Millions can't find family doctor (Ah, The Joys of socialized medicine)

[Lao Tzu]

Why is the government's job to save people money?

Why can't it be a benefit of a government? Would you prefer they not try to help people save money? The purpose of government is to give people a better life than they could obtain if they didn't have a co-op.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Don't forget the US has a HUGE problem of illegal aliens.

Can you IMAGINE the national crisis that would develop if people from mexico, africa and china could all jump the border here and get heart transplants, cancer treatments and kidney problems???

People would DYE trying to get into this country, rather than lead a certain a death in their own 3rd world country.

The circumstances alone forbid the US from even "thinking" about any more nationally-run healthcare program. Illegals already are abusing it to kingdom-come for everything they can, and paying squat back.

European countries have the same problem with african and mid eastern immigrants. Australia & New Zealand have the same problem with indonesian immigrants. And they still have universal coverage.

 

[Code]

No, I don't think the government needs to tell companies how much or how little they can charge for their goods.

Would you like the government to restrict how much you can get paid?

Why can't it be a benefit of a government? Would you prefer they not try to help people save money? The purpose of government is to give people a better life than they could obtain if they didn't have a co-op.

 

[Lao Tzu]

No, I don't think the government needs to tell companies how much or how little they can charge for their goods.

Would you like the government to restrict how much you can get paid?

Hmm. you have a point, but if you ask people in countries where the government negotiates for lower cost drugs if they support the idea i would bet 80% or so are in favor of it.

 

[Razorguns]

>have the same problem

Our illegal problem is 10x worse than theirs. Not to mention we don't deport anyone.

 

[Code]

Of course the end-user supports it.
Honestly, if I didn't get all my medical for free, I might support it too!

But the point is, if I made a widget and the government told me I *have* to sell the widget for no more than XX.XX, I'd stop production of the widget entirely.

Even if the widget saved lives, my livelyhood being limited (if not ruined)by the government.

Hmm. you have a point, but if you ask people in countries where the government negotiates for lower cost drugs if they support the idea i would bet 80% or so are in favor of it.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

LOL! like we have poor people dying in the streets here because they don't have insurance. if a person goes to an emergency room with an emergency, by law the hospital has to help them regardless of whether or not they have insurance.

No they don't. A British women involved in a car crash in the USA had half of her skull removed, but due to problems with insurance the hospital was unwilling to complete the surgery and the woman was made to wear a motor cycle helmet for four months before they finished the surgery.

 

[Code]

She was british, the helmet probably made a good distraction from her fucked up teeth and bad breath.

Seriously though, she was a brit trying to get by on free medical in the US? That shit might fly in the UK, but if I ran the hospital I'd have just billed the woman.

Not sure I'd make her wear a helmet for a fiscal quarter.

No they don't. A British women involved in a car crash in the USA had half of her skull removed, but due to problems with insurance the hospital was unwilling to complete the surgery and the woman was made to wear a motor cycle helmet for four months before they finished the surgery.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Of course the end-user supports it.
Honestly, if I didn't get all my medical for free, I might support it too!

But the point is, if I made a widget and the government told me I *have* to sell the widget for no more than XX.XX, I'd stop production of the widget entirely.

Even if the widget saved lives, my livelyhood being limited (if not ruined)by the government.

I really can't argue against that. Government intervenes all over the world. They subsidize agriculture, put tariffs on steel, negotiate drugs prices, etc.

Overall though i think the sacrafice of less freedom is worth it. I know thats a 'weak' thing to say to the libertarians, but i am indifferent. I realize this isn't a perfect world and sacrafices sometimes have to be made to keep the system running.

I have a female friend whose husband is a radical libertarian. He wants to eliminate all government handouts to everything. I try telling him the country will fall apart but he won't listen.

What will happen to the millions of farmers who don't get subsidies so they remain competitive
what about the fact that 75% of students couldn't afford college anymore if state subsidies went away
what about all the medical advances that wouldn't happen w/o government funding.
what about all the military advances that wouldn't happen w/o government funding.

etc. The entire country would fall apart. Maybe it was designed that way (alot of conspiracy theorist libertarians choose to believe that) but its true at this point.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

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.

So there really is no opt out 'choice'. I knew that. There can never be an opt out choice. Every socialized program needs to screw rich people in order to survive.

Actually costs in the US are due to a multitude of factors, most of which are cureable with government intervention (hear me out)

I am all ears.

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.

WOuld you like to tell me what will happen to the costs of administration once all of these federal employees on the administration side get unionized and get into the federal pension system? You ever been to a Social Security office? How about a DMV? Imagine that level of service in health care.

Now, specific points:

Administration is cheaper for Medicare because all of the administration is done by the private health care providers. There are jobs like "medicare billing/coding" which are done privately. These costs are not included in the 3% figure because the private sector eats the cost; doctors and prioviders pay their salaries. Once you socialize, all those people will be taxpayer funded, with retirement benefits too, and of course, the un-fire-ability of a federal job. Ever heard the expression "Federal Fridays?.

When you say administration in the private sector is 25%, all of these billers, etc are included. The 3% in Medicare is a misnomer, because those same costs are ignored since the private sector bears them.

If you are on Medicare or private coverage, your claim is processed the same way: a person fills out a form and bills the government. Whether they bill government or an insurance company, the process and costs are the same.

Do you think all those admin costs just vanish?

No price negotiation on drugs. I know you're against this but government intervention would save people money by doing this.

If this happens, drugs will get really cheap, because pharma companies will go out of business. WOn't that be nice?

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.

Rich people already pay for their exclusive treatments. If I go to the Mayo clinic, they are outside my insurance plan, I have to pay. No change under your system.

The poor put stuff off and then they screw everyone else. Why do they deserve free healthcare? We don't give them a free car? Healthcare is a commodity, right?

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.

Get the government out and the market fixes prices. You still haven't addressed the relationshio between third party payors and prices.

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.

Top 5%? I'd kill myself.

You are right. My arguments are self-serving. I don;t want to pay for other people to do stuff. I don't want to bear the costs of other people. I'll pay for things we need that cannot be commoditized (military, etc.) but I don't want to pay for people's retirement, sickness, and other crap.

Do you? And if you do, then you are allowed to do so. Why are you allowed to compel me? And where do you get the sick notion that I should act in an other than self-serving manner? Whose life is this?

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?

Bingo. Buy that man a Miller. Or a root canal!

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.

Wrongo bongo. Admin costs will not change. Hopefully your lack of understanding of them has though.

True voluntary association will stop us from throwing $1T a year at Grandma. Grandma who cannot afford care, will die. Cheap! Grandma who can, will not.
Prices will drop as the bottomless third party payor (the fed) is out of the picture, and R&D will continue because market competition will be fierce for the people who can afford treatment.

Since the costs will have dropped, more people will be able to afford treatment.

Your "scenario" is a worst of all worlds without consideration for underlying economic principles or the real costs of healthcare.