Health Care...man, I'm torn.

[Liberty_is_NORML]

I think the biggest business model scam on the face of this earth is most types of insurance. While some services that insurance offers and are exclusively elective(reasonably priced life insurance, for instance) have merit, the ridiculous combo of the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and the health care administrators disgusts me.

I'm not ruling out any solutions to this problem and I would like to hear some of your ideas.

I think that the first step is to determine how to drastically reduce overall costs of health care coupled with hospitals working directly with the patients instead of through a ridiculous, uncaring middle man (insurance co.).

It is also difficult me to grasp the notion that health care is not a right, per se, even though I know it isn't in line with my libertarian values.

I guess I would be more apt to support that idealogy if we lived in a truly just society.

 

[Unspun]

It is also difficult me to grasp the notion that health care is not a right, per se, even though I know it isn't in line with my libertarian values.

Curious, how is health care a 'right'?

 

[tremendoustie]

I think the biggest business model scam on the face of this earth is most types of insurance. While some services that insurance offers and are exclusively elective(reasonably priced life insurance, for instance) have merit, the ridiculous combo of the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and the health care administrators disgusts me.

I'm not ruling out any solutions to this problem and I would like to hear some of your ideas.

I think that the first step is to determine how to drastically reduce overall costs of health care coupled with hospitals working directly with the patients instead of through a ridiculous, uncaring middle man (insurance co.).

It is also difficult me to grasp the notion that health care is not a right, per se, even though I know it isn't in line with my libertarian values.

I guess I would be more apt to support that idealogy if we lived in a truly just society.

The key to keeping costs down is this: The patient must care about the cost, and there must be freely available alternatives.

So, we just need to:

1. Stop forcing employers to be in the business of providing medical insurance.
2. Allow the re-emergence of catastrophic health insurance which does not cover day to day expenses.
3. Stop regulating the heath industry. If a person thinks their doctor is too expensive, and they want to do something else -- e.g. get treatment from an RN working on his/her own, they should be able to do it.


With lots of competition, doctors will be forced to keep their prices low. And, with patients paying for more small expenses out of pocket, or at least with a percentage copay, they will be motivated to find more efficient solutions, and not abuse the system.

Then, medical care will look more like technology, as it should -- always cheaper and better -- and not like the other things government runs -- public education, the DMV, etc -- always more expensive and less efficient.

 

[Liberty_is_NORML]

Curious, how is health care a 'right'?

That's my dilemna. I don't think it is a "right" but I don't understand how anyone can stand by with a clear conscience and watch someone die because they didn't have insurance.

Listen, I know I am over simplifying here...I mainly want to hear people's opinions on fixing health care. And more specific than "just keep the government out of it" which is obvious. I am not married to any philosophy yet so throw out your ideas...

 

[Liberty_is_NORML]

The key to keeping costs down is this: The patient must care about the cost, and there must be freely available alternatives.

So, we just need to:

1. Stop forcing employers to be in the business of providing medical insurance.
2. Re-emergence of catastrophic health insurance which does not cover day to day expenses.
3. Stop regulating the heath industry. If a person thinks their doctor is too expensive, and they want to do something else -- e.g. get treatment from an RN working on his/her own, they should be able to do it.


With lots of competition, doctors will be forced to keep their prices low. And, with patients paying for more small expenses out of pocket, or at least with a percentage copay, they will be motivated to find more efficient solutions, and not abuse the system.

Then, medical care will look more like technology, as it should -- always cheaper and better -- and not like the other things government runs -- public education, the DMV, etc -- always more expensive and less efficient.

Thanks! Those are interesting ideas.

 

[phill4paul]

The key to keeping costs down is this: The patient must care about the cost, and there must be freely available alternatives.

So, we just need to:

1. Stop forcing employers to be in the business of providing medical insurance.
2. Allow the re-emergence of catastrophic health insurance which does not cover day to day expenses.
3. Stop regulating the heath industry. If a person thinks their doctor is too expensive, and they want to do something else -- e.g. get treatment from an RN working on his/her own, they should be able to do it.


With lots of competition, doctors will be forced to keep their prices low. And, with patients paying for more small expenses out of pocket, or at least with a percentage copay, they will be motivated to find more efficient solutions, and not abuse the system.

Then, medical care will look more like technology, as it should -- always cheaper and better -- and not like the other things government runs -- public education, the DMV, etc -- always more expensive and less efficient.

Agreed. Allow doctors to form their own co-ops. Allow them to charge a monthly fee to be a member of their co-op without government or insurance interference.

 

[Crash Martinez]

re: health care qua right:

Every true Right is a condition of individuals, the maintenance of which requires NO ACTION on the part of others. Life, Liberty, and Property are the extensive "root" rights from which all the others flow. In fact, Bastiat demonstrated how the latter two stem from Life as well: thus every person alive has the right to the fruits of life, namely liberty and property, with all that they entail.

Now, in order for a person's right to life, liberty, and property to be maintained, what positive action must others take on that person's behalf? Nothing! That is why liberty can be equated with being left the heck alone!

Put another way, if anything were defined as a "right" which demanded action on the part of others, it would necessarily constitute an infringement on those others' liberty and property. This is very clearly evident in the case of trying to procure a "right" of health care, which can only be provided at (involuntary) cost to the liberty and property of others.

If no one has the right to someone else's time or property, then clearly, to demand that health care be treated as a right is out of line, and a violation of the rights of others.

Furthermore, anything that can be properly conceived of as a right must be demandable of Everyone universally. Since rights are properly respected when No One does Anything, it is reasonable to re-state the condition of rights as that condition in which no one does anything which infringes on those rights. Therefore, it is no great demand to require everyone equally to leave an individual alone, thus protecting that individual's rights. But when conditions that require action on the part of others are (improperly) defined as rights, the distortion is immediately evident as to which persons are required to take action in order to secure such a so-called right. If health care, for instance, were truly a "right," then it would be appropriate to demand it from each and every person one encounters! Why, if YOU don't bind up my broken arm, for free, and regardless of your medical background or lack thereof, then you are guilty of denying me the right of health care!! This is patently absurd.

Wow... I'm surprised I had so much to say about that off the top of my head!

 

[Acala]

First

The first place you ALWAYS want to look is where and how government intervention is messing up the market you are analyzing. And there are few areas of the economy where government interference is more severe than in health care. I will just touch on a few problems.

Virtually every health care provider from orderly to brain surgeon is licensed. That restricts supply. Supply restriction drives up prices and lowers quality. Hospitals can usually only be built with government approval - again, supply restriction. Every drug and medical device must be approved by the FDA - another restriction on supply and competition.

Government massively subsidizes health care. Subsidies raise prices. Government tax policies nearly FORCE businesses to provide health "insurance". This is another form of subsidy that raises prices. I put "insurance" in quotes because what passes for insurance now is not really insurance. Real insurance covers risks, not routine procedures and treatment. But government laws dictate what health insurance must cover, essentially turning insurance into a complete health care provider and - you guessed it - driving up costs. Tort lawsuits, which are mostly shakedowns, add to the cost.

As a result of decades of government intervention in the economy, health care has gone from a cost that most people used to handle as a routine houshold expense (with only catastrophic insurance coverage), into a crushing burden that almost everyone needs help covering.

So here is my suggestion, before you reject the free market as a health care provider, let's actually TRY a free market and see how it performs. Because we KNOW government intervention doesn't work.

 

[GBurr]

The reason that health care cannot be a right is that it would have infringe on someone's right. Nothing can be a right if it infringes on someone's rights. If health care is a right then someone must treat you. If health care were a right then doctors would be enslaved. Anything that infringes on rights cannot be a right.

You have the right to free speech but no one is required to provide you with an audience or a mic.

You have the right to the pursuit of happiness. No one has to provide you with happiness. You must find the happiness yourself. Others ;however, cannot infringe on your pursuit.

You have the right to bear arms, but no one has to provide you with arms. You must buy them or make them yourself.

If you were to have a right to health care then a doctor MUST treat you. That infringes on the doctor.

Unfortunately our politicians think that anything that is good must be a right. The try to say that you have the Right to Education, the Right to health care, the right to live without fear of poverty. The problem with all of these is that these things must come at someone's expense.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I almost started this thread myself a few days ago. Except I was going to title it "I give up".

We all know what needs to be done to lower costs. Remove restrictions on competition, abolish insurance, etc.

But in reality, none of that will happen. We're pretty much doomed to national health care. A government monopoly to take over and replace the HMO/Insurance/Pharma Oligopoly. I really don't see it getting any worse. My HMO Emergency room is already worse than the DMV...

 

[ClayTrainor]

That's my dilemna. I don't think it is a "right" but I don't understand how anyone can stand by with a clear conscience and watch someone die because they didn't have insurance.

Listen, I know I am over simplifying here...I mainly want to hear people's opinions on fixing health care. And more specific than "just keep the government out of it" which is obvious. I am not married to any philosophy yet so throw out your ideas...

I like your approach to this, man... I look forward to reading this thread as it progresses

 

[Kludge]

That's my dilemna. I don't think it is a "right" but I don't understand how anyone can stand by with a clear conscience and watch someone die because they didn't have insurance.

I see what you're saying, but government takes the choice away. We cannot assume that everyone shares the same feelings about healthcare as us, and thus cannot take from others which is rightfully their own. We CAN persuade them individually, but not collectively through means such as advertising or tax incentives, as that would be theft.

Instead, we need to be working with charities, if we are so inclined, to better the well-being of others and to sustain as many lives as possible. Libertarianism should never be confused with what I perceive to be the heartlessness of Objectivism. It is not that we do not want to better the lives of others, whether previous actions warrant it or not, but that we do not want to steal from others to accomplish our goals out of respect for others that we, in turn, expect. We want to save lives, but we do not want to enslave others in the process.

Is it really dehumanizing to place a monetary value on the head of a person? Is it really so unthinkable to be realistic, saving the most lives possible instead of trying and failing to save everyone? No person should die because they cannot afford a simple procedure, but what of the terminally ill? Vegetables? Should people really be expected to work -- to lose some time of their own life -- to sustain a vegetable? And this is assuming that people can actually afford to have time taken out of their day to work to sustain a vegetable. What of those who are barely sustaining themselves? A free society has flaws, but all systems have flaws. Life isn't perfect, and you cannot create something from nothing as many socialists claim.

The Welfare State can only expand. The impoverished are sustained, but only in poverty, and the well-off are drained of their wealth until they too become slaves to the Welfare State, making only enough to pay their necessary bills and the government.

A simple solution may be to simply tax the excessively rich enough to pay for everyone else, but then there is no incentive for them to create more wealth, as the government would be significantly diminishing the value of the person's labor through excessive taxation. These greedy people may not be the most ideal people to be leading our country economically, but they must be competent, as they are providing jobs and creating wealth, and if they are truly greedy, they will only seek to create more wealth.

And then you have the altruistic businessmen -- Bill Gates, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey -- who are not only helping others through greed, but even giving back excess wealth to their fellow humans (pandas and trees too, in some cases). Greed only provides for the competent. For the incompetent, these wealthy people are not needed, but are indeed necessary to sustaining their life.

Life is a privilege. Theft is aggression. To do harm to potentially create good is unethical in any situation.

 

[Liberty_is_NORML]

Some really cool stuff here...thanks and I mean that.

 

[nicholascoppola]

The reason that health care cannot be a right is that it would have infringe on someone's right. Nothing can be a right if it infringes on someone's rights. If health care is a right then someone must treat you. If health care were a right then doctors would be enslaved. Anything that infringes on rights cannot be a right.

You have the right to free speech but no one is required to provide you with an audience or a mic.

You have the right to the pursuit of happiness. No one has to provide you with happiness. You must find the happiness yourself. Others ;however, cannot infringe on your pursuit.

You have the right to bear arms, but no one has to provide you with arms. You must buy them or make them yourself.

If you were to have a right to health care then a doctor MUST treat you. That infringes on the doctor.

Unfortunately our politicians think that anything that is good must be a right. The try to say that you have the Right to Education, the Right to health care, the right to live without fear of poverty. The problem with all of these is that these things must come at someone's expense.

That is a good argument. What would you say about the right to an attorney though? Same thing I assume.

 

[dannno]

tremendoustie is right, it is government regulation that has made medical care so expensive and any speech by Ron Paul on the healthcare issue say exactly that.

As you know, Ron Paul is a medical physician and he has seen first-hand how the system changed over the years, with one eye on his practice and his other eye on government regulation in the industry.

I'm also quite sure that you are aware of how much cannabis and other natural substances could easily and cheaply be utilized by the medical community if the government would legalize cannabis and also by de-regulating the medical community, patients will be able to choose insurance providers who are willing to help pay for alternative treatments (though seriously.. i don't think people would even need insurance to pay for alternative treatments if we de-regulated health/food/etc, most people would probably just pay for emergency care, unless they continued to believe solely in more expensive western medicine techniques)

 

[Original_Intent]

A lot of good suggestions here, one I haven't seen mentioned is ending licensing of medical practitioners. The number of people allowed to get their license is strictly controlled (just another type of price support). Alternative health care needs to be a viable option, and has already been mentioned make consumers pay for non catastrophic stuff, get businesses out of the insurance provider business, get rid of HMOs completely.

 

[Liberty_is_NORML]

tremendoustie is right, it is government regulation that has made medical care so expensive and any speech by Ron Paul on the healthcare issue say exactly that.

As you know, Ron Paul is a medical physician and he has seen first-hand how the system changed over the years, with one eye on his practice and his other eye on government regulation in the industry.

I'm also quite sure that you are aware of how much cannabis and other natural substances could easily and cheaply be utilized by the medical community if the government would legalize cannabis and also by de-regulating the medical community, patients will be able to choose insurance providers who are willing to help pay for alternative treatments (though seriously.. i don't think people would even need insurance to pay for alternative treatments if we de-regulated health/food/etc, most people would probably just pay for emergency care, unless they continued to believe solely in more expensive western medicine techniques)

Do you know who lobbies the most against de-criminalization?

The pharmaceutical and BEER companies.

 

[dannno]

A lot of good suggestions here, one I haven't seen mentioned is ending licensing of medical practitioners. The number of people allowed to get their license is strictly controlled (just another type of price support). Alternative health care needs to be a viable option, and has already been mentioned make consumers pay for non catastrophic stuff, get businesses out of the insurance provider business, get rid of HMOs completely.

Somebody mentioned licensing on the first page, and I agree completely.

If a private organization wants to come out and "certify" certain types of doctors for, say, brain surgery, heart surgery, plastic surgery, etc, then great. I imagine there would be quite a bit of this going on. I imagine that doctors certified by Company A will be very well regarded, and perhaps if they are certified by Company B they will be less well regarded but maybe they will be cheaper. Maybe some doctors perform these procedures and are not certified, but graduated from some Medical School. Assuming these certification schools require medical school degrees, non-certified doctors would probably be the cheapest unless they have a good reputation. The fact is I as a consumer can verify these certifications, find out what their reputation is myself and make my own decision. Right now everybody trusts that all doctors are relatively equal because they are all certified by the state. Some insurance companies don't really even give you a choice of doctors. How does that improve care?

 

[Mesogen]

Health care is a right. Taking money from other people to pay for your health care is not.

When people say "Health care is a right." What they are really saying is "What's yours is mine."

a private organization wants to come out and "certify" certain types of doctors for, say, brain surgery, heart surgery, plastic surgery, etc, then great.

It's called the American Medical Association.

Except that it's not entirely private and it's more along the lines of an old fashioned guild.

 

[Stary Hickory]

High costs are not a result of the free market. Only government regulation is able to restrict competition like this.

A free market would lower costs to a very affordable level.