No one said anything about being unable to comprehend your argument, Sam. I said your argument does not answer the assertion to which you applied it. If you want a productive discussion then you should check your ego. Yet that example is not the proposition to which you replied. weslinder said 'if the government stayed out of it then it would fix itself.' Your reply that we have less regulation than Europe but worse results isn't the answer you seem to think it is. Having less regulation is not having NO regulation, it isn't even having 'little' regulation. It could well be that the regulations that are in place have the effect of screwing up the system when measured against other countries systems. It could well be that our system IS more efficient as even the most staunch advocate of the European system is hard pressed to deny its inefficiency. You could have universal healthcare that is disasterously inefficient but regulate it enough and pay enough to make sure each person can go to a doctor. That doesn't have anything to do with efficiency unless you myopically measure efficiency only by the standard of whether or not every person can get in a doctor's door. When I lived in England I met plenty of people who were very unsatisfied with national health care, and the healthcare 'crisis' there was in the news daily.
its an op-ed piece - http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20061104-103214-9246r.htm In an Aug. 17 filing to support general obligation bonds, officials project that the new plan will increase Massachusetts government health spending by $276.4 million in 2007. That's a $151 million boost over what the public was told the plan would cost as recently as April.
The Government does alot of stuff that people themselves don't do or won't do I mean is it the government's fault that Saddam was a . . . ok . . bad example but At some point I am ok with it because I'm try to be Enlightenedly self interested If Dying Joe Gets some Wild Disease and brings it to work with him because he does not have insurance and I get it and Die too . . . well .. . saying Joe should have been more responsible is Cold Comfort to my beneficiaries The works for Preventative Medicines. . and to be honest As an Employer wouldn't that help my bottom line. . . would it not increase my profits The Major concern I have is. . . since they control the purse they would control you movements etc. I think it should have minimums. . . . immunizations, Physicals, Etc but I like the freedom to choose where I go etc. . . If I have the money I get the freedom . . if you broke. . u goto the Free clinic If it is free you cannot expect everything . . . That is the natural of capitalisms but I am not against some minimuns being but into place Rocket River
QUESTION: I remember a few years back . . .we were told that . . If we passed Tort Reform . . . Insurance rates will go down . . . . Has anyone noticed that their insurance rates have gone down? or has Insurance Profits gone up? My Insurance is about the same or more. But I am but one person Rocket River Can 'The Market' be trusted to monitor itself ?
I think people who cannot afford health care should just die when they get really sick, that will really reduce health care costs for everyone! Maybe also implement the mandatory expiration age too!
A question - should efficiency necessarily be the top priority when discussing health care options? I'm not saying we should take a drunken sailor approach to the economics of health care, but it does seem odd that for many, efficiency trumps all else. Another thing to consider is that if we adopt some kind of universal health care system, companies will SAVE money as they will no longer have to provide health plans for their employees. Not only will they save money on the premiums, but also on manpower devoted to health care administration. Those saved costs can go toward other things that will ultimately benefit the employees (maybe even higher salaries, although I wouldn't hold my breath). I read recently that Toyota opted to build a plant in Canada because the government health coverage would ultimately save them money (even with the high taxes).
How to measure efficiency is another question that isn't really addressed as well. Can you find a link for that article? I've started to poke around and it seems too much of this debate is based on 'intuition' and personal experience, rather than studies and semi-factual analysis.
I read the same article, and I don't buy it. I have a friend who were trying to bring the Toyota plant to Southeast Texas (the one that ended up in San Antonio). I stayed on top of the bargaining. Toyota showed interest in the workforce, taxes, all sorts of things. But they made their decision based on two factors: regional wages and union strength. They built the plant in San Antonio even with higher taxes and transportation costs, because the unions had too much leverage and industrial wages were higher in Beaumont. The Japanese automakers have been consistent in choosing locations of North American Plants based on these two factors.
We've spent trillions on an optional illegal war without batting an eyelash because it allegedly protects American lives. We can spend a fraction of that on healthcare that protects the health and well-being of every American for the next 50 years. If Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cub, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka and Sweden can make it work, I think the greatest country in world history can figure it out. And, as a bonus, it would free up billions of free market dollars that corporations pour into healthcare. It would actually spur the economy. I don't understand why this is such a controversial topic.
...I guess I was wrong about it being difficult to comprehend. I see, you are resting on the red herring that in the absence of a completely unregulated market (-- putting aside the fact that a "completely unregulated" market basically does not even exist anywhere, for any product; all markets have some basic form of background regulation -- ) we can't say that a COMPLETELY unregulated market has been tried. Well I guess if you're going to take an obtuse approach like that, you can rest on that until the cows come home, and there's nothing I can do about it, because in the modern era it has never been tried, and never will be tried, barring some type of apocalyptic scenario in which society is crushed. A platonically ideal unregulated market is not obtainable. So I guess if people wnant to believe that thsi outcome is going to be the bestest thing ever, well, I suppose they'll never be proven wrong to their satisfaction. However, I think the great weight of the evidence suggests otherwise, including, inter alia, the counterintuitive administrative cost structure of our system which dwarfs that of its regulated pcounterparts - basically the opposite of what we would expect. That's just the results, however. On a theoretical basis, if you delve deeper than an unquestioning, simplistic belief that less regulation is always better - that's almost exactly what should happen. There are severe information problems involved in health care inherent in it's nature which prevents an efficient outcome from being obtained; there's highly inelastic demand curves, there's huge externalities involved -- all of these things operate as barriers to an efficient outcome without some form of regulation, to an extent not found in other industries. Again, this is not the first time that an unregulated market woudl be less optimal than a regulated version -- this is a concept that many t-shirt libertarians have a very difficult time accepting. So, it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, performs like a duck....my suggestion is that it is probably a duck.
Nationalized health care might be fine for some - but I'll keep my PPO thank you very much. The U.S. is a pyramid structure - with some of us getting the best doctors in the world, and others getting nothing. I am for giving those who get nothing something in terms of health care - but don't take away the quality of my care. That's not right.
Two areas of regulation that if you would relax, healthcare would get better. 1. Insurance rules are too inflexible. If insurance has to compete on the open market with companies without so many government protections, we'd sort it out and get a very good system. Government shouldn't be in the business of establishing types of products. 2. Trade restrictions are ridiculous. The reason why drugs are more expensive in the US is because the drug companies try to "punish" the US because we do the testing for the whole world by charging higher prices here. Even to libertarians (at least reasonable ones) there's nothing wrong with the idea of the FDA. But with trade restrictions, there's not really a free-market. If you get rid of the trade restrictions, then these "punitive" pricing strategies wouldn't work.
In one sense - in another sense many would argue that unrestricted lawsuits represents unwelcome market interference insofar as they distort incentives and lead to waste. Thing's aren't always so black and white.
Which is why appointing sensible judges are so important. Lawsuits shouldn't be capped legislatively, they should be cut down to reasonable amounts through the appeals process.
this study was written in 2001. http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf Efficiency, cost, coverage for all, quality can all be satisfied if the lobbiest are ignored and a completely new system is created. This is one area where you need a balance of free market and government control. Other countries manage to accomplish this task because they view it as a number one priority. We view this as being ranked somewhere just above abortion. It's pathetic.
You might be right. Health care also probably has a much more inelastic demand curve (pay the price or die!!). -inelastic/elastic? I forget which one. I have an Economics degree somewhere in the garage but that was a lifetime (and several brainwipes) ago.=)
the problem with the current healthcare system is it is taken advantage of. people go to the doctor for the slightest problem. unlike other insurance programs, like car insurance for example, car insurance is only used when there is a problem. the healthcare system in this country is inherently flawed for that reason I believe. I don't know how universal coverage can change that, it only throws money at the problem. it only enables the problem. I read a really good editorial on healthcare in this country and how it came about. during wwii, there was a such shortage in the labor market that fed govt. put wage caps on industries so they would not take important labor from more neccessary industires. one way to get around wage caps was to offer incentives, like health insurance. health insurance just lasted after the war ended. I don't know how that little story enhances the argument I'm making, only to make the point that people used to have to pay the whole bill, and that caused people to be a lot more picky about what they went to the doctor for. but with $20 co pays for any ailment, people do not regulate themselves on the reasons they go to the doctor or send their kids to the doctor for. and there is really no incentive for the doctors to send people away who don't need the healtcare of a doctor because they get paid regardless, if you have insurance. so the only point I'm making is that the governement will only throw money at the problem. the problem isn't rising costs, its why costs keep rising.
Dunno. Preventive medicine may reduce long-term medical costs. It's far less expensive to treat an illness before it can have a catastrophic effect requiring ICU treatment and prolonged nursing care.
