Question on Socialized Medicine

College Confidential Community
21

<p>Check out** Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?** </p>

<p>Let's talk about how deregulation has screwed banking. In 1995, Clinton pushed legislation that essentially forced banks to take a harder look at people that didn't seem fit to have their own homes, but it was done all for "diversity". It didn't make mortgages any more affordable, but it certainly did bring in an influx of people that shouldn't have had homes, created excess prices, and now that people can't buy anymore, excess supplies.</p>

22

<p>Socialized aka Universal Health Care?</p>

<p>Totally disagree. </p>

<p>No I am not White. No I am not rich.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]

Dr. Horse: market failures occur when ALL health insurance companies try to screw their customers. What are we going to do, boycott health insurance altogether? Healthcare should NEVER be left to greedy, profit-seeking corporations. EVER. Nationalise it.</p>

<p>Just look at how deregulating the banking industry worked out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The idea of corporatism does not exist in a environment with infinite competition. The same way monopolies *cant exist in such a situation with unlimited competition. Government makes and allows monopolies to exist to support their agenda, look at AT&T, MS, Standard Oil. If ya don't believe me, look into the history of these companies. </p>

<p>If Health Insurance companies A,B and C decide to try and fix prices, they can do so. I see nothing wrong with this. But let it be known if the fixed prices do not reflect the market price or lower. Company D-Z will come out offering the same product at the market prices or lower. Companies A,B & C then will be forced to lower prices or offer more services , if they do not they will loose customers to D-Z. If they don't react to market forces, they will go out of business, its that simple. Consumers set the prices, if they aren't willing to pay high prices for a product or service, somebody else will cater their needs.</p>

<p>The need for regulation to prevent corporatism is contradictory in its goal. The market would allow anybody who wants to offer a service or product to be able to do so, but there is no guarantee of success since it must meet consumers needs. Due to this in a true free market monopolies dont* exist, as there is plenty of competition. Regulation simply raises the bar on what it takes to bring a product or service to market, thus in result curbing the infinite amount of competition in said market and allowing corporatism. Companies that may have had new and bright ideas on ways to reinvent healthcare and actually offer a better service would never be given a chance, because they cant meet with the regulation. The big companies A,B & C then eventually merge and lobby for higher regulation on their sector. They become bigger and they make government feel they need to be constrained more so again government raises the bar on regulation. In this the bar of regulation is even higher and is a even higher curb for the small timers. </p>

<p>The more regulation, the less options one has, and the more monopolistic the market becomes. Price fixing is there abused, cronyism is embraced and the consumer gets screwed, but they get screwed thinking they were actually outsmarting the old boys club, when they were really just embracing their original plan.</p>

<ul>
<li> I mentioned a few times that monopolies cant exist and this is not true, I wanted to make a point and my point still holds. Monopolies can exist in a free market, but it is because they are actually offering the best product/service possible and they are beating out the infinite competition. This type of monopoly is good, its good for the consumers, the workers and the equity holders. Google is a example of this, as is Wegmans Supermarkets. Monopolies are not intrinsically bad, they can be good. But be sure, once greed hits and they aren't good anymore, they will go down faster than you can believe, but this really never happens because they are happy being at the top offering a great product.</li>
</ul>

24

<p>Hey Dr. Horse, why don't you send your great economics lectures (taken straight out of Mankiw...) to the guys in congress? </p>

<p>"Companies that may have had new and bright ideas on ways to reinvent healthcare and actually offer a better service would never be given a chance, because they cant meet with the regulation." </p>

<ul>
<li>I think under the current system, it's rather that smaller companies simply cannot compete in economies of scale as a result of the monopolistic practices of the healthcare industry itself. In certain industries like health care, telecommunications and energy extraction, many who have "bright ideas" won't be able to implement them because of very realistic challenges that we have to admit. Those include the difficulty to raise capital and make future expansions (do note that the normal channels of capital, such as bank loans, stock market, and bond issues are regularly subject to volatility, as demonstrated by the current financial depression). Over 90% of small companies fail within their first 5 years of operation, many due to the lack of renewed capital. The lack of adequate competition is not a result of over regulation, but simply an economic reality itself. Only a few could survive and have the slightest chance to compete with the current monopolies. </li>
</ul>

<p>Dr. Horse's support of a perfectly free economy is understandable and obviously the most desirable. Unfortunately, we also have to be pragmatic and face the current situation. There's no way we can simply disintegrate the current economies of scale and the regulations governing them, start from point zero, and tell everybody to follow a set of perfect "models." It's not that we don't need regulations. It's because certain individuals and entities simply don't know or don't want to play by the rules of a perfectly free economy.</p>

25

<p>I still think the healthcare industry is ****ed up and the only way to fix it is to nationalise it.</p>

26

<p>We already have "socialized" medicine - it's called the ER where costs are prohibitive.</p>

<p>Needless to say we need a total overhaul of the healthcare system in the US which is one of the most inefficient systems in the world (about 1/3 of all the $$ spent on healthcare goes towards administrative costs).</p>

<p>What we need is a dual-system but a bit different from those in Europe.</p>

<p>All the HMOs and hospital systems should be not-for-profit.</p>

<p>There should be a uniform billing system for all procedures for whatever insurer/healthcare provider one has.</p>

<p>The whole drug-plan providers are a complete joke - all they do is just skim off public money for their own profits.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think under the current system, it's rather that smaller companies simply cannot compete in economies of scale as a result of the monopolistic practices of the healthcare industry itself. In certain industries like health care, telecommunications and energy extraction, many who have "bright ideas" won't be able to implement them because of very realistic challenges that we have to admit.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yep - that's why patients who have to pay out of pocket (basically self-insured) or small businesses get reamed when they get the hospital bill.</p>

<p>The hospitals have to make up the shortfalls from non-paying ER patients and the large insurers who basically force the hospitals to take lower payments - and thus, the hospitals, in turn, squeeze those who have less power, and as usual, it's the little guys.</p>

<p>(That's the "market" working for ya, but I'm sure DHorse will disagree and quote some free-market bull from a treatise).</p>

27

<p>5...</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't see why the government shouldn't shoulder the responsibility as me and my family already pay them way too much in tax dollars anyway.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you think you're going to get socialized (and yeah, I think I'll call it what it is) health care on your current level of taxation, you are sorely mistaken.</p>

28

<p>Article</a> | A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work</p>

29

<p>this debate is going nowhere. the point is that we have to do something about the current system. period.</p>

30

<p>^^ No one is saying that Canada's or for that matter any European nation's or Korea's/Japan's system is the way to go.</p>

<p>They all have flaws (as well as good points).</p>

<p>Our current system, tho, has MORE flaws (w/ the greatest probably being the fact that it is the MOST INEFFECIENT) and simply isn't working.</p>

<p>People who have insurance through their employers are seeing double digit increases in their premiums - the current system certainly isn't driving prices down.</p>

31

<p>^ Ok, but people seem to think that the only way to do "something" about the health-care system is to go to a single-payer system, which is a terrible idea. You say our system has more flaws - under what criteria do you say that? Because to say our system is bad because we have more uninsured than a system that guarantees insurance for everyone is not much of a point.</p>

<p>I think we need to attack the problem of high costs through things such as being more strict on frivolous malpractice suits, which will drive malpractice insurance premiums down, which will do many things - increase access, decrease costs, etc. </p>

<p>We need to address problems in our current system rather than switch to a new system which would certainly decrease the quality of care.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
I think we need to attack the problem of high costs through things such as being more strict on frivolous malpractice suits, which will drive malpractice insurance premiums down, which will do many things - increase access, decrease costs, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Even if all malpractice suits were to disappear (even the legit one), it would have no meaningful effect on the upward spiraling costs.</p>

<p>Total malpractice costs (premiums and amounts paid out) consist of 1.5% of al $$ spent on healthcare.</p>

<p>Around the turn of the century, malpractice premiums shot up 30-40% while the amount of payouts stayed steady (even decreased one year).</p>

<p>The reason why insurance companies increased premiums had nothing to do w/ malpractice suits and everything to do w/ the fact that they were losing $$ in the dot.com crash and thus, had to increase their cashflow.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You say our system has more flaws - under what criteria do you say that? Because to say our system is bad because we have more uninsured than a system that guarantees insurance for everyone is not much of a point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You don't consider spending ONE-THIRD of all our healthcare dollars on administrative costs a flaw?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ok, but people seem to think that the only way to do "something" about the health-care system is to go to a single-payer system, which is a terrible idea.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The only people who think healthcare reform means going to a single-payer system are those who are lobbying against reform and those who believe the propaganda.</p>

33

<p>The Canadian system seems to be working for them...and so does the French system. WHO ranks them better than we are in healthcare yet they spend about half the amount we do in healthcare-about $4200 in the US, $2300 in Canada, and $2100 in France, per capita.</p>

<p>I'd like to know why copying France and Canada, which spends less than us on healthcare and has better healthcare by the WHO's benchmark, is a terrible idea. Don't tell me higher taxes, because that would be offset by the ridiculous health insurance premiums you won't have to pay. If I got health insurance now, it'll cost me $650 per 6 months at a SUBSIDIZED rate. Unsubsidized we're talking $200+ a month. The chances of me needing a major operation or going to a doctor for expensive tests is nearly zero. That's insane. In almost every developed country in the world, healthcare is a RIGHT. As a result people are healthier.</p>

34

<p>Eventhough I personally favor the operation of a perfectly free market system (lifting trade finance restrictions), I still believe that it should be the general trend of a civilized and evolved society to provide unconditional, free access to the very basic needs of its citizens. Universal Health Care has become a general trend around the world in the 21st century, regardless of political ideology or economic policies. It's a positive and inevitable trend demonstrating the accelerated progress of human civilization. </p>

<p>And Icarus, if you've never personally tried the Universal Health Care experience, I don't think you've any right to disseminate the idea that UHC "CERTAINLY" decreases the quality of care.</p>

35

<p>The Canadian and French systems aren't miraculous beacons of hope, nor is America's a stinking corpse. If you want the truth, look it up.</p>

36

<p>I cant see how health care is a need or a right. Nor do I see anyplace in the constitution which states anything about health care.</p>

<p>Its easy to want to give the world to everybody, its hard to realize the facts.</p>

37

<p>I don't understand, is having an efficient payment system so terrible? Do you love spending hours fixing insurance payment glitches? The French system has single payer with private insurance top off. It works pretty darn smoothly. Let's see, I lived there for over 7 years had a baby and several operations... ...total time spent on paperwork probably less than 3 hours in 7 years. That is how much time I spent on phone hold time fixing up one glitch on my daughter's insurance for one incident! They have tightened things up in France in that now you have to choose a primary care physician but from friends I have not heard this is a devastating change. So why are you so allergic to single payer? Please justify the use of the word 'terrible' and 'single-payer' in the same sentence. If our government cannot create efficient bureaucracies it has to do with our failures in creating a dedicated, trained workforce, it is not inherent to government run entities. I don't think right now is the moment to trumpet the wonders of the free market by the way....
Healthcare is no more a right than education but if you would like everyone to just be homeschooled (a nice trick for working parents) and stop supporting public education etc it would be such a delightful country to live in and make us assuredly more competitive in the world marketplace. How is healthcare not a need...are you bionic? pugfug90. ...please define 'look it up'...try stats on nationmaster.com if you'd like....oh...and what right do we have to the interstate highway system, or airports? they aren't mentioned in the Constitution either....</p>

38

<p>The Canadian and French system certainly aren't perfect. But they're getting better grades than the US system.</p>

<p>And merepoule: I wholeheartedly agree. Our public education system stinks, our healthcare system stinks, our bank regulatory system stinks, our infrastructure stinks, our airports stink, our airlines stink, and China owns us. That's it, **** this.</p>

<p>Dr. Horse: Homeownership isn't a need or right, but our government seems to trumpet that and push it upon everyone, regardless of their ability to pay....it's the reason we're having an economic meltdown, remember? Or did you already forget?</p>

<p>And education IS a right. Healthcare IS a right. They are both needs. Just because the law doesn't say so doesn't make it so. Our people are unhealthy and sick all the time, and our kids learn nothing in school, and that's a big part of the reason we as a country are sinking faster than the Titanic. As far as the fall of empires go, nobody predicted the fall of the Roman, Ottoman, and British Empires either, remember? I see America's influence dwindling at the end of this subprime meltdown...like Maupassant said, once you've reached the apex, there's nowhere to go but down until you die.</p>

39

<p>Housing is barely the reason for our problems. It only effects 3% of population. maybe pick up a economics text is what you need.</p>

<p>Education is not a right, again if we weren't in a civilized world, i doubt there would be any education. I doubt there would be public schools next to the herd of Bison. Again I see no place in the constitution where education is listed, and its like that for a reason. Maybe you should look up why.</p>

<p>Um actually everybody predicted the fall of the roman empire when the senate got compromised and the currency was debased. As for the ottoman, it was lack of government adherence to market trends that made then fail. The British empire, fell again by the same way as the roman. It spread out to far and to pay for its greatness it needed to debase its currency.</p>

<p>See any similarities, if you don't il point out that all of these fell due to government intervention.</p>

<p>I have to ask since these things are not "Natural Rights" then who gives them.</p>

40

<p>How are you defining natural rights and I would love to hear how you define civilization because apparently you would rather just have anarchy? ...no if we weren't a civilized world, we would probably be killing each other all the time. Please don't include vague sentences like 'look up why'...look up where? </p>

<p>I guess you don't like the UN Charter (see articles 24, 25, 26 for example).
Universal</a> Declaration of Human Rights
gosh are you really going to make me talk about part-time work benefits and vacation for most Europeans? and ya know, their economy hasn't tanked to the point ours has....</p>

<p>I am not saying that our country isn't in serious trouble but if anything you could blame the utter waste brought on by the free market system instead of making rational decisions like universal single-player health plans which allow people to be much more independent regarding choices of employment, education etc. </p>

<p>By the way you need to clear up your spelling ...affects, not effects...</p>