MattTheSkywalker said:
Can you opt out of paying into the system AT ALL? Everything socialized in the US can be described as "rich people pay the overwhelming majority of the costs".
Additionally, the creation of a tier of government payors increases the cost of private care, because it bastardizes the idea of supply and demand, that is why we have such exorbitant costs here.....the government has forced costs up.
you can't expect me to believe that involving the government would save money. It never does.
Unless we just don't treat them. Then the costs will drop preciptiously, won't they? A restaurant can refuse service to anyone. Why not doctors? Why do we expect doctors to provide their service any time it is needed?
The other side of your coin is that people will start going to the doctor every time they have a sniffle.
The best system is one whereby people consider what they can afford, how they feel, and decide whether or not they need care.
This highlights the flaws of our system. Government bureaucracy highlights your proposition.
Mine is based on voluntary association of free individuals. What's so bad about that?
All you are doing is saying "A sucks, let's try B". What about, neither A nor B?
You can't opt out totally. No developed country lets you opt out totally. That is one of the 'drawbacks' of living in a wealthy, developed country. All of them have socialized healthcare in one form or another.
Actually costs in the US are due to a multitude of factors, most of which are cureable with government intervention (hear me out)
Administration. Administration takes up 25% of private healthcare funds, about $400 billion. But with medicare it takes up 3%. In places like Canada i think its around 14%. Government intervention cuts down administration costs drastically. Medicare is a great example of this. If medicare made up our 1.5 trillion a year spending on healthcare then 45 billion would be spent on administration instead of the 400 billion we currently spend.
No price negotiation on drugs. I know you're against this but government intervention would save people money by doing this.
Unnecessary treatments for the rich and poor treatments for the poor. The rich end up spending alot more money than they need on unnecessary treatments. They may end up buying the 'newest, bestest' heart medication that costs $3000 a year and studies show works no better than aspirin, which costs about $1 a year. The poor on the other hand put off medical care until their problems are major and cost 20x as much to treat. Government intervention would treat both of these things. If you are rich and still want the 3k pills, go ahead. But you'd have to pay for them yourself if the $1 aspirin works just as well.
SO when you combine all 3 of these things its easy to understand why in the US we pay 15% of GDP while places like Japan or the UK pay 7-8% of GDP on healthcare. Even though people visit the doctor more in Japan.
Voluntary association of free individuals is great if you are in the top 5% of wage earners and 28 years old with no real medical problems. But your arguments are as self serving as the 70 year old diabetic, retired factory worker who is on medicare.
Go into detail about voluntary association of free individuals? You mean treating healthcare like a commodity, just like paper plates you mean? Buy as much or as few as you can afford if that is what you want?
my point is 'true' voluntary association will end up raising administration costs to 30%, the poor will die in droves and/or end up spending tons at the last minute while the rich will blow through money on stuff they don't need. A very inefficient system and 90% of the public will not stand for it.