Well, from a Neoclassical perspective...
http://lafferhealthcarereport.org/files/Texas_Perspective.pdf
The current government involvement perpetuates it.
Last edited:
Required Health Insurance?
- Thread starter IndigoSensor
- Start date
Well, from a Neoclassical perspective...
The current government involvement perpetuates it.
I think consumers should have more control over how their healthcare money is spent. It should be more about personal choice and personal freedom.
And yet further privatizing health care in no way accomplishes that task. To the contrary, since there is little competition between the health insurance companies, and since they are selling a product that most people need, they hold the power over how health care money is spent. So the ideology of allowing cosumers to have the control over how their health care money is spent is not even served by the capitalistic methods. In other words, you can't vote with your wallet. Hence why I say, if I can't vote with my wallet, then I wish to vote with my vote.
Right, and I would think that further government involvement (especially a direct government takeover of medical care providers, which is fortunately not about to happen in the U.S.) would continue to perpetuate it. I don't see how it could fix it. That effect remains a con that the pros of a proposed plan would have to override, so I was wondering why you mentioned it as a problem that the government needs to fix.
Because the government has solved wedge problems in the past, and even if the government was virtually not involved, the wedge problems would still exist within the insurance companies. This is ultimately a problem with the consumer and so it has to be addressed at the consumer level. Every bureaucracy, whether private or public, will face an economic separation of effort and award due to its own policies. The insurance company has no incentive to do so, and will continue to pay out for useless services, but the government can act so as not to further the problem by instituting accountability reforms, much like Obama has proposed.
This is where being able to see both the Neoclassical and Keynesian approaches of capitalism comes in handy. Those who have the private = good mentality about bureaucracy are delusional because they don't understand how any form of centralized authority, whether political or economic, creates problems for society. A market imposed hierarchy is not necessarily a voluntary one.
Last edited:
This might be getting a bit off-topic, but I think the government authority afforded certain medical groups (via the FDA and the AMA), has gone a long way towards building up the private "centralized authority" and has made health care far more expensive. Bureaucratic exercises in obtuseness such as the current crackdown on dessicated thyroid enforce a quasi-monopoly of methods that are often less efficient, but still practiced because there is more money to be squeezed out of the consumers.
I'm not arguing that the government has not exasperated the problem; I'm arguing that many of Obama's proposed solutions don't do such and even address such problems. I find the ideology that leads people to argue that insurance shouldn't be mandatory or that the government shouldn't be involved in health care because of how it helped raise costs in the past, to be rather annoying and impractical. Personal freedom is good, but within a civilized society, there is no such thing as absolute personal freedom. And to assume that the private insurance companies are any better or worse a bureaucracy than the government is simply idiotic. Why would they be?
There is no "invisible hand of the market" when it comes to health care. Is that partly the government's fault? Yes! Does that mean the government should not be involved in health care? No! The government plays many important and necessary roles in health care, and some of the unintended consequences of doing so are raised costs. If we ever want affordable, universal health care then the government must certainly be involved.
So the bottom line is to force others to do what you want because you know better? Sounds elitist to me. And why is health care such a big issue right now anyway? I am more worried about having a job here in the next few weeks. It makes sense to me to find a way to get people working again. By doing so you will be raising the value of the dollar and by doing so you will reduce the cost of health care. Why would anyone try to do this with the worst economy since the great depression is beyond me. We do not have the money to fund health care right now. People are unemployed and we want to add to them a monthly bill that could mean the difference between eating or not eating? This whole health care debate is not a debate at all to me. It's a total waste of time in my opinion and when people are not working and paying taxes where will the money come from? The government is funded by tax payers right?
I can't force anyone to do anything. I can only persuade and cast my vote. If people don't want to listen to reason and evidence, then they are entitled to be ignorant.
Sounds like an ad hominem to me.
Because if nothing is done with health care, the current increase in costs will turn it into a luxury, and we could very well end up in another even worse recession due to the government having to pay for most of the emergency bills when most of America in uninsured or under insured. Virtually nobody is denying that something has to be done. The argument is over what should be done.
Could that be perhaps because of the recession? How many of those do you want?
Um...a few things wrong with that comment...
1. Increasing employment actually increased inflation, not decreases it. Once the Americans who have been out of work begin to find employment again, you are going to see a big drop in the value of the dollar. That is Economics 101.
2. Inflation has very little to do with the rising health care costs.
Because we have to so that we don't end up back here again.
Agreed. Which is why one of the biggest parts of this debate has been how we are going to fund it. Much of the money is going to come from reworking the system so as to bring down costs. As I said before, we are paying 3 to 5 times as much for health care as countries with similar quality, universal health care. In the long run, having universal health care may actually save us substantially more money.
What the hell are you talking about?
Of course, it's not a debate for people who are completely uniformed of the facts. I have one question for you. Do you have any idea what will happen in this country if we don't fix things now?
By 2013, 56 million people will be uninsured. Medicare and Medicaid will be completely unsustainable at those numbers. In other words, nearly a quarter of our total work force will be uninsured, and as those people get sick, they will have to wait until they are in emergency condition, at which point, the government will pick up the bill of their health costs. At that point, we very well could be facing a complete collapse of the health care system, much as we witnessed with the collapse of the real estate industry that lead to our current recession.
Yes, and they have a responsibility to the tax payers to spend out money wisely, which they are currently not doing and are trying to amend with health care reform.
Last edited:
I mostly agree — but my attitude regarding the public vs. private bureaucracies is the reason why I find Obama's current proposal troublesome. The Dems wimped out on the public option, and without it, this "reform" looks to be a potentially disastrous experiment in mixing public goals (universal coverage) and private ones (profit) that don't belong anywhere near each other. If the companies can't discriminate, they will have to charge more per person to turn a profit, and we won't have a choice about paying for it, because bodies, unlike cars, are not optional properties. The government will have to help more of us in affording the premiums. Ironically, the ones who will end up paying their own premiums will often be those who don't really need insurance in the first place, due to the wealth they already have available to pay their own medical bills.
Considering all the government funding required to make this work, I think it would have been far more efficient to just establish a government option.
The State of New Hampshire as of last december (as it was the last time I was in my home state) does not require auto insurance and furthermore does not have seatbelt laws and helmet laws for those over 18. The rational being that if one does not use these devices or have said insurance you drive at your own risk, and that there is a court system in place to deal with compensation for accidents, be that medical, repairs etc.
(A) in my mind is extortion plain and simple; to go along with what I said of New Hampshire laws it is my choice to make and I live with the consequences, for better for worse.
(C) is where reform should take place. The language that is used in any bill I've ever tried to read is so vague it screams loopholes I wish for a law that limits the amount of BS that can be put into a bill and the length... I read half of the house bill on health care reform, solely because the language used was so poor I skipped sections that made no sense what so ever. If I need a three pre-law and an economist to understand a bill it's too complicated.
Another place that needs reform is medical malpractice... the exorbitant amount of money I have heard (sadly cannot sight this part only hearsay) being exchange for things that would normally be considered in the risks of a procedure (ie, infection after a major surgery) is astounding. The fact that most warning labels are in existence because someone did "what not to do", sued and won a large sum of money. Thats not right...
We seem to be caught in this system of regulating peoples lives... don't. if things need regulating it's companies start there. I'm not an economist or someone with extensive background in insurance but don't tell people what they can and can't do. Tell the insurance corporations what they can and can't do.
/rant
I'm too smart to run for public office and too stupid to know not to complain about things I have no intention of trying to change.
All I can do is live in accordance with my own values and understanding of the world. That is all anyone can do. We all like to believe by doing so that we are actually helping the world in some way.
I never called you such. I try not to use ad hominem attacks. If you wish to percieve an interpresonal conflict where there is none, then feel free. I only care about the facts.
A: One party system masquerading as a two party system.
B: Requirement of large sums of money from private sources.
C: Government lead by military industrial complex which funnels resources to defense spending.
D: Media poised to attack any mistake or gaffe.
E: Blood hungry masses ready to spread viscous rumors.
F: Government that runs by trading pork for pork.
Just a few of the things that require a person to sell out on their values to have a chance to win.
A, C and F: I could see those issues as problematic to those who have been elected, but what do they have to do with campaigns? Many public offices have no part in military or pork barrel spending, and some are even possible to get elected to without a party affiliation. (Especially in smaller areas, previous name recognition is far more important than having a certain party endorsing you.)
B, D and E: What do these have to do with selling out on one's values? Private donors who simply share key values can be found
