Health Care 10.06.07 And The Pandora Prescription

[Kolar]

Find a way to help these people without taking money from people who don't consent.

Move to Somaliland then.

I don't see why removing them would cause so much chaos as you suppose it will. Oh, boy, I don't have to pay for what I don't want, so insurance is cheaper, my life is over. Oh boy, the medical fees are cheaper because insurance companies adjust their fees according to the market and thus doctors don't have to charge so much overhead, my life is over.

Your system is not cheaper than our system and provides the same level of care. If people are on a fixed income, relying on a publicly funded system and suddenly they have to make insurance payments and fight to the death with some of them over obscure bullshit and paper work then yes, that's chaos. That means death for people. But that's life to people like you. They gambled and lost their lives but everyone else knows not to go with them, right?

[Jerome Scuggs]

Explain, give me some stats.

You can do the research yourself, because I don't feel like debating over whether or not my authors are biased, but no one can deny public education fucking sucks, which is why more people are going to private schools and why more jobs are demanding college experience.

If the government didn't have public education, the ironic thing is, more people would get educated. If all schools were privatized, they'd be affordable, because they'd have to compete with eachother. Teachers would be paid based on performance, so better teachers would make more. Seeing this, the teaching market would open up, since high school teachers could make quite a bit if they were actually good at it, so in the process the market also begins improving the general quality of teachers.

And if you couldn't pay for a school, there's a market solution! Businesses could hand out scholarships (like they do now), non-profit organizations could take donated money and fund children's education (like they do now), and even individual parents could elect to sponsor a child through school - paying for their education, a sort of pseudo-adoption type thing (like they do now).

edit: but if you want some general stuff on education, happy hunting, and here's one i found particularly compelling. you can decide whether or not it's all biased when you read it, though i did find a neat article

[Kolar]

Barely news sites are not statistics, studies or well credited sources. It's not entirely about bias, it's about being relevant. This is pretty much over if you're not going to put in any effort at all. It's all about ideology with you, "it works, shut the fuck up". That doesn't work in the real world or on a public internet forum.

Edit: The only reason some businesses do offer scholarships is to use it as a tax deduction. If my provincial Government wasn't funding a public educational system there'd be no need for 1/3 of their budget requiring personal and corporate taxes to be lowered or abolished. Meaning there would be no incentive to do so, corporate responsibility is a joke when it either costs them money or doesn't save them any.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Barely news sites are not statistics, studies or well credited sources. It's not entirely about bias, it's about being relevant. This is pretty much over if you're not going to put in any effort at all. It's all about ideology with you, "it works, shut the fuck up". That doesn't work in the real world or on a public internet forum.

i found this on that website.

and in another vein:

[2] A point which is always overlooked by the market's critics and champions alike, though replete with practical applications in the workings of the market, is that proft need not be simply monetary; it can, as well, be emotional and/or psychological. Who profits more: the teacher who hates children and is paid $100 to teach a class, or a teacher who adores educating them but is only paid $75? It can not be determined. True, in a market society love of one's fellow human being is not usually perceived as the dominating force behind economic activity. Still, to discount the goodness of much of humanity is to unjustly portray self interest and the potential for benevolence in a market economy. For some interesting comments on this see Friedman (1978, ch. 3).

[3] Furthermore, there is no simple explanation as to why the certain and specific tasks which government has chosen to provide under the catch-all of "education" have come definitively to describe an education. Education also involves the innumerable experiences individuals live and learn from, e.g., reading books and newspapers, watching television, and speaking and debating other individuals. The classroom is a very limited exposure of learning. It is worth noting that the market is charged with provision of all other educational experiences.

[9] This statement would seem to preclude education as a gift of charity (e.g., scholarships) and, in regards to the price system, it does for the time being. Charity, of course, does exist, but for the sake of argument it is ignored here to show that even egoism in the coldest sense of the word is compatible with the proposal of this paper. Furthermore, as an aside, normally, scholarships (educational charity) are awarded for achievement of some sort. Therefore, recipients of scholarships have paid for their education in their dedication to prior academics, athletics, etc. The presenter of the scholarship, having deemed the demonstration of certain qualities pleasing enough to warrant giving out the educational service for free or at a reduced price, is also in effect, paid for the education (i.e., psychic income). Perhaps there are examples where recipients of scholarships have done nothing to earn them, for instance there are scholarships based upon race or other ethnic backgrounds, but still the presenter is paid in the same sense as before noted and the recipient still "supplies" the characteristic valued by the scholarship provider, i.e., the correct skin color.

[Cops]

I don't really get it, if minimum wage goes up jobs still need to be filled, companies still exist, it's not like massive amounts of companies shut down, the companies lose profit which is intern transfered from the company to the individual. Sure technology phases out jobs and certain jobs cannot afford to stay open at the cost of wages being raised but the MAJORITY of jobs still exist, it's not a drastic hit to the economy when the minimum wage goes up.

I'd even argue that jobs that are under the table go up when the minimum wage goes up, at least from my experience in factory work. People work under the table for many reasons but when the minimum goes up so do these jobs because the bosses know that their workers could go somewhere else and get paid more and it's legit.

Technology cannot full out replace certain people in certain jobs and a lot of factory jobs are still hiring people of every second of every day. There's a surplus of jobs in Canada that offer decent wages and a chance at money and prosperity (It's the American dream, north of the border).

[Cops]

Find a way to help these people without taking money from people who don't consent. You can find someone in need and give them all the money you want, hell I'd do the same, especially since I knew that 95% of the money I gave to said guy wouldn't be siphoned off to pay for other things I didn't consent to, like politician salaries and funding wars.

The thing is that for the most part here in Canada we do consent to helping these people, we pay our taxes and we want to see the benefits, and for the most part we do.

Our politicians and government represent our social and economic views on how our money should be spent. We believe, I can say this full heartily that Canadians deserve some form of basic health care, and that we as the people will provide them with it.

[Epinephrine]

Yeah, you're right. That's why Fidel Castro's doctors botched three surgeries trying to fix a routine medical ailment. What was his motto, "Socialism or Death?"

What do you tell the dictator patient when even his best doctors can't help him?

In this case, Socialism will actually destroy itself. Heh.

None of us know anything about Fidel's CANCER SURGERY. I really don't see what this straw man has to do with this entire thread. Nor is Canada a communist country either as much as you think it is.

======

The following are the most ignorant two paragraphs I've ever seen about how healthcare actually works. It completely ignores the reality of the situation and thrusts pure ideology upon realities:

In our case, if private health care was legalized again, insurance premiums would drop because people could begin choosing what they wanted to be insured for.

People would still be insured for everything. Who in their right mind would NOT want to be insured for stuff. That's the point of insurance. Yes women might not insure themselves for prostate cancer, but is that really the point here?

Furthermore, every single other type of insurance in the world tells us that insurance companies will very willingly add in services that we do not necessarily need for insurance, and work the pay schedules so that basically everyone will buy into the full service. That's how companies work, and that's how they make money. And common sense tells us this.

But even if we take it that you suddenly have people not insuring themselves against things, and we take this to the logical endpoint - everyone getting genetic testing, filling out extensive questionnaires and so on to prove their health status, and then insuring for the minimal possible amount, these people who will be doing this would be the richest and healthiest people around.

Because they are the richest and healthiest people around, they will still be charged as much as possible using every single hidden scheme possible.

Meanwhile, the poor and unhealthy would have premiums which are so high that they would basically be uninsurable aside for the absolute most basic of things (which they might not qualify for anyway because of their genetic/socioeconomic/health status). Since there's not much profit to be made from them anyway, the idea is... ignore these people.

Doctors, free from having to pay taxes and malpractice insurance and wasting time with bureaucracy, begin to charge lower prices because they can afford it, and it brings in more patients.

I really don't see how doctors would be free from taxes or malpractice insurance. Unless you're offering not just a HEALTH system, but basically a system of total anarchy (an absence of all government, thus all taxes). I'm not sure why anyone living in a free society where their government protects them and guarantees them freedom would want something like this, but I guess you really do.

In real life, laws aren't going away. Taxes aren't going away. People will still sue doctors, because people like to sue for anything. People sue whenever they don't like a doctor and have a regular bad outcome (~90% of all lawsuits), when mistakes occur in medicine (we're all human, mistakes WILL occur in something as complex as medicine) or when crazy things happen like doctors abusing patients (which will still happen!). Furthermore, doctors will still have to deal with lots of paperwork because now that you have a totally unregulated system, there'll be tons of insurance plans, doctors would have to cross reference everyone's status, make sure they aren't providing too much care and actually helping people to the full amount (wow that's ethical!) or else they would get fired from their hospital. They'd still have to fill out the numerous paperwork instead of having a simple single payer system where nothing needs to be checked aside from one card.

The masses begin taking their healthcare seriously, because they must shop smart, as they say.

I honestly don't see how you suddenly got to this. Do people shop smartly for anything? All you have to do is stay up on late night TV and see all the stupid things sold, see your spambox and see all the stupid things sold and so on and realize people will ALWAYS BE STUPID. And of course with medical things because they are so massively complex, they will be even more stupid because medicine is so complex that even doctors refrain from treating themselves. And I don't see how people would take their healthcare anymore seriously than now. We pay on the free market for tons of stuff and people aren't 'smart' about it. I honestly would like to see you explain this!

Malpractice begins to drop rapidly, and doctors began to earn back their respect as healers, which drives more and more people into the practice, creating more jobs and thus, more patient coverage.

Again I see no reason why malpractice would drop from this system. I have no idea why this system would earn doctors any more respect. In fact, I would see it make doctors have even less respect and become a commodity ('I paid good money for you, you should do whatever I tell you to!'). I also don't see why there would be more people joining medicine, unless you ALSO propose to completely change the way medical education works, lower requirements so that less competent people can enter, or ignore the fact that as the world becomes increasingly complex there are more and more jobs out there which pay FAR MORE than medicine which also require the same level of intellect to do.

As the market floods, prices continue to drop, and even more people begin to invest in insurance companies, who begin to pool massive amounts of money and pay for better healthcare and surgeries.

Doctor pay has been dropping steadily (as a relative rate) in Canada for decades until very recently. In the private system in the US it has only risen steadily and is now by far the highest in the world. See here's the problem with the crux of the argument. The biggest cost in healthcare is the cost of [medications, equiptment, competent staff]. The first two really wouldn't change at all no matter what insurance system you use. Insurance companies would still bargin for the best prices in order to make the most profit. Same with the public system, and both systems allow drugs and equiptment to be developed on the public market, with enough hospitals each needing new things at anytime to make it a robust market with many needs.

Meanwhile for staff, either you pay them a good wage or you don't. Nurses make a very good living now, and currently across North America, we have the largest nursing shortage in history. We are currently importing millions of nurses from all over the world (who by the way don't speak good English which is a HUGE problem for something like healthcare where you take care of the old and sick) and even then we don't have enough. So really the cost wouldn't go down, it'd go up.

Secondly, the price of doctors will always be the same. Relative to every other job, medicine needs to be attractive enough that really capable people who also care about helping people would want to do it en mass. To do that the salary must be proportionally good enough compared with every other job that it's worth it to struggle all those years in school, sacrifice one's life and family time worry about lawsuits, be mired in debt for many years and so on just to end up with this job.

The problem is, in the private system, there's incentive to charge more. Yes this is against basic 'economic' principles, but then again human nature doesn't necessarily have to follow capitalism. Staying alive is one of those few things (unlike ipods or manufactured goods) that people would spend ANYTHING on. Just like how people would spend tons of money for a good lawyer, they'd spend a lot for doctors. Because of HUMAN NATURE there's good reason to see that prices really wouldn't drop. Again, law is a perfect example, where for similar services, prices have been going higher and higher, so high that in fact in North America (canada and USA) it's now becoming a problem where basically anyone except the really rich can't afford legal representation without huge amounts of debt.

But in the immediate aftermath, a few smart entrepreneurs create a consulting business which offers its services to help people adjust to choosing a new healthcare service that fits within their budgets, no doubt fattened a little by the fact that they didn't have to pay taxes (jesus, this is like erotic literature to me btw).

I still don't see how people don't have to pay taxes. If you mean people don't have to pay healthcare taxes, so they are taxed LESS, that may be true, but then the price of premiums would more than make up the difference. Case in point is how Americans pay 2x the amount on premiums on average than the average Canadian will spend on taxes for healthcare.

I still don't see how considering we aren't changing the actual cost of healthcare (prices for nurses and doctors are basically static as salaries need to remain high to be attractive, prices for drugs and equiptment will remain the same as today as today it is already free market) how adding an entirely different layer of middlemen to sell insurance, manage insurance and figure out how to deny insurance (because every single insurance company in the world which insures ANYTHING does this) would cost less.

Major law firms see this and emulate it, using their statuses as bigger firms to offer the same consulting service for even cheaper. Eventually, the smaller firms are forced to leave that market, but most wind up working for the bigger firms, with a better salary, anyways.

A bigger salary that costs more in health care premiums.

[Epinephrine]

More and more people are set up with an insurance policy and a doctor that fits their budget, lifestyle, and situation.

Doesn't that sound fantastic?

Considering it's a pipe dream that would NEVER happen it's pretty pointless to say whether it's fantastic or not.

I still don't see how people would choose a policy that fits their budget anymore. Either people will gamble and not pay anything into insurance (anyone young and healthy) thus raising the premiums for those who need it, and practically condeming most of those people to die because the sick and vulnerable are also poor (either poor or are old and thus poor). Or people will pay for healthcare, and since STAYING ALIVE is something anyone in all of history would pay any amount of money to have, they'd do the same.

The biggest problem with all of this though is that while in the perfectly capitalistic universe there may be efficiencies wringed out and perhaps maybe in some perfect universe the price would be cheaper after many decades of competition, would the healthcare actually be better?

Once the system is set up so that each person is just recieving exactly what they have been insured for, and would have to pay for anything else out of their pocket, would more people actually live longer and fuller lives? Would the insurance companies actually want to create a system where people were made healthier, or would they want a place where people paid higher premiums for them to maximize profit? How would this actually affect mortality and morbidity rates?

I have never seen corporate entities as something which is capable of looking out for ANYONE interests aside from those of their executives or themselves. In the end, they will try and maximize profits by making people work for less money and longer hours which probably leads of less happy or qualified workers, thus inferior healthcare for all aside from the superrich who have the super plans. Meanwhile millions will choose not to buy insurance and be screwed by those actions from accidents and strange health events. This is not merely a coldhearted 'oh well' calculation, but the loss of those people due to mortality and morbidity would have a huge effect on society as a whole.

Meanwhile the course of progress and research will of course continue. I fail to see how this would really change from the current system much, and thus the speed of advances would probably be about the same.

Finally, millions will be unable to afford the necessary level of insurance needed by them. Just as millions today cannot afford food, or if education were suddenly not free they would not be able to afford education either, we'd create a second class of citizens within our democracies which would still humorously preach 'equality for all'.

In the end I think the net result would be, not much difference for the middle class. Somewhat better care for the rich. And much worse of care for the lower classes, the elderly and anyone else who ended up buying the wrong insurance, got denied insurance, or could not afford the level of care necessary for whatever reason. Inbetween, the actual delivery of healthcare would at best not improve (no amount of money is going to significantly improve the quality of care, or as I should say how much doctors actually care about helping people, while keeping the number of patients they see at a reasonable level) and more likely suffer (lower wages, more paperwork).

Finally for the appropriate 'sort out time' to reach even a level of care appropriate for today, it would take decades, and inbetween untold millions will die needlessly for no good reason other than to satisfy Jerome's theories.



What Jermone fails to see is that our system has never stifled progress. Our system has always tried to create more equality while recognizing that absolute equality in any system is absolutely unattainable, and has NEVER tried to claim otherwise. Our system also incorporates the best of capitalistic practices into it to allow for constant innovation where necessary (drugs and equipment and uninsured extra services). Our system is constantly evolving and changing, and adding on best practices to ensure that the quality of care is the absolute best it could possibly be for a reasonable price.

Our system recognizes that for an extremely small amount of money we can help vastly more people than possible and eliminate one of the largest barriers to creating a society where everyone is treated fairly. Finally our system recognizes that much like any other personal one-on-one service that must be provided for by highly trained and competent people, the price for providing that service will always likely remain static because of the very nature of what's being given.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I don't see why I'm the one arguing for burden of proof. You are the one making sweeping claims ("we can insure everyone"). You're the idealist. Prove to me that not one person has died because of shortages or waiting lists (and prove to me your system doesn't cause shortages and waiting lists). Prove to me that everyone does, in fact, get equal healthcare. Prove to me that everyone is so happy, that they don't seek alternatives to your healthcare system.

At the point where you can't prove that, your plan has failed.

I'm not going to continue arguing if you can't satisfy the basic merits of your own position. I'm not making claims that every last person will be saved, yet you're forcing me to argue that it will. You have made it obviously clear that your prescribed system does, in fact, save everyone - yet I don't see much in the way of you explaining or proving it.

So, Epi, you first. You prove to me your system causes zero harm or backlash or economic instability, and I will gladly defend that capitalism can do it better. You prove to me that politicians are in some way less scheming or greedy than businessmen, and I will gladly accept your worst-case-scenario outlook at my post-deregulation speculation (which was just that, speculation). You prove to me that government control is more efficient and less chaotic than a free market, and I will gladly cease talking. Because what I want is not to win or lose this argument, but to find the best method of benefiting the most people.

Oh, and Castro's routine procedure that I mentioned was, in fact, a small stomach ailment, not cancer. So, once again: check. your. premises.

[Epinephrine]

Finally my final post in this thread.

Reasons why all private healthcare would not lead to better healthcare (better as defined by healthcare that actually gives people longer and more fruitful lives):

1) A purely private system without regulation as Jerome wants basically leaves everything purely to the 'choice' of the consumer.

2) Medicine is extremely complex. Even the very best doctors don't know it all and we all just make very educated guesses knowing that tomorrow all the standards could change.

3) People are extremely susceptable to advertising and pressure selling tactics. An unregulated medical industry which was completely private, where people treated medicine as consumers rather than as patients, would mean that advertising would be increasingly targetted to make vaguely true or even false claims as much as they could get away with. This has already happened to some extent (see Vioxx) but would likely happen more with Jerome's system.

4) Basic psychology has shown us over and over again that people are extremely bad at estimating risk (we all worry much more about terrorism than drunk drivers even though one is much, much likely to kill us). In terms of Jerome's idea, this means that people will habitually either buy insurance that is much too little (the minority of people) or will spend full price for the 'gold plated' plan which gives them everything (much more likely). If they buy the full plan, they would still be getting everything.

5) Basic psychology has shown us over and over that people are extremely bad at placing long-term goals over that of short-term goals. This means that people are much more apt to instant gratification than thinking about their long-term needs. Thus people would be very willing to try 'new and improved drugs' no matter the cost, without really caring about any potential long-term side effects. They would be much more willing to try 'new and improved treatments' or even receive unnecessary treatments rather than care about long term problems.

6) Psychologically, a consumer culture to healthcare means that no longer do people really trust others to make decisions for them, but really as Jerome said, people make their own health decisions. While nice to think about as choice is after all choice, people do make a lot of really bad decisions. Coupled with the fact that healthcare is so vastly important, do we really want a consumer culture where people could get any medication, any treatment as long as they bid high enough for someone to do it for them?


Putting #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6 together, in healthcare this means people would be willing to overpay for services which provided a questionable value today for a lot of money, even if they were unsure or did not know the long term benefits of such a thing because of the powerful affects of advertising. People already hop on the health bandwagon today. Thus you may receive TOO MUCH healthcare and too much USELESS healthcare which may even hurt your health in the future.

This is actually already somewhat of a problem with the newest drugs. Patients frequently come in the office demanding the newest medications and so on, and it is hard to convince them otherwise. In a totally private system where people could pay anything, eventually they'd find a doctor, pay them enough to get whatever they wanted. Yes people would have choice, but they'd likely go against medical advice and do BAD choices.

7) There is ample proof that people make plenty of bad health choices. Even though we are constantly being bombarded with the idea of the healthy lifestyle and so on, people in North America are the least healthy people in the developed world. A combination of plentiful and cheap food (which in the short term TASTES GOOD and COSTS LITTLE, but in the long term causes BAD HEALTH EFFECTS) and processed food has led to this. Advertising and full accepting of the market to provide what we really need has led to this.

8) There is ample proof that corporations promote bad health choices. All one needs to look at is smoking. If the GOVERNMENT didn't regulate smoking (by banning it in lots of places, by running ads against it), lots more people would still be smoking than are currently today. Corporations will use all and any leverage they can to sell their products, the health of customers are hardly their primary concern.

9) Healthcare is by it's nature a long-term thing, with incremental improvements, where the 'next best thing' is frequently found not to be so great by further study. In a totally open market, by the time contrary evidence comes to light, many irrevocable damages might have already been made. Instead of merely buying a computer with a bug that you could return and thus make better, you might have taken a drug that now raised your chance of DYING by a certain amount (if you didn't die already). The stakes are much higher, thus all the more reason to be sure nothing bad is done.

10) So many people can not be trusted to care for their own health properly in the face of advertising, in the new societal morals of paying so much so that they feel they are entitled to anything they pay for, and so on, that overall society would suffer. Yes some remarkable people would be very healthy, but most people probably wouldn't and in the end that would hurt SOCIETY.

11) Because people are still depending on insurance, we are all agreeing that the prices for individual procedures would still be prohibitively high. The fact is, medicine costs a lot of money because of the very nature of what's being done. It would be next to impossible for anyone to reasonably afford anything outside of their insurance aside from the megarich. Since a lot of the time the rich have different diseases than most people and poor people (if only purely by socioeconomic and racial indicators which are extremely important) whatever treatments they could pay for, would only extremely slowly trickle down if ever benefit other people. An example is schitzophrenia of which 1% of the world population has, and the superrich would likely not suffer from.

12) The best part about capitalism is to allow new things to be commercialized as fast as possible and spread to the most people possible at reasonable cost. Unfortunately health care isn't like this. It's actually preferable to slow things down a bit, because really the human body is extremely complex, and it takes many years of study to actually figure out if something is good, better than the old way or not. Capitalism unfettered would put a lot of onus on commercialization as fast as possible. Not just drugs, but procedures and other things. This could have many detrimental effects on health.

13) A public system attempts equality. Even if it isn't achieved as in reality it's obviously impossible, it does a damn good job of it. Capitalism doesn't attempt anything of the sort. It guarantees nothing. That's fine for buying a car, but when it's life or death would you really trust that?


In the end it's a trust issue. Even in the face of all common sense, and basic psychological concepts where we see that the public would generally be worse off in a private system, would you still trust the system to make healthcare more effective? Or would you trust in a public system which is governed by the public as a whole (rather than executives of corporations), and centered on doctors to make health decisions while treating people as patients, or a system where CONSUMERS make their own decisions based on incomplete data and the latest fads?

If that other system also meant that in the near future (at least next few decades even if very simply considering it takes 9 years to train a doctor) millions would not get any care. Would that even be ethical to say to these people that they are now on their own when currently we can very easily take care of them for a reasonable price?

[Jerome Scuggs]

Don't duck out now, Epi. The trucking, electricity, and phone industries were all deregulated with little, if any at all, "chaos". Post-deregulation, the consumers wound up paying less, for better service.

Considering the only sector of american healthcare that isn't regulated - the sector of alternative medicine - has witnessed some of the biggest price-drops and improvement in treatment rates in recent history, I'm simply finding it hard to believe your dire predictions.

Even when viewing the FDA, it should be noted that for one-hundred and twenty years before the FDA's creation, private consumer testing groups did the work more efficiently and with less waste.

I do find it sad that you're not going to post anymore, considering you still haven't proven your system effective. But I've found answer enough within your own posts:

9) Healthcare is by it's nature a long-term thing

while it's true that in the LONG run capitalism works, in the near term a LOT of people are hurt by it.

if healthcare is a long-term thing, and capitalism works best in the long-run, wouldn't you agree the two are a match made in heaven?

[Epinephrine]

Don't duck out now, Epi. The trucking, electricity, and phone industries were all deregulated with little, if any at all, "chaos". Post-deregulation, the consumers wound up paying less, for better service.

Considering the only sector of american healthcare that isn't regulated - the sector of alternative medicine - has witnessed some of the biggest price-drops and improvement in treatment rates in recent history, I'm simply finding it hard to believe your dire predictions.

Even when viewing the FDA, it should be noted that for one-hundred and twenty years before the FDA's creation, private consumer testing groups did the work more efficiently and with less waste.

I do find it sad that you're not going to post anymore, considering you still haven't proven your system effective. But I've found answer enough within your own posts:





if healthcare is a long-term thing, and capitalism works best in the long-run, wouldn't you agree the two are a match made in heaven?

That quote is only valid in the theoretical future of robot doctors of which the quote was originally in context for. Don't misquote me.

And no, providing a 1on1 human service like medicine or law, isn't the same as phone lines which is primarily technology and production based which capitalism is great at. There is no efficiency at helping people. Either you spend a lot of time on it and do a good job because people take lots of time to help (if you ever worked in a job that actually helped people you'd understand) or you spend less time on it, be more MONEY efficient, but do a worse job because you aren't spending time with that person.

I also have no idea what you're talking about in terms of alternative medicine. It's all crock, if you believe it works, good for you. Placebo effect is 16%. Pay for that as you wish.

And no I don't think that private healthcare would be an impetus in spending billions to develop robot doctors or mind reading devices that let you help people without spending time to talk to them about their problems first.

And no I don't think that the decades and centuries of neglecting everyone else with no coverage is morally justifiable no matter how many robots we have 500 years from now, by which time I'm far dead.

You simply cannot compare the provision of healthcare with industry or other things where 'efficiencies' could be wrought out. I have absolutely no problem with capitalism being involved in technologies and medicines, or hell even the actual construction of buildings. But the actual provision of services, there are a million ways that could suffer under a private system and where at best it would be on par with a well funded public system (canada's system is not well funded enough) until you get to a point in time centuries from now where we have robot doctors, robot nurses, and mind reading devices to speed things up. Most of medicine is actually pretty cheap outside of machines and drugs. It's just a service that is provided. But like all services an actual person needs to do it, and unlike telemarketing since this service needs a physical presence it will have a real price that won't significantly change in relation to the incomes of people there.

Lowering prices can be achieved by either paying less (which means less qualified people would be interested in medicine, and smarter people will migrate elsewhere), or demanding more in less time (in which case quality of care suffers. And unlike manufacturing, you really DO need a basic amount of time per patient of which I think we are too low now these days anyway under our current system to provide good care). Or you can raise the number of docs, which without lower quality or salaries, means a huge expense.. in which case if you raised taxes it'd be the same, but cheaper because no middlemen making a profit.

[Cops]

if healthcare is a long-term thing, and capitalism works best in the long-run, wouldn't you agree the two are a match made in heaven?

No

[Cops]

I feel like things got heated before you got banned, I'm thinking it's the best idea to walk away from this. I respect your opinions and always valued your input so I don't want this thread to be a huge falling out and no longer post in any threads you write. I'm sorry if I got heated during this thread and lashed out at you, I can understand how it felt like people were trying to gang rape you from all sides.

We have differences of opinions on how things should be run, I think that pretty much sums it up. Kolar's sleeping but I imagine if he was concious he would know two things 1) that I put a box of lube under his pillow and 2) that this thread has been blown out of proportion and we'll never agree so it's best not to force a fight that is bound to happen when this kind of discussion comes up.

[Jerome Scuggs]

And no, providing a 1on1 human service like medicine or law, isn't the same as phone lines which is primarily technology and production based which capitalism is great at. There is no efficiency at helping people. Either you spend a lot of time on it and do a good job because people take lots of time to help (if you ever worked in a job that actually helped people you'd understand) or you spend less time on it, be more MONEY efficient, but do a worse job because you aren't spending time with that person.

Your system has achieved the unachievable by being both money inefficient and patient-time inefficient.If capitalism is so inefficient, then why are the innovative doctors doing away with insurance, and why are your precious uninsured choosing the free market over third party, government payments?

You really don't understand economics at all, do you? Consumers shop for the best value they can afford. When they go to a doctor, they expect to see him and get their money's worth. When you introduce a third party, you take the responsibility away from the doctors and give it to the insurance companies (or in Canada's case, insurance monopoly). The doctor becomes more focused on filling out forms and getting payments, seeing the patient is almost an afterthought.

I also have no idea what you're talking about in terms of alternative medicine. It's all crock, if you believe it works, good for you. Placebo effect is 16%. Pay for that as you wish.

If you're really concerned about equality, why do you let the public buy medicine you believe to be "crock"? If someone develops an alternative cure for cancer, will you then demand it's every cancer patient's right to have that medicine, and will you then throw the chains of regulation on the alternative medicine sector, as well?

And no I don't think that the decades and centuries of neglecting everyone else with no coverage is morally justifiable no matter how many robots we have 500 years from now, by which time I'm far dead.

So the years before modern medicine, and even before insurance companies, have we commited an unforgivable, unjustifiable mortal sin by not developing it fast enough?

I don't get it. You're saying I've committed an amoral act by not forcing someone to get coverage? What about that uncovered person? What sort of moral hell do they go to? What obligation do I have for this person?

And by giving everyone universal healthcare, and then ignoring the real effects on the market and the real effects on peoples' lives, how are you NOT neglectful? How do you consider yourself so morally superior that you stand above even conceding your system is flawed? You still haven't argued the fact that your system doesn't help everyone.

You simply cannot compare the provision of healthcare with industry or other things where 'efficiencies' could be wrought out.

Uh, actually, yes I can. One, because before and during regulation it was still a service rendered. To say the health provision market does not obey the natural laws of economics is to invalidate your entire position, because that is the core of the issue - the real, positive economic results of your regulation.

I have absolutely no problem with capitalism being involved in technologies and medicines, or hell even the actual construction of buildings. But the actual provision of services, there are a million ways that could suffer under a private system and where at best it would be on par with a well funded public system (canada's system is not well funded enough) until you get to a point in time centuries from now where we have robot doctors, robot nurses, and mind reading devices to speed things up.

So, you obviously believe that money itself is what sees, diagnoses and treats patients - a common mistake of the beauracrat who claims his program doesn't work because there isn't enough money.

Do you think that's what capitalism is? Do you think that it is simply that when one man has alot of money, he can design or create whatever he wants regardless of his actuall ability or intellect? Do you think amassing wealth into the Canadian beauracracy is going to create competent doctors, magical remedies, and no shortages?

Most of medicine is actually pretty cheap outside of machines and drugs.

Weird, because generally outside of machines and drugs, it is unregulated.

Lowering prices can be achieved by either paying less (which means less qualified people would be interested in medicine, and smarter people will migrate elsewhere), or demanding more in less time (in which case quality of care suffers. And unlike manufacturing, you really DO need a basic amount of time per patient of which I think we are too low now these days anyway under our current system to provide good care). Or you can raise the number of docs, which without lower quality or salaries, means a huge expense.. in which case if you raised taxes it'd be the same, but cheaper because no middlemen making a profit.

Wait, "less-qualified" doctors? You're saying the the standards held by the government aren't good enough? That they hold a medical standard that is potentially harmful?

Lowering prices aren't "achieved", bro. They occur. If that's the only way you can conceive of having lower prices, then the very wealthy CEO of Ramen Noodles would love to have a chat with you and explain why your grasp of price theory is weak in this aspect.

Not sure if you realized this, but the government is a big, fucking, huge middleman. Your ideal system is my system - patient, doctor. No middleman. That's the kind of service I have chosen with my healthcare.