[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Healthcare (ugh) - No Who.



Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 09:52:44 -0400
From: "Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@gmavt.net>

Bring on Socialized medicine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And then you fall right off the cliff with this solution.
Ha!  I suspected you wouldn't approve.  But hey!  You're for legalization of
drugs, so who knows!
It's consistent with wanting to preserve individual rights. It's your right to do as you wish -- including take drugs -- with your own body, and it's your right to offer your services -- including brain surgery -- at a mutually negotiated price with a buyer.

Alan, that's the weakest example you could have chosen.  The Russian system
that was needed to support strictly socialist medicine was communist and
thus weak and seriously lacking funds.
I believe the Russian system was the logical outcome of the premises involved -- the abolition of private property -- that it shares with socialism.

Before I continue, I need to make it clear that I am very aware that there
are no perfect solutions out there.
None.
What would perfection be? Infinitely available state-of-the-art care for every US (oops, I mean "world") citizen? That's impossible, and IMO, a perfect solution would have to have the desirable attribute of possibility.

All current healthcare systems in the *world* have issues.
Maybe we should just all kill ourselves and be done with it since we can't have it our way.

His words: "Your healthcare system is broken, but there's nothing better out there. But at least other systems get healthcare to all."
If by his own admission, there's nothing better than the US system out there, then by definition there are negative factors counterbalancing the other systems "getting healthcare to all", and it boils down to the quality of the care and waiting lines. Are you aware, for example, that taxpayer-borne British dental care doesn't recognize caps as medically necessary, and won't pay for them? The decayed tooth is simply pulled. Amazingly, people don't flow into Britain to take advantage of this available-to-all.

 >Care is not a free good, as you of all listers know. Therefore it must be
rationed somehow, and rationing based on government bureaucracy and waiting
lists is far >what we have now. Do you really want to create a black market
in medical procedures for those who can afford them? Because that's what
socialized medicine >does.

You can't look at the worst example as an argument against it.
Sweden does an excellent job of getting healthcare to their people.
Granted, their taxes are outrageous.
Thanks for the note. Sweden, BTW, housed the geniuses who passed a 104%, repeat 104%, income tax at one point. Since I don't think taxes should exist at all, I'd have to pass on advocating that system.

Australia's system is actually quite efficient and was touted by Mr. Moffett.
The German, Danes and Norwegian systems are others that are working really
well and get healthcare to everyone.
The Canadian and UK systems have extreme shortages of resources (hence
charities like TCT, etc.), but even they rank higher then us in efficiency
and delivery of goods to all.
When people (who can afford it) start flying from all over the world to those countries for top-quality medical procedures, I'll start paying attention.

Rights may not be measured by dollars, but healthcare is. Everything. Down to the penny.
So is the cash flow in any successful industry. I fail to see the point, but the sentence is catchy.

Given the premise (that is a fact) that there will *always* be be poor people and rich people, and that there will always be functions in society that do not pay well and are not glamorous (trash collection, burger flippin, car wash, etc.), and are thus populated by those who have no other choice...
Realities that need to be addressed:
So address them. Start the O'Neal Medical Charity for Burgerflippers. I'm not saying poor people should be legally prohibited from getting health care, I'm saying neither doctors nor I should be forced to involuntarily accept the burden of their treatment. (Actually, in my experience, garbage collectors are city employees and get very good benefits. And IIRC, medical benefits for Taco Bell employees do kick in after a few weeks on the job. I'll bet the same is true of any national fastfood chain.)

Current welfare system forces people out in 2 years, and into very low paying jobs that offer no insurance.
Which they can rise beyond, if they have more than minimal skills.

It really comes down to how do we save the most money.
Saving money is good. We could save more by killing the poor. Oops, that would violate their rights. I'm arguing for preserving the rights of all parties involved, service providers AND consumers. That will lead to the best medical system possible. And, since the poor seem to be driving this conversation rather than "the norm", I believe that system would also maximize charitable services available to the poor when they need it.


Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 17:28:08 +0000
From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>

Speaking of Russia, I've been studying up on economics just lately,
including the tenets of socialism.
There's a coincidence for you.

According to Marx, the US health care system is over-capitalized (too much investment in expensive degrees and expensive equipment) which makes it increasingly more difficult for companies and private practices to make a profit. Thus, the industry is calling for the government to bail them out with tax-payer funded health care so they can continue to invest in expensive equipment and still make the profits they're used to.
Marx (or his latter-day interpreters) could well be right. Important medical advances are being made, but frequently they cost a LOT. One flaw in the US system is the assumption that everyone should receive state-of-the art medical treatments, and that if this doesn't happen there is a problem that must be fixed (typically by government programs).

Another flaw is the current licensing laws, which should be abolished and replaced by a system of voluntary certification. Anyone who wants to, could go through exactly the same medical education that is now required for a license to practice medicine, and receive a certification for that level of education. Anyone who is interested in providing medical services, but doesn't wish to go through a exhausting seven-year program, could choose a less intense program and receive a certification for that level. Of course, people who went through the longer program would probably want to charge more to reflect that, but the point is that patients could choose a lesser level of expertise and pay a lesser amount for minor illnesses and complaints. The problem now is that we literally have no choice but to pay gold-plated prices even for problems that simply do not require anything like the full skill of a licensed MD. Abolishing licensing laws, BTW, is another of my positions generally opposed by both liberals and conservatives.

That doesn't sound so good. On the other hand, this situation prices health care services at a level unavailable to the poor. Marx also noted that a widening gap between services available to rich and poor leads to forcible re-distribution of wealth, also known as revolution.
So my goal is to work to fix the system before it comes to that.

Cheers,
--
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true"
   -- Howard Stern, 5/25/00