. The rest could get by through use of the free market.

If insurance costs are artificially high, we get a surplus supply, but when they're artificially low, we get a shortage. Let the market function on its own, and these would naturally move to long term sustainable levels.
[/quote]


You assumption of market equilibrium is wrong.

Because:

1. Market failures happen all the time.
Neo-classical models operate in a theoretical universe of rational actors and perfect information. In the real world, markets fail and inefficiencies occur; further off the mark in some sectors than others.

2. Coordination failures happen all the time.

There are multiple equilibria, and a market may settle into a sub-optimal, or "bad" equilibrium.

For example: The economic development of a 3rd world nation requires a low-skill, unproductive sector to change to high-skill, productive work. For people to get these modern sector jobs, they will need more education. Firms will not invest in innovation if there is no labor supply available. At the same time, people are unwilling to invest in education to prepare them for these not-yet-existent jobs.

Unless an outside "big push" comes along,(usually from the government) firms and laborers will fail to coordinate, and stay stuck in the bad equilibrium of low-skilled, unproductive labor.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 April 2010 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1272209208' post='2099718']
[quote]You assumption of market equilibrium is wrong.

Because:

1. Market failures happen all the time.
Neo-classical models operate in a theoretical universe of rational actors and perfect information. In the real world, markets fail and inefficiencies occur; further off the mark in some sectors than others.[/quote]

He's talking about the complete market failing. Not failures in the market. The markets of which countries have failed in the absence of State intervention?


[quote]2. Coordination failures happen all the time.

There are multiple equilibria, and a market may settle into a sub-optimal, or "bad" equilibrium.

For example: The economic development of a 3rd world nation requires a low-skill, unproductive sector to change to high-skill, productive work. For people to get these modern sector jobs, they will need more education. Firms will not invest in innovation if there is no labor supply available. At the same time, people are unwilling to invest in education to prepare them for these not-yet-existent jobs.

Unless an outside "big push" comes along,(usually from the government) firms and laborers will fail to coordinate, and stay stuck in the bad equilibrium of low-skilled, unproductive labor.
[/quote]

The people of third-world countries do not achieve the goal of education because the citizens do not have, first and foremost, the ability to control the fruits of their own labor, and thus have few resources to procure an education. Capital must be built. Private property rights are not respected in third world countries. Private property rights and stability are pre-requisites for building capital. Private property rights and social stability are goods that are antecedent to the State. State bureaucratic regulations stifle the entrepreneurial spirit.

The State itself maintains bad equilibria. Somalia is better off than all of its adjacent, State-run neighbors on the majority of UN nation ranking guidelines.

Please supply some examples of third world countries that were "pushed" (interesting choice of words) into prosperity by the State. Then, I'll give you dozens of examples of countries that are kept in poverty by the "pushing" of the State.

~Sternhauser

[Lilllabettt]

[quote]The people of third-world countries do not achieve the goal of education because the citizens do not have, first and foremost, the ability to control the fruits of their own labor, and thus have few resources to procure an education. Capital must be built. Private property rights are not respected in third world countries. Private property rights and social stability are goods that are antecedent to the State.
[/quote]

Totally wrong. Private property rights are NOT antecedent to the state. You are thinking euro-centrically. Many developing societies have a tradition of land and capital as public goods. Their subsumption into the capitalist system has been difficult because of this. An entire office at the World Bank is devoted to the problem of understanding how resources in the developing world can be transferred from "common use" to "private use" without depriving the broader community of their benefits.

[quote]State bureaucratic regulations stifle the entrepreneurial spirit. Private property rights and stability are pre-requisites for building capital. The State itself maintains bad equilibria. Somalia is better off than all of its adjacent, State-run neighbors on the majority of UN nation ranking guidelines.[/quote]

You are correct that stability is a pre-requisite for building capital. This stability is guaranteed by institutions ... you can think of institutions as "the rules of the game." Private investment will not happen when loan terms, finance terms, etc. are not "enforceable." Our modern experience is that institutions gain their legitimacy and enforceability from governments. There may be other methods, but this is the modern politcal experience.

This brings up another coordination failure, right here in America. You may be familiar with the process of "redlining," that is, the systematic exclusion of (typically urban) neighborhoods from access to financial services. The residents of a poor neighborhood need credit if they are going to invest and grow. But the credit market will not "go there" because the risks make it unprofitable. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, the market is stuck outside of the "Pareto-preferred" equilibrium.

I'm not sure why you choose Somalia to make your point. The last time the UN was able to collect the data there, the HDI (Human Development Index) ranking was 172 out of 174. You can't get much worse than Somalia.

[quote]Please supply some examples of third world countries that were "pushed" (interesting choice of words) into prosperity by the State. Then, I'll give you dozens of examples of countries that are kept in poverty by the "pushing" of the State. [/quote]

The term "big push" is not mine. It is standard verbage in economic development discourse. The concept of the "big push" originates with the Marshall Plan, with which you are probably familiar. The idea was that a massive influx of government-backed capital would restore fluidity to global commerce and rebuid post-war Europe. Since then it has been used with mixed results in the development project.

Africa, for example, has been a failure. The Asian Tigers (the NICS - Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.) have achieved remarkable results using their authoritarian governments to make significant interventions in economic life.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Lilllabettt

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm going to defer to Stern's more complete economic knowledge for now.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='26 October 2007 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1193419555' post='1409680']
Actually many students qualify for food stamps. If you are on a life-sustaining medication and don't have a job, the government or the drug company will pay for your meds. If your child has a catestrophic illness and set up a payment plan, many companies eventually write off the account. My friend has been paying $5 a month for many years on her childs medical bills, and they have to accept it.
[/quote]
And yet, some of us who need meds/medical care and have jobs still can't afford it. Yes, there are ways to get what you need. I have discovered ways. But the current system won't readily give you help unless you are exactly as you mentioned — jobless and in dire need. The problem is that we should be avoiding the dire need part. Lets take care of things before it gets that bad.

[kamiller42]

I want my utopia and I WANT IT NOW!!!

[img]http://mypoliticalexile.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/veruca_salt.jpg[/img]

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let's sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again!

From the Book of Duh...

[quote][b]Report says health care will[/b] cover more, [b]cost more[/b]
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

n particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs"]Source[/url]
[/quote]
Wasn't one of the major reasons for passage of Obamacare was to contain costs? Government takes over and costs are going up... duhhhhh!! We ain't see nuttin yet.