21 Sep 14
Originally posted by normbenignThere are constraints on people's personal budgets which cause them to skimp in areas that they really shouldn't. The "fair" distribution you talk about is based on ability to pay and not need, which is liable to be in inverse related to the ability to pay. You can't really get round it, the National Health Service is both fairer and more efficient than the American Private Health Care system.
Wajoma makes an important and irrefutable point here. If government health care were so good, a plan without force competing with private market based plans ought be no problem.
The real truth lies in the fact that in health care and almost everything else there is less than abundant supply, and a market fairly distributes the limited supply to the ...[text shortened]... es the costs.
The monopoly of public education is an irrefutable example of this in practice.
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIn any market where there are fewer resources than are demanded, prices will increase, and the increased prices create incentives for people to increase supplies (train as doctors, nurses, x ray techs, etc.).
There are constraints on people's personal budgets which cause them to skimp in areas that they really shouldn't. The "fair" distribution you talk about is based on ability to pay and not need, which is liable to be in inverse related to the ability to pay. You can't really get round it, the National Health Service is both fairer and more efficient than the American Private Health Care system.
When those market forces are disturbed (by third party payers, whether government, or insurance, especially insurance purchased under union contracts) the ordinary market reactions can't be forecast accurately.
Nothing can be "fairer" than people paying for what they use, and negotiating prices with providers of goods and services. Your NHS may in fact be for efficient than today's hodge podge of private/government health care in the US. The two largest packages of health care in the US are already government programs (Medicare and Medicaid) The third group outside of market forces are working Americans who have come to believe that health care is free due to union negotiated health care plans.
Nobody ever got rich in a market economy by refusing customers or by pricing stuff so high that consumers couldn't afford it. There are very few rich, who aren't at all sensitive to pricing of health care, way too few for anyone in a real market economy to live off their buying habits. Where free markets exist, the poor can afford most anything. The more controls imposed, the less influence the poor have, and the more of them are left out.
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by normbenignUnfortunately, the empirical evidence does not support your claims. I suggest you adjust your views based on the evidence, not the evidence based on your views.
In any market where there are fewer resources than are demanded, prices will increase, and the increased prices create incentives for people to increase supplies (train as doctors, nurses, x ray techs, etc.).
When those market forces are disturbed (by third party payers, whether government, or insurance, especially insurance purchased under union contr ...[text shortened]... The more controls imposed, the less influence the poor have, and the more of them are left out.
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by normbenignYou notion of what is fair revolves around money. Because everyone pays the same price it must be fair. The problem is that everyone doesn't have the same amount of money. The amount of money they have is not related to how much effort they put in. Resources aren't allocated fairly. You are labouring under the "Just World Hypothesis" which makes you think that people's condition is automatically due to some moral failing or superiority on their part. If you've ever played poker you'll know that bad players sometimes draw out on good ones and stack them. Is that fair?
In any market where there are fewer resources than are demanded, prices will increase, and the increased prices create incentives for people to increase supplies (train as doctors, nurses, x ray techs, etc.).
When those market forces are disturbed (by third party payers, whether government, or insurance, especially insurance purchased under union contr ...[text shortened]... The more controls imposed, the less influence the poor have, and the more of them are left out.
Where free markets exist, the poor can afford most anything. The more controls imposed, the less influence the poor have, and the more of them are left out.If I replace the word "poor" with the word "rich" in what you said there it makes sense. Otherwise it doesn't. Sorry, but you don't seem to know what the word "poor" means.
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt always comes back to this, you don't believe people should be trusted to make these decisions themselves, other people should make financial decisions for them. The ordinary person cannot be trusted, they might 'skimp' in areas DeepThought believes they should not be allowed to skimp in.
There are constraints on people's personal budgets which cause them to skimp in areas that they really shouldn't.
If not they themselves making these decisions, you must mean other people, other more qualified people.
You see yourself as one of the ubermensch?
What are your qualifications?
And if someone has superior qualifications to yours are they exempt from you, do they get to force you, do they get to commandeer control of your finances?
People often get confused that when I argue consistently against state mandated healthcare I must be arguing for the US system. What the US system needs is a big dose of freedom aka deregulation. De-regulation in all areas, especially liability and that they are forced to treat certain conditions.
The cheapest healthcare is in countries with no, or virtually no, state mandated healthcare and none, to very little, regulation.
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by WajomaA decision between paying the rent and paying for health insurance is not a freely made decision.
It always comes back to this, you don't believe people should be trusted to make these decisions themselves, other people should make financial decisions for them. The ordinary person cannot be trusted, they might 'skimp' in areas DeepThought believes they should not be allowed to skimp in.
If not they themselves making these decisions, you must mean othe ...[text shortened]... ntries with no, or virtually no, state mandated healthcare and none, to very little, regulation.
Name the countries with no state mandated health care and little regulation which have "the cheapest healthcare".
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYour rationale for forcing state mandated healthcare on everyone is that some people have trouble paying the rent?
A decision between paying the rent and paying for health insurance is not a freely made decision.
Name the countries with no state mandated health care and little regulation which have "the cheapest healthcare".
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by WajomaDo you see yourself as an übermensch who can determine how much police protection I need? Why can't I just buy it myself?
It always comes back to this, you don't believe people should be trusted to make these decisions themselves, other people should make financial decisions for them. The ordinary person cannot be trusted, they might 'skimp' in areas DeepThought believes they should not be allowed to skimp in.
If not they themselves making these decisions, you must mean othe ...[text shortened]... ntries with no, or virtually no, state mandated healthcare and none, to very little, regulation.
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNope, if the role of the state is to protect you from me, and me from you. If the level of protection is great or little makes no difference to how free you are.
Do you see yourself as an übermensch who can determine how much police protection I need? Why can't I just buy it myself?
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere are no instances where pure free markets can be compared to controlled markets, so your empirical data doesn't prove much at all. Comparison between a hodge podge market and a purely controlled one (in the relatively short term) doesn't carry much weight.
Unfortunately, the empirical evidence does not support your claims. I suggest you adjust your views based on the evidence, not the evidence based on your views.
We can observe human behavior under a variety of systems, and make conclusions on how they act and how that effects the economics. Show me someone who will not access as much free stuff as is offered? Those people are rare indeed. The only thing that slows the consumption of goods is payment requirement.
In pure state run health systems, cost overruns are quite common, and the only means of controlling costs is rationing of care, that is denying services to some individuals based on that bean counters say is efficient.
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe "cheapest" is always free, or what someone else pays for, or where government mandates what price can be charged. Once in charge governments tend to manipulate the data to make them look better.
A decision between paying the rent and paying for health insurance is not a freely made decision.
Name the countries with no state mandated health care and little regulation which have "the cheapest healthcare".
A better solution is to determine why people can't afford their rent and health care. Fix both the problem and the symptom.