Universal health care wouldn't be that bad if...

[Corydoras]

To me, the costs and the unfair burden on productive people is the least of the problems with nationalized "health" care. Under such a system, all your medical records would certainly be property of the State subject to their agents' perusal at any time (with all potential abuses that entails).

They are already.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/15222res20030530.html


Ron Paul voted against HIPAA, and of course the Patriot Act.

 

[johngr]

They are already.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/15222res20030530.html


Ron Paul voted against HIPAA, and of course the Patriot Act.

Yes and no. As it stands now, the reasons for looking at your records and scope of such perusal (at least on paper) is limited to security/terrorism. With nationalized "health" "care", this would certainly be broadened considerably and the gov't agents would probably be able to dictate what were once personal decisions based on what was once between you and your doctor. As it stands now, they still cannot use the information to force you to do anything. I believe they (particularly the petits minions) are chomping at the bit for such authority. I just hope that if they were toget what they want, the first person they would use it on is that fatass Michael Moore.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

...we weren't trillions of dollars in debt.

What do you guys think?

No.

And, why not? Universal health care is the way to punish your people. While it IS better than what America currently has, it doesn't even come close to how great a free market system would be! Let's put it this way. Would you like a system where only the insured gets the steaks? While the uninsured don't get any steak? Or where those that aren't insured "enough" don't get as high quality steak? In universal health care, every one gets steak! FOR FREE! But, how would that impact the economy? Everyone can just walk in and walk out with as much steak as they want, this will begin to bankrupt the system, and the quality of steak would begin to go down....any product, really. But how does it work now? it's a fairly free market in the steak department, that's why supply is meeting demand. There would be nomore beef left in this type of system, the government would have to begin rations.

FREE THE DOCTORS!

hm I guess the analogy was a bit off

 

[constituent]

i am more than willing to accept responsibility for my own health
and the health of my family, without doctors if necessary.

the other thing, remember thalidamide?

what happens when your government healthcare provider
gives your wife the next thalidamide.... think you'll
be able to sue them for you childrens' birth
defects or high mortality rate?

no, you won't.

 

[Tn...Andy]

But I'm thinking that universal health care could be an "opt-in" system.

Yeah....right...there is no such thing as an "opt-in" program with the govt.

May start that way, but eventually, a gun will be put to your head and you will 'volunteer' your contributions.

Best not to even approach that slippery slope.

 

[johngr]

i am more than willing to accept responsibility for my own health
and the health of my family, without doctors if necessary.

I agree with you there. Especially when it comes to health/medicine, I'm a complete anarchist. The rules, regulations, agencies, boards, commissions, etc. are self-serving profit-ensuring guild monopolies. I would end them all.

 

[constituent]

FREE THE DOCTORS!

hm I guess the analogy was a bit off

Free the Jena Sick! (now, that's a little off!)

 

[Starks]

I have never met even one veteran who didn't want to flee the VA system and go to a civilian hospital. They really hate it and are afraid for their health.

It's a prime example of socialized medicine. If this is what this country does for people who are willing to lay their lives down for our defense, what chance do the rest of us have for getting decent care?

(A side point: Ron Paul's plan is to dismantle the VA system and let vets go wherever they want for their care.)

Can't vets already go around the VA?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Free the Jena Sick! (now, that's a little off!)

It seems like doctors are imprisoned, in America, and around the world

 

[cjhowe]

We have a health care system today that fails from five sources; excessive government regulation, excessive tort exposure, unhealthy lifestyles, disequilibrium in the market due to demographics and a disequilibrium in the market due to age of diagnostics.

1) Age of diagnostics - Because we can now identify illness in people without symptoms there is an increase demand for services to treat an increased number of illnesses. In past decades, someone who had heart disease or diabetes was not recognized or treated until someone has a severe symptom that may result in death. Now that we can identify the precursors of disease, more people are getting treatment. Increased demand raises prices.

2) Demographics - People are living longer with illness, added to the phenomenon of the baby boom generation results in increased number of people with increased demand of services, raises prices.

3) Unhealthy lifestyles - people are smoking, being inactive and generally not eating well. We have stopped treating our bodies like a temple and now treat it like a pay by the hour motel room which results in a grater occurrence of illness. Increase demand increases prices.

4) Tort exposure - We place a large amount of liability on people in healthcare which results in a need for increased levels of liability insurance. Increased fixed overhead costs, increases prices.

5) Government regulation - Rules and regulations raise the barriers to entry and of exit. Decreased supply, increases prices.

In our history, we have dealt with market forces concerning 1-4 in stride. Innovation and competition have provided the answers throughout time. Why do we fear market forces?

 

[Triton]

On a state level ONLY - healthcare for those who are chronically ill or terminal does sound like a compassionate thing to do on the surface. Keep in mind, in a society which wasn't taxed to death like we are, churches and charities could do a much better job. Government would only look at such care as a zero-sum game: save as many as you can and humanely dispatch the rest for the greater good. Churches and charities would uphold the sanctity of life.

 

[Starks]

Well, the whole issue is that providing services that constitute as basic human decency come at a heavy monetary price.

If money was no object, nobody here would object to socialized medicine.

 

[nexalacer]

Well, the whole issue is that providing services that constitute as basic human decency come at a heavy monetary price.

If money was no object, nobody here would object to socialized medicine.

So is "providing services... as basic human decency" a subjective or an objective assertion? If it's subjective, fine you can believe it, just don't push it as policy. If it's objective, give me the proof.

Yeah, and if beer and hookers were free, we'd all be drunk and lucky... but in the real world, there is scarcity. And where there is scarcity, welfare never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever works.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I think I'd support an opt-in health insurance system run as a kind of public utility. I imagine a government chartered non-profit insurance company that was obligated to accept anyone who is otherwise unable to get private insurance.

 

[trispear]

RP wants to encourage availability of affordable high-deductible health insurance, which is far cheaper than a first-dollar plan. And he wants the premiums to be tax-advantaged (I can't remember whether he said a credit or a deduction). Patients could keep the money for the deductible in a tax-advantaged health care savings account, which would increase in value (because it's a savings account) and which they would not need to spend except in an emergency, giving them an incentive to take care of their own health so that they would not have to spend that money.

In other words, people would be empowered to collaborate in their own health care.

Well, I am a Paulite, no worries there I think one system or the other would be much better than the hybrid mish-mash we have now.

But, I wonder about free markets in health care. You see, with products like electronics and services like paving your driveway -- you have time to make a choice or even the choice not to buy it.

With health-care, there are some elective procedures, true, like most plastic surgeries. But I disagree with RP on basic health care - how can free markets kick in if you have cancer or a compound fracture or some other emergency and don't have the time to pick and choose the hospital?

That would be my overall worry.

 

[angelatc]

I have proposed in the past that the current health care system should be preserved and supplemented by a state-level opt "universal health care" system that is completely voluntary and opt-in.

Allowing the state to compete with the private market almost never works. ONe reason is that the private sector doesn't have the advantage of being publically funded.

The wireless companies were squawking about this when local governments were starting to provide "free" community wireless access. HOw can Earthlink compete in a market where the taxpayers are already being forced to pay for the service?

If I had tax funded access to Verizon, why would I want to pay Earthlink? ANd if I didn't want to pay Earthlink, what incentive would Verizon have to offer better cheaper service?

ANother thing the state does is tip the hand in their favor. They could, for example, provide free health certificates to children who were vaccinated in their system, but charge a fee to the children who need the certificate to start school if the vaccines were done by a private source.

ANd don't forget taxes. If the government srated competing against the market, the ,arket would soon be taxed, except if it came from the state.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I wholly agree. The private health care shouldn't be killed off. But I'm thinking that universal health care could be an "opt-in" system.

The problem with that is, the very concept of universal health care means that they will be "opting-into" my bank account to be able to pay for all those who are wanting socialized medicine.

Don't you see that?

 

[Zarxrax]

My opinion is that a federal health care system would be fine if the following criteria are met:

1. It is opt-in.
2. It is funded ENTIRELY by a tax levied ONLY only on the people who opt in.

 

[angelatc]

With health-care, there are some elective procedures, true, like most plastic surgeries. But I disagree with RP on basic health care - how can free markets kick in if you have cancer or a compound fracture or some other emergency and don't have the time to pick and choose the hospital?

That would be my overall worry.

No offense, but I think that's about the lamest argument there is. "Somebody might accidently pay too much?"

Then we might as well have government controls on auto repairs too. It's not fair when I break down beside the freeway and don't have a regular mechanic that I trust not to rip me off when I need quick service.

Price isn't always the deciding factor. That's why we have Macy's and WalMart within 2 blcoks of each other. Quality counts.

In my neighborhood, there were two hospitals. Nobody wanted to go to Doctors West because the patient care was notoriously lousy. Everybody opted to make the extra drive to Mount Caramel.

People aren't stupid, and I also happen to believe that MDs are actually capable of caring about their patients, not just milking them out of their dimes.

Business isn't stupid either. ANd the media is perfectly capable of reporting price comparisions on a regular basis. If you read in the paper that one hospital was consistently far more expensive than the other, but the quality of care was essentially equalivant, then you broke your arm 2 months later, where would you probably go?

If you don't have faith that humans are capable of working for gratifications other than finances, then the plan won't work.

I have a vet. Her office is amazingly sparse. Metal folding chairs in the lobby, 60's school tile on the floor. Two blocks away is an office that's a free standing brick building, with live plants in a plush lobby and even separate waiting rooms for cats and dogs.

They both buy their vaccines from the same supplier, and she graduated from an Illinois college.

She's cheaper, they're busier. Go figure.

PS; I think you must not have had cancer. They don't really treat it like an emergency. My MIL had several types, and ended up changing treatment centers, and protocols several times. SHe probably wouldn't have those choices if the government took over though.

 

[johngr]

Well, the whole issue is that providing services that constitute as basic human decency come at a heavy monetary price.


Second, if money was no object, nobody here would object to socialized medicine.

First of all, that's not the whole issue. You fail completely to address the panopticon/surveillence/nanny state objections I made earlier and the fact that under the system they probably have planned, noone will have any choices other than state-provided "health" "care".

If money was no object, I wouldn't object to buying everybody in the world a cray supercomputer. If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. Meanwhile, back here on earth, your post indicates a misunderstanding of the objections to socialized medicine. Your right to "health" "care" necessarily implies my obligation to supply it. That makes me a slave.

As the government has usurped and overregulated the medicine market, the charity hospitals have closed down more and more. There's one thing noone here objects to: voluntary charity to families that need it.