Originally posted by sh76As Milton Friedman pointed out -- government regulation of a system proportionally lowers quality and increases the cost of that system.
Healthcare is not a zero sum game that has to be rationed. If healthcare costs more and the doctors and clinics get paid more and make more money, there will be more of them and thus more healthcare being produced.
Of course, that has the downside of increasing costs and squeezing out those who cannot afford it. So, you need to strike some sort of balance. ...[text shortened]... ssion.
Incidentally, I'm not sure of the answer. But the issue is not that cut and dried.
The only reason health care costs are going up is because there is more and more demand for it but due to government regulation the supply of health care is strictly limited. This talk about "rationing" healthcare is silly -- it is already rationed.
I cannot go to an individual, ask for health care, receive it, and then pay him. That is impossible in most Western countries. The government will not permit it. Even if I am completely satisfied with the service I received and the price I paid. Even if the the health care provider did so gladly.
The reason is that the governments in all Western countries have been lobbied by a very powerful lobbyist group -- doctors -- to "lock-up" health care into a strict monopoly. You will literally be "locked up" if you try to practice medicine without a license. The reason -- ostensibly -- is "to guarantee public health."
Well that is simply garbage. As monopolists, most doctors take no time with their patients because they don't have to. They rush diagnoses, dash off prescriptions and move on because their customers cannot go elsewhere for their service.
As a result, we have a system where I cannot buy what I need -- I have to first seek out someone's permission -- and that permission carries a cost. I also cannot get "free estimates." Instead, in many cases, diagnosis is far more expensive than treatment. This is crazy -- the same logic of paying $250 to get an estimate of what is wrong with your car when the repairs cost $180. Again, since the supply of health care diagnosticians is restricted and competition between diagnosticians is non-existent -- the cost of diagnosis is outrageous.
Most people who are in favor of keeping the system as it is have been scared by lobbyist rhetoric. They have been prevented from imagining a world in which doctors take as much time with their patients as those patients demand, provide diagnoses for free, and treat patients promptly. The reason is that in such a world, doctor's salaries would be right up there with car mechanics -- and there is an entrenched lobbyist group in place determined not to see that happen.
So again, government regulation of a system proportionally lowers quality and increases the cost of that system. The more government regulation, the more restraints on competition -- and the more restraints on competition, the greater the cost, and the lower the quality of the service. Also, when government decides to regulate, they always go to the group which is going to be regulated and make a deal with them. The group being regulated is always eager to participate in such deals because that deal is never better and usually worse for consumers than what would be arrived at through honest competition because only competition produces the absolute minimum possible cost.
Originally posted by whodeyOh I see! That $11Trillion debt was caused by the astonishing generosity of the US to its poorer citizens. Well well. Maybe it became a socialist republic under Bush and Cheney and we never noticed.
It is the same logic that says that a government entitled retirement is a right.
It is the same logic that says that a government sponsered income for the poor is a right?
It is the same logic that says that a state sponsered education is a right?
In short, it is the same logic that says, "They owe this to me and, in fact, it is NEVER enough!!"
It is the logic that has helped create a $11 trillion deficit. But then, who really cares, eh?
Originally posted by finneganNo all the bailouts to companies going under, instead if us.
Oh I see! That $11Trillion debt was caused by the astonishing generosity of the US to its poorer citizens. Well well. Maybe it became a socialist republic under Bush and Cheney and we never noticed.
Originally posted by joe beyserYeah, you can trust the insurance companies to do what's good for you though.
The Indian health care system is a totally social system. I am only knowledgeable with one tribe and don't know if they are all the same.
It really isn't that bad. The worst part of it is when the funds start getting low. When that happens, rationing takes place. If a person has a life threatening condition, they will be treated. If not, they may not g ...[text shortened]... on this as they may one day try the single payer deal and Government will call all the shots.
Originally posted by finneganDid Bush and Cheney set up social security so that politicians can rob from it? Did Bush and Cheney run up a debt that was close to $5 trillion? No, they simply added to our misery just as Obama is doing now only no one has ever equaled the spending that the current administration is doing now.
Oh I see! That $11Trillion debt was caused by the astonishing generosity of the US to its poorer citizens. Well well. Maybe it became a socialist republic under Bush and Cheney and we never noticed.
Its time to stop drinking the partisan cool aide and wake up!!
It can be difficult to visualize large numbers. Just what is 1 trillion (either in £ or $)? What does it look like?
If you are trying to think of that number in relative terms, maybe this will help you also.
If you spent 1,000,000 (1 Million) per day.
Every day, 365 days per year since Christ’s birth, 2009 years ago.
You would have spent only 3/4 of 1,000,000,000,000 (1 Trillion).
There would be 267,000,000,000 (267 Billion) left to dispose of.
At the same rate of $1,000,000 per day the remainder would take another 731 years.
From the first day Christ drew breath until the year 2740 AD. Wow!
No matter if you reside in a wealthy nation or not, who honestly thinks tens of Trillions is a debt that can be repaid? What responsible government would contemplate increasing such a debt?
Originally posted by MacSwainIt is proof positive that our Government is controlled by foreign entities. They want this country torn down, de industrialized , battered by a new civil war along with another world war, that we will scream for the UN to save us.
It can be difficult to visualize large numbers. Just what is 1 trillion (either in £ or $)? What does it look like?
If you are trying to think of that number in relative terms, maybe this will help you also.
If you spent 1,000,000 (1 Million) per day.
Every day, 365 days per year since Christ’s birth, 2009 years ago.
You would have spent ...[text shortened]... debt that can be repaid? What responsible government would contemplate increasing such a debt?
Originally posted by spruce112358I can't speak for other countries, but in the US, you most definitely CAN pay for your own care. But when you want or need an insurance company or a government to pay for your care, you will need that entity's permission.
[b]As Milton Friedman pointed out -- government regulation of a system proportionally lowers quality and increases the cost of that system.
The only reason health care costs are going up is because there is more and more demand for it but due to government regulation the supply of health care is strictly limited. This talk about "rationing t competition because only competition produces the absolute minimum possible cost.[/b]
While I disagree with your cynicism, you essentially make the important point that one of the main problems is that we have a shortage of doctors and other healthcare providers at a time when the population is aging, and when new technological breakthroughs offer many new possible treatments.
The main focus of healthcare reform has been to allow more people to gain access to healthcare, at a time when the system is already being greatly strained. But I've heard very little about how we're going to get a LOT more people working in the healthcare field. If we don't, there will have to be a LOT of rationing.
Great healthcare article on freedom of choice in healthcare options:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/29/healthcare_do_we_need_the_lexus/
"If the government barred you from buying anything but a high-end car, you’d probably have no choice but to rely on the bus or subway, or to find a job closer to home.
What is true of transportation is true of everything else: Increase the number of amenities that a product or service must include, and more consumers will be unable to pay for that product or service.
That is why one of the simplest strategies for making health insurance more affordable is to reduce the minimum number of benefits that insurers are required to cover.
In every state in the union, legislators and regulators drive up the cost of healthcare by making insurance policies more comprehensive. Rather than allow the free market to determine which medical services health plans will cover, states force consumers to pay for an array of covered benefits they may not need or want. For example, 45 states require insurance policies to include treatment for alcoholism and 34 mandate coverage of drug abuse treatment. Contraceptives are covered in 31 states, as are hairpieces in 10 states, and in-vitro fertilization in 13 states. Consumers who buy health insurance are often forced to pay for coverage of services they may consider highly dubious, such as acupuncture (benefits are mandatory in 11 states), chiropractic (46 states), osteopathy (22 states), and naturopathy (four states).
Forty years ago, there were only a handful of benefits that health policies were required by law to cover. Today, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance identifies an astonishing 1,961 mandated benefits and providers. While any one mandate may not add appreciably to the price of an insurance policy, in the aggregate their cost is huge. The Cato Institute, citing the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that state regulations increase the cost of health insurance by 15 percent. And since “each percentage-point rise in health insurance costs increases the number of uninsured by 300,000 people,’’ as scholars John Cogan, Glenn Hubbard, and Daniel Kessler point out, it is clear that the proliferation of insurance mandates is one reason why millions of Americans are uninsured.
Yet instead of pruning back this thicket of compulsory benefits, lawmakers are planting even more of them."
Originally posted by eljefejesusMy private insurance covers almost everything and costs about $150 per month (of which half is refunded by the government because my income is low).
Great healthcare article on freedom of choice in healthcare options:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/29/healthcare_do_we_need_the_lexus/
"If the government barred you from buying anything but a high-end car, you’d probably have no choice but to rely on the bus or subway, or to find a job closer to home.
...[text shortened]... f pruning back this thicket of compulsory benefits, lawmakers are planting even more of them."
It's not good coverage that is driving up the costs of US health care. It's corruption, poor regulation and bureaucracy.
Originally posted by eljefejesusI believe your take on the major reason for increased per capita spending for health care is the correct one. The number of innovations that have been emerging over several decades is amazing. (none of them cheap) However, these things have saved and extended a tremendous number of lives. Regrettably these new innovations are also responsible for the lion’s share of increased costs we have experienced.
Great healthcare article on freedom of choice in healthcare options:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/29/healthcare_do_we_need_the_lexus/
"If the government barred you from buying anything but a high-end car, you’d probably have no choice but to rely on the bus or subway, or to find a job closer to home.
...[text shortened]... f pruning back this thicket of compulsory benefits, lawmakers are planting even more of them."
If one desired to roll back cost to a level seen several decades ago, then he could accomplish this by declining use of newer innovations in order that his treatments and procedures match those available several decades ago. Somehow I don’t believe anyone would want to give up these innovations if they were in need of it.
Here is a listing of only a few, there are many more:
HIV Protease Inhibitors, Cancer Irradiation, Cancer Chemo Therapy, Heart-Lung By-Pass Procedure, Artificial Heart, EKG Electrocardiography, Heart By-Pass Surgery, CT Scan, Dialysis Machine, Pacemaker Implant, Organ Transplant, Fetal Monitor, CA 125 Test, Genetics Testing, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, DNA Cloning, Heart Transplant, Artificial Limbs, Hip & Knee Replacement, Fertility Treatment, Artificial Skin, Blood Substitute, Complete Blood Count, Creatinine Blood Test, Cornea Transplant, Arterial Stint, Da Vinci Care, Defibrillator Implant, Spinal Fusion, Organ Transplant, Antinuclear Antibody Test, Ultra Sound Test, Lithotripsy
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOh well, makes a change from you blaming the 'free market'. But you're on the right track there KN, no need to keep holding US health care as an example of all that is wrong with people choosing freely on such a personal issue as their own friggin body.
My [b]private insurance covers almost everything and costs about $150 per month (of which half is refunded by the government because my income is low).
It's not good coverage that is driving up the costs of US health care. It's corruption, poor regulation and bureaucracy.[/b]
Originally posted by WajomaThere is nothing to choose, no one doesn't want health care - and even those who don't want health care probably need it anyway (in the form of a mental institution). So the only relevant issue at hand is how to produce the best quality health care at the lowest possible price. Regardless of the reason why this is so, the US system does show that their way is not the right way.
Oh well, makes a change from you blaming the 'free market'. But you're on the right track there KN, no need to keep holding US health care as an example of all that is wrong with people choosing freely on such a personal issue as their own friggin body.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo one doesn't want to eat, we can only be thankful that control freaks such as yourself haven't taken on the role of removing our money by threat of force then dishing out set menus as per certified by the state.
There is nothing to choose, no one doesn't want health care - and even those who don't want health care probably need it anyway (in the form of a mental institution). So the only relevant issue at hand is how to produce the best quality health care at the lowest possible price. Regardless of the reason why this is so, the US system does show that their way is not the right way.
You can't just fob it off so easily as "regardless of the reason", the reason is what it's all about and has been pointed out time and time again to you, the US system is not an example of free market health care.
Poor regulation (i.e. too bloody much of it) and bureaucracy going hand in hand to drive costs through the roof. The "right way" is for people to choose their own priorities and set their own values, butt out of other peoples lives.