IT'S A SAD NIGHT, AND GOD, PLEASE BLESS AMERICA

[FlashGordon]

Sorry Dave, I was responding to post made by Timofb and Kiwi. Don't know their real names.

[geiger]

timofb - 11/5/2008  4:55 PM

Tim I know that there is nothing FREE in this world. Government money is our money. All I am saying is this, instead of paying money to health insurance companies that run the medical operations, they tell doctor's what to do, they don't pay em, dump sick people, deny people insurance with pre existing condition and... on and on. I experienced this, believe me it is horrible.

I am saying that instead of paying monthly for health insurance that is not made for the people but to rip people off, we can all  pay into one Medicaid fund or something. So everyone gets covered and gets timely treatment. Just like we have police and fire department when you need help they come, they don't ask you. "And what type of insurance do you have?" Comes out of our tax dollars, but do you have a problem with this? And I would be willing to pay for someone that can't pay $150 or so, so  people will have regular check ups, to  catch problems early. You guys speak how bad the Europeans have it, but United States has the worst health care system out of all the western nations that costs 3 times as much, because of who the insurance companies, and greedy doctors, that are not even doctor's more like car salesman.

If you are fine with this all I can tell you, is I hope that not you and no one in your family gets very ill so you don't have to experience this. Believe me food stamps won't do it. And they don't give it everybody that easy lik ethey say. They won't even pay social security this freaken government you have to hire an attorney to get your money.

i agree.

we have a social health system. it's not the best, because it's underfunded and the politicians are constantly sapping it's strength with poor decisions mostly political ones rather than medical. that is not a problem of the health system but a general one, since all departments are victims to it. but i  must say that you get treatment without being asked questions and stuff like a kid dieing because of a rotten tooth is virtually nonexistent.
recently there was a change in law that if you pay an additional fee you get above standard treatment and so forth. so it's a kind of best of both worlds thing.
but we have a lot of road ahead before things are like they should. but even now i dare say this is better than private health care, because almost nobody got bankrupt because of a medical procedure.

[TCups]

(deep sigh)

Hey Geiger:

Here is a clue:  the reason health care costs are astronomical and have the potential to bankrupt you is because the government got involved in the 1960's with Medicare and things have been going down hill ever since.  So much for the Great Society.  So OK, let's just ask the government that screwed medicine up to go ahead and fix it for all of us.  I wonder if the Medicare Tax will soon become like the payroll tax -- something that more than half of all Americans will not have to pay.  Wake up, folks.  Our Constitutional freedoms are circling the bowl, and we are fast turning into a country and a form of government our founding fathers would not recognize.  Well, maybe they would recognize it -- and declare a war of independence to get free of it.

Government run health care will be an absolute disaster, absolutely.  I am very glad to be near the end of my professional career rather than near the beginning.  I would never go into the field of medicine today, were I starting over, knowing what I know now.  But hey, the voters have spoken, so heck yeah, let's turn over another 1/6th of the nation's economy to the government to run.  They do such a great job on everything else they run.  To hell with the founding fathers and their plan for a representative republic that has restricts government powers.  Lets forge boldly ahead and let them fix the job market, banking, and investment industry, the housing market, the auto industry, energy, education, social security and health care for everyone!  What could possibly go wrong?  I am sure Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama have nothing but our best interests at heart.  And after all, most of us just aren't smart enough or resourceful enough to take care of ourselves.  

We need Socialism -- just like we need cancer, if you ask me.  There may have been a cancer growing on the Presidency under Nixon, but there is surely a cancer growing on our entire nation today.  Its name is Socialism, it will sap our freedom, destroy our way of life, cede ever more money and power to a greedy ruling class and will eventually kill the USA, all in the name of the people.  By the way, Barney Frank has a stimulus package for you -- just bend over and hold your ankles.

[geiger]

your reactions seems to me very paranoid and exaggerated.

look at sweden...it has strong social principles incorporated and is considered by many to be the pinnacle of civilization.
but that depends on what you want of course...if you're looking for a wild west kind of thing then it surely isn't for you.

i don't know exactly how the US health care system works, but obviously it's not doing very well. but that's still a matter of personal desire. you americans are strictly individualistically raised up, that's why is it so hard to understand the "other" side.
your system works marvelously if you're wealthy and miserably if you're poor. not that anything works better if you're poor :D

but i think you'll agree that both systems can work IF they are properly implemented and not misused.



i'd like to add this notion: i do support as much personal freedom as possible, but in this world with limited resources and way to many people, acting so competitive will ultimately bring worse consequences than if we'd collaborate. some sacrifices must be made...seriously how much there would be to hunt if there were no regulation? take the example of fishing...where there is a lack of regulation reports show overfishing is occurring. we could go on and on with pollution, safety and so forth. thankfully most of these sacrifices don't involve giving up our right to free speech, or right to bear arms (not that i have it anyway :P) or any other kind of "non technical" right.

[JWC]

The article The Politics of American Healthcare, by Dr. Charles Armstrong, is worth reading.  Also worth looking at is the Compreshensive Health Care Reform Act of 2007, which would have been a major step in the right direction.  

Socialized medicine is just like socialized or nationalized anything: it's well-intentioned, but tramples individual rights, creates undesirable side effects and concentration of decision-making power, and is less efficient and more prone to waste than market-oriented approaches to the same problem.  The problem with the current healthcare system in the U.S. in not that the free market has been tried and has failed, but rather that the free market has not been allowed to function without government intervention.  (This is the exact same situation we see with our monetary policy and financial system.)

(It's also worth running a Google search for sweden socialized medicine and reading the articles that come up in the results.)

[geiger]

we could argue that the private sector sacrifices quality for profit, so in the end we're almost on the same.
less efficient and prone to waste...you are just generalizing based upon faulty systems of the past?

and besides in reality the private sector eventually ends up in cartels and other types of monopolies, where you have even less influence.


i wasn't exactly referring to their health care system but according to

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

it ranks better than US for a decent amount. but ok might not be the best i agree.

 look at france for instance which has the best...it is a mix of both but still leaning towards social.


edit: oh and just for the record...i'm not saying that social health care is the absolute and best way to go, but like most things choosing a middle path is the wiser choice.

[TCups]

Thank you for those re-assuring words about France and Sweden.  Have a nice day.

[geiger]

you're welcome...i'm just trying to keep a healthy discussion

[JWC]

we could argue that the private sector sacrifices quality for profit, so in the end we're almost on the same.
less efficient and prone to waste...you are just generalizing based upon faulty systems of the past?

I wouldn't discount past examples, of course, but no, I'm not generalizing based on that.  I'm basing my statements on economic reasoning.  For example, I find your proposed argument about the private sector sacrificing quality for profit, and thus arriving at less overall efficiency, to be faulty.

In a free market, products, prices, and quality are all determined by the incredibly complex interaction of the market, which ultimately boils down to the interaction of individual buyers and sellers freely exercising their preferences.  Prices will rise and fall to meet those preferences, with quality being one of the factors of influence.  Let's say ABC Company manufactures and sells the most popular widget on the market.  ABC Company decides to increase profits by lowering quality.  If the price/quality ratio they bring to the market does not meet the market's preferences, other companies will step up to the plate to meet the market need.  Alternatively, if the market finds the price/quality ratio acceptable, then it is a fair price.  However, even at a fair price, if there's a great deal of profit being made at that price point, it's *still* very likely that another company will step up to slightly undercut ABC Company with a product of equal quality.  Thus, the free market system of prices and competition naturally arrives at the most efficient use of capital and the fairest market price to match what the market desires.

One problem with systems of centralized control is that the managers of the system believe they can understand, manipulate, and control all the countless variables and possibilities in the market.  They believe they can accurately and efficiently predict the preferences and needs of all the individuals invovled.  Et cetera.  This is a conceit of the highest order, in my opinion.  They can't do it.  Their control does not do the job that the free market does, and it stifles creativity and innovation that would otherwise be present in the market, making it even more efficient and adaptable.

I could write a great deal about economic theory, and my criticism would not be solely directed at socialist systems, but also at the approach that is currently being used in "Western world" -- we're a very long way from actual laissez-faire free markets.  I subscribe to Austrian economic theory.  To anyone interested, I'd recommend some of the following:

An Introduction to Economic Reasoning
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism
Economics in One Lesson
Economics for Real People
The Road to Serfdom

On the subject of socialism, in particular, I recommend Ludwig von Mises's Socialism and Hayek's The Fatal Conceit.

...and besides in reality the private sector eventually ends up in cartels and other types of monopolies, where you have even less influence.

The most common reason that cartels and monopolies are sustainable is because of government intervention and laws that support monopoly position.  For details, see The Sources of Monopoly, by Sudha R. Shenoy.  There's also an in-depth discussion of monopolies in chapter 10 of Rothbard's Man, Economy, & State.  (Also see the study guide to chapter 10.)  Another relevant book is Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, by Dominick T. Armentano.

Lastly, while I do not agree that monopolies are a natural or inevitable result of a free market, even if were to grant the case of a market-caused monopoly, I would rather have a given product or service provided by a monopolistic ABC Company, rather than a monopolistic government, which will also have a monopoly on violent force (among other things).  There would be less chance for harm, and more chance for the monopoly to be undermined and neutralized.

edit: oh and just for the record...i'm not saying that social health care is the absolute and best way to go, but like most things choosing a middle path is the wiser choice.

I think that the only benefit of a socialized health care system is the allowance for health-care for those who could not normally afford the service.  However, I think a free market system provides that, too, but in a voluntary and non-coercive manner.  Firstly, absent foolish intervention by the government, insurance would be much more widely available and cheaper.  Additionally, I do not discount the effect of private charities (including policies by individual hospitals and doctors for providing care to those unable to pay) in a free market system.  See here and here for more thoughts on that subject.

I agree with you that often, a middle path is a wise compromise.  However, in the case of socialistic policies vs. free market policies, I don't agree; I see it as a thirsty man taking a "middle path" by mixing salt into his fresh water, rather than just drinking the water.  

[geiger]

to be honest i'm not an expert in economics...but claiming that one side is better than the other is just not that prudent and wise. both have their bad and good sides. statistics say france is the best in this regard and they have a kind of mixed system so i don't see why it couldn't work.

i do understand your argument about how the consumers determine if the company succeeds or not. but a totally free market needs fully elastic distribution of resources, knowledge and total information awareness from the customer's side...which is practically impossible.  in reality...only few firms dictate how things are done since only they have the resources and knowledge (patents). so both systems can be called idealistic or lacking for that matter.

pharmaceutical companies are a good example, for exploitation of drugs...since in theory you get much more revenue (in the long term) if you sell a product in smaller amounts and as long as you can...that's why they are not motivated to come up with drugs that cure instantly but they rather just alleviate the symptoms.

and as for product efficiency...i think the auto industry is notorious for this. a lot of them get their income form servicing the car in the long term rather than just selling it. i heard that they design their car to last a specific amount before it needs to be replaced or serviced.

thing is we are getting screwed in both systems, because greedy people run them most of the time.

experience has thought me that getting into extremes might sound good for the short term being but in the long run they normally fail.



as for the monopoly part...well i think that has a far bigger reach than what are you trying to present. i wouldn't be that wrong to say that the stronger the company is the more power it has over politics. maybe this example wouldn't be a bad idea...i remember that europe sued Microsoft on monopoly based charges, because they wouldn't let certain third party software run on windows. thing is people in the US wouldn't even notice something was wrong, so no need to force anyone in buying something. the factor of consumer ignorance will automatically keep things rolling.
your implication that the government might use force to get it's way is a sign of a dictatorship. you can have a democracy and have communistic (socialistic if you will) elements. so if the people are not satisfied with the management they'll vote somebody else. but really...this is a far to complicated issue to be solved in just a few sentences.