They have to meet the status quo or else they be fired. Just because they aren't paid on a case by case basis doesn't mean their quality or quantity of performance is not linked to their employment.some_random_panda wrote:
You completely missed the point. Your question would be better said "Would they continue taking as many patients with the same amount of pay?" and the answer is yes. So it's not actually rhetorical, as you've just overlooked the reasons for doing more than you're paid for.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Would they continue being doctors if they weren't paid?some_random_panda wrote:
You do realise that over here doctors in hospitals (not private clinics) don't get any variation in pay for the number of patients they treat? They just get a much higher chance of referral if they take more/better standing in the medical world, and that feeds into the whole "contributing to society" thing.
/rhetorical
There's a huge difference that a socialized system has on price vs. a private market faced with a lot of freeloaders. The socialized system can handle it better because money is continuously flowing to the infrastructure of a hospital. While there's a considerable amount of money flowing in our current system, the pricing mechanism is faulty due to unexpected costs.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Dude, you have to realize the massive pool of money comes directly out of your pocket. Whether costs are "low" because they are subsidized by money you paid elsewhere, or are "high" because that is the actual cost of the procedure, it is irrelevant. The money comes from and goes to the same place. The only question is whether you want to add a middleman.
The more unpredictable a source of unexpected costs is, the more dramatic of an effect it has on prices. This is why socialized systems don't have as much of a problem with rising costs as we do.
A large portion of the costs we pay in a private system go to maintaining bureaucracies that would be smaller under a socialized system.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How? FDA regulation? lol
The Constitution is a nice reference point for power, but in reality, power extends well beyond elected politicians and into the hands of corporate executives and special interest groups. It's been this way for a while now.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You are saying groups with no power written into the Constitution, with zero direct influence over a Congressional vote are powerful. At best they are influential, and yeah, money is influential. There is nothing wrong with that.
Because you're inherently assuming that the logic of these groups is somehow more beneficial to society than the will of the people is. I know you're an elitist, but I didn't realize it was to that extent.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I'm glad we aren't ruled completely by the majority then, lest my arguments be considered wrong solely because they can be described as unique.
As it is, care to explain why?
This much is true, prices pushed higher than necessary more in a private system. You fail to account for the inflexibility in a socialist structure however that is the trade off for those lower costs.Turquoise wrote:
There's a huge difference that a socialized system has on price vs. a private market faced with a lot of freeloaders. The socialized system can handle it better because money is continuously flowing to the infrastructure of a hospital. While there's a considerable amount of money flowing in our current system, the pricing mechanism is faulty due to unexpected costs.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Dude, you have to realize the massive pool of money comes directly out of your pocket. Whether costs are "low" because they are subsidized by money you paid elsewhere, or are "high" because that is the actual cost of the procedure, it is irrelevant. The money comes from and goes to the same place. The only question is whether you want to add a middleman.
The more unpredictable a source of unexpected costs is, the more dramatic of an effect it has on prices. This is why socialized systems don't have as much of a problem with rising costs as we do.
Opposite. There is more incentive to reduce operating costs if you are a business rather than the government.Turquoise wrote:
A large portion of the costs we pay in a private system go to maintaining bureaucracies that would be smaller under a socialized system.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How? FDA regulation? lol
As for my evidence I point to the physical size of the U.S. Government haha. No one gets fired.
Influence, but not power. Power is the ability to invariably get what you want - everyone but the politicians do what they can to influence those in powerful positions. You and I have the same ability to go and attempt to influence politicians, we do not have the ability to vote at the Capitol.Turquoise wrote:
The Constitution is a nice reference point for power, but in reality, power extends well beyond elected politicians and into the hands of corporate executives and special interest groups. It's been this way for a while now.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You are saying groups with no power written into the Constitution, with zero direct influence over a Congressional vote are powerful. At best they are influential, and yeah, money is influential. There is nothing wrong with that.
I never said either is more beneficial to society than the other - neither is beneficial at all. The fact is however that these groups are logical entities that know what they want, and can be counted on as such. The masses on the other hand hold control over the very fabric of society, and are not restrained by any scruples of the irrational.Turquoise wrote:
Because you're inherently assuming that the logic of these groups is somehow more beneficial to society than the will of the people is. I know you're an elitist, but I didn't realize it was to that extent.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I'm glad we aren't ruled completely by the majority then, lest my arguments be considered wrong solely because they can be described as unique.
As it is, care to explain why?
At least you can count on the liar to lie; you don't know when the honest man is going to start lying.
anyone mentioned the fact that the govt could screw up a free food and drinks and girls party at the playboy mansion...
And my solution is... stop frivolous lawsuits and limit the amount people can sue... Encourage competition with new drug manufacturers
and have private companies run doctors offices... if there are 4 or more different doctors competing for your business in your town... prices will
regulate themselves... and have watchdogs that get paid to find and root out wasteful things...
And Socialized healthcare isn't free...I'm sure most of you realize that... but there are a lot of people that think that it's free and great and utopia... We will pay for it... business owners will offset their increased costs by raising their prices... and does anyone think that they will be able to give better care than what we have in this huge nation? Prices will go through the roof even more than they are now... Medicare is bankrupt... social security is bankrupt basically... Socialized medicine has failed in every country it has been tried... Now we are going to be the exception to the rule... seriously...? My point will be proven if this crazy cradle to the grave type govt care happens... Mark my words and we can compare notes in 5 years... and i didn't even mention the amount of illegals that are receiving free healthcare... having babies and clogging emergency rooms... part of me hates to see any human suffer or be sick... but the rational part of me says that if you have a boat that can hold 20 people and 40 people get on it... it sinks and everyone drowns...
And my solution is... stop frivolous lawsuits and limit the amount people can sue... Encourage competition with new drug manufacturers
and have private companies run doctors offices... if there are 4 or more different doctors competing for your business in your town... prices will
regulate themselves... and have watchdogs that get paid to find and root out wasteful things...
And Socialized healthcare isn't free...I'm sure most of you realize that... but there are a lot of people that think that it's free and great and utopia... We will pay for it... business owners will offset their increased costs by raising their prices... and does anyone think that they will be able to give better care than what we have in this huge nation? Prices will go through the roof even more than they are now... Medicare is bankrupt... social security is bankrupt basically... Socialized medicine has failed in every country it has been tried... Now we are going to be the exception to the rule... seriously...? My point will be proven if this crazy cradle to the grave type govt care happens... Mark my words and we can compare notes in 5 years... and i didn't even mention the amount of illegals that are receiving free healthcare... having babies and clogging emergency rooms... part of me hates to see any human suffer or be sick... but the rational part of me says that if you have a boat that can hold 20 people and 40 people get on it... it sinks and everyone drowns...
Love is the answer
Didn't bother reading the whole thread so forgive me if this point was already made.
If we already have a doctor shortage, why would anyone want to be a doctor in a socialized health care system run by the government?
If we already have a doctor shortage, why would anyone want to be a doctor in a socialized health care system run by the government?
That seems like a decent idea to me, but people would abuse it. That already happens, so I think that it would not be much change in the level of abuse of the system, so I think it could work.Diesel_dyk wrote:
One thing I was trying to raise in my earlier post was that the conservative no regulation argument glosses over the fact that regulation already exists in health care. However, those regulations are designed to protect the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies from competition ie only a doctor can prescribe, patents for big pharma. If the no regulation crowd were true to their argument then they would be seeking ways to divest the doctors and big pharma of the regulations that enable them to control the health care markets like a monopoly.
But they don't, they choose not to engage in that discourse because that road leads to competition, cheaper prices and more choices for health care consumers. But you either have to have a single payer national health care system to control costs or you have to decentralize the concentration of power that big pharma and doctors now enjoy. One solution is more regualtion and the other is less regulation. In a perfect world both could and would be achieved. If neither is achieved then it is very hard to conceive of a viable solution to the health care crisis.
My personal example
Some of the problems of the health care crisis can be seen in this example. Personally, I've got good health care insurance. If I get sick, I have $20 copay and I think the insurance company picks up the other $55 or so. If I get a prescription I go get it filled and for a simple antibiotic from walmart I might pay $10 with insurance.
Now I also live close to Mexico and I can go there and legally bring back antibiotics. I can buy about 4 courses of amoxicillin for around $8 or 1 course of zithromax for $6. These antibiotics are available directly from the pharmacist with no prescription. I would call that a health care system without regulation, or at least it has regulation that is more patient-centric that the American system.
Now compare the prices. $30 out of pocket for the US system with insurance and $2 for 1 course of antibiotics from Mexico with no insurance.
The American system just can't compete with the Mexican system because the Mexican system has less regulation.
Now if the conservatives with their no regulation mantra were true, then they would be looking at freeing consumers and actually increasing choice, not yoking consumers to health care industry profiteers. It pretty sad to think that under the Mexican system, that the 40 million uninsured might receive better health care than under "the best in the world" American model... something has to change.
You obviously know absolutely nothing about the medical professionals here. All of the doctors I know work over their lunchtimes (the entire department) just to get as many patients as possible, and they still have a 4 week waiting list. They could be doing around half and still meet their "quota". Additionally, we don't have enough doctors to fire them like that.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
They have to meet the status quo or else they be fired. Just because they aren't paid on a case by case basis doesn't mean their quality or quantity of performance is not linked to their employment.some_random_panda wrote:
You completely missed the point. Your question would be better said "Would they continue taking as many patients with the same amount of pay?" and the answer is yes. So it's not actually rhetorical, as you've just overlooked the reasons for doing more than you're paid for.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Would they continue being doctors if they weren't paid?
/rhetorical
Wow...they work through lunch. lolsome_random_panda wrote:
You obviously know absolutely nothing about the medical professionals here. All of the doctors I know work over their lunchtimes (the entire department) just to get as many patients as possible, and they still have a 4 week waiting list. They could be doing around half and still meet their "quota". Additionally, we don't have enough doctors to fire them like that.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
They have to meet the status quo or else they be fired. Just because they aren't paid on a case by case basis doesn't mean their quality or quantity of performance is not linked to their employment.some_random_panda wrote:
You completely missed the point. Your question would be better said "Would they continue taking as many patients with the same amount of pay?" and the answer is yes. So it's not actually rhetorical, as you've just overlooked the reasons for doing more than you're paid for.
There is desire to do good for the sake of doing good no doubt. That doesn't mean they would do it for free, and it doesn't mean they wouldn't switch to a better paying job if the opportunity presented itself.
Really? One of the oncologists took up the new job after retiring from surgery, which paid way more. So that's one who wouldn't.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Wow...they work through lunch. lolsome_random_panda wrote:
You obviously know absolutely nothing about the medical professionals here. All of the doctors I know work over their lunchtimes (the entire department) just to get as many patients as possible, and they still have a 4 week waiting list. They could be doing around half and still meet their "quota". Additionally, we don't have enough doctors to fire them like that.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
They have to meet the status quo or else they be fired. Just because they aren't paid on a case by case basis doesn't mean their quality or quantity of performance is not linked to their employment.
There is desire to do good for the sake of doing good no doubt. That doesn't mean they would do it for free, and it doesn't mean they wouldn't switch to a better paying job if the opportunity presented itself.
And another doctor takes it upon himself to go to a 3rd world country every year to find a child with a malformed lower back/pelvis structure (leading to lack of muscle control there) just to fly him back to the country and treat him for free. Right now he has an orphaned blind girl living with the family in the hope of treating the good eye (last I heard she's probably going to go blind anyway).
Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-05-01 23:08:36)
These specific cases where we don't even know all the circumstances are worthless dude. 99% of working people do it for the money, and they follow the money.
99 percent of the world's working population do it for the money. It's not as if doctors are any worse than others - in fact, the medical course here is 4 years longer than most (and then you need to specialise). By the time you end up earning a large sum of money, you're in your 40s. I'm surprised that people still have the perception that doctors are always rich.
On a side note, dentists are better paid. Not sure why.
On a side note, dentists are better paid. Not sure why.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-05-01 23:19:41)
Dentistry takes the most schooling.
How can you say that and in the very next sentence:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
These specific cases where we don't even know all the circumstances are worthless dude.
?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
99% of working people do it for the money, and they follow the money.
You either argue in circles or miss the point anyone in this thread tries to make.
The doctor shortage comes about because of the way the US gets more doctors.Harmor wrote:
Didn't bother reading the whole thread so forgive me if this point was already made.
If we already have a doctor shortage, why would anyone want to be a doctor in a socialized health care system run by the government?
The vast majority of home grown doctors are funded through residencies etc. by government money. This means the government can in effect decide how many new US doctors there are going to be in the future. A decade or two back, there was lots of shoutung from various doctors groups that there would be a huge influx of doctors and that would force them to cut back their prices due to competition and become less rich. Under a government run healthcare system, they all get paid the same regardless, so it's far less of an issue if there are more doctors. The other aspect is that there are significant barriers stopping highly qualified foreign doctors from moving to the US and working. There are limits to the number of professionals that are allowed to immigrate into the US and most will find that they have to move to the US and re-do medical test/residencies etc. before they can get a job, meaning there is a significant costs and risks as you typically can't secure a job becore you move countries.
Overall the doctor shortage in the US has come about because of the number of people that are allowed to become doctors, not the number of people who are able and willing to become a doctor.
don't forget the huge amount of insurance doctors must cary for frivolous lawsuits... my friend is about to graduate from med school... and he needs 100,000.00 a year in insurance to start out... before he makes a dime... something is very wrong with that...
Love is the answer
Business already pays for it. Medicare/medicaid come from tax money that they pay for already. Workers healthcare comes from their employers paying for it and government money which comes from taxes on businesses, and rich people pay for insurance from their profit margins.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
We will pay for it... business owners will offset their increased costs by raising their prices...
Prices will go through the roof even more than they are now...
Every other country runs their healthcare system much more cheaply than the US system, so how do you get to the conclusion that this will cost businesses more money?
The US won't be able to afford it's currnet system so the state of the current system is fairly irrelevant as the one thing we know for sure is that it has to change.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
and does anyone think that they will be able to give better care than what we have in this huge nation?
Because it is dragged down by the inefficient US healthcare sytem.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Medicare is bankrupt...
US social security is fuly solvent till 2049 and even then it will require a fairly minor increase in funding or restructuring to stay solvent indefinately.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
social security is bankrupt basically...
Where did you get that nugget of BS from?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Socialized medicine has failed in every country it has been tried...
It has failed... in every country... The UK is bankrupt from having used socialized healthcare...
and good luck living on social security...
and...
don't forget the huge amount of insurance doctors must cary for frivolous lawsuits... my friend is about to graduate from med school... and he needs 100,000.00 a year in insurance to start out... before he makes a dime... something is very wrong with that...
and we will be fine without socialist health care... thanks for being concerned...
Keep coming to the US for real health care...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 837AAfBWlS
http://www.breakthematrix.com/content/S … he-economy
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com … -medicine/
http://www.worldwiderant.com/archives/001045.html
http://www.williamgairdner.com/the-fail … ized-medi/
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entr … re_mexico/
http://3pts.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/ob … plemented/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … html?cat=5
many more links to the failure of socialized healthcare if needed...?
and good luck living on social security...
and...
don't forget the huge amount of insurance doctors must cary for frivolous lawsuits... my friend is about to graduate from med school... and he needs 100,000.00 a year in insurance to start out... before he makes a dime... something is very wrong with that...
and we will be fine without socialist health care... thanks for being concerned...
Keep coming to the US for real health care...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 837AAfBWlS
http://www.breakthematrix.com/content/S … he-economy
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com … -medicine/
http://www.worldwiderant.com/archives/001045.html
http://www.williamgairdner.com/the-fail … ized-medi/
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entr … re_mexico/
http://3pts.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/ob … plemented/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … html?cat=5
many more links to the failure of socialized healthcare if needed...?
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-05-02 02:36:36)
Love is the answer
So if we had the US system with double the costs that would have been cheaper? Anyway, the UK is not bankrupt and it is still working just like all those other countries with socialised healthcare.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
It has failed... in every country... The UK is bankrupt from having used socialized healthcare...
and good luck living on social security...
In the UK we socailised medical insurance for doctors and have kept the costs down nicely.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
and...
don't forget the huge amount of insurance doctors must cary for frivolous lawsuits... my friend is about to graduate from med school... and he needs 100,000.00 a year in insurance to start out... before he makes a dime... something is very wrong with that...
a) Random people on the internets isn't a great source of info. By the way, care to guess how many Americans get medical services from Mexico?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
and we will be fine without socialist health care... thanks for being concerned...
Keep coming to the US for real health care...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 837AAfBWlS
http://www.breakthematrix.com/content/S … he-economy
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com … -medicine/
http://www.worldwiderant.com/archives/001045.html
http://www.williamgairdner.com/the-fail … ized-medi/
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entr … re_mexico/
http://3pts.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/ob … plemented/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … html?cat=5
many more links to the failure of socialized healthcare if needed...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism
Estimate for 2008 is 1.5 million Americans seeking medical treatment outside the US, double the previous year and is expected to jump by a factor of 10 in the next decade.
b) Iceland economy was crippled by the banks, having noting to do with socialised healthcare at all.
c) Is about Americans failing to afford healthcare.
d) Ignores the large wait times in the US system and doesn't mention people being forced to avoid getting treatment due to costs. Also the faster rates of hip replacements in the US just shows how good Medicare is, not how good the private bit is.
e) A good decade old rant based on little more than his personal opinions.
f) An idiot that can't figure out that the reason that Mexico has poor healthcare is because it's poor.
g) A blog that states that socialised healthcare has failed everywhere without anything whatsoever to even remotely back that statement up despite the fact that most countries actually have socialised healthcare and have had it for ages.
h) Talks about whether british hospitals met British standards which may be an indicator of high standards as opposed to failures of hospitals. The life saving drugs for lung treatments affects a tiny fraction of the populace and is caused by Glaxosmithkline temprarily forcing the costs of the drugs up to four times their proper price due to a change in what they are used for. the issue with women being turned away during labour is due to an unexpected baby boom and is being actively sorted out by recruiting thousands more midwives. The US continues to have one of the highest rates of infant mortality in the west by the way. People being denied treatment due to smoking/being overweight only applies to certain elective surgeries in certain areas. Smoking and obesity are used as a factors that can stop you getting transplants in the US and UK.
Thanks for the concern, but none of your sources point to a failure of every socialised healthcare system ever tried or even anything close to that.
Wait. was it just a regular ECG? I got one recently and it was only like $60....BN wrote:
Me too. I went to MIA on Wed and it was $360 for an ECG. Other than waiting 2 weeks for the hospital I am not sure what other options I had.AussieReaper wrote:
It is more or less. However the competition between the private companies is a lot less than what I would like to see.BN wrote:
Sounds like the balance we have here.
But I did get $235 of that back through Medicare.
The UK is not bankrupt from socialised healthcare. The socialised healthcare system in the UK has cost the government less per capita than the US system. That kinda shows that point to be complete nonsense. Nor is the UK even remotely bankrupt, but has some of the lowest levels of debt of any of the worlds top 5 economies (granted government borrowing at the moment is out of control, but that has nothing to do with the NHS, it has to do with financial bailouts the government can't really afford). Every country in Europe uses socialised healthcare and in every instance it works pretty well, certainly better than the American system, which is clearly fundamentally flawed. If you want better, faster treatment there is always the option to go private anyway (except in Canada - which does seem a bizarre system).[TUF]Catbox wrote:
It has failed... in every country... The UK is bankrupt from having used socialized healthcare...
and good luck living on social security...
and...
don't forget the huge amount of insurance doctors must cary for frivolous lawsuits... my friend is about to graduate from med school... and he needs 100,000.00 a year in insurance to start out... before he makes a dime... something is very wrong with that...
Also, you do realise that this malpractice insurance is something almost unique to the US, because of the level of litigation culture over there? It used to be against the law to bring malpractice suits in the UK. Recently it has been made possible (due to some relevant cases) but is still exceedingly rare.
Australia has Socialized health-care, combined with private health-care, and our economy is in far better shape than the US or UK...[TUF]Catbox wrote:
It has failed... in every country... The UK is bankrupt from having used socialized healthcare...
and good luck living on social security...
So i'd say that health care isn't the main reason why half the world is in the shitter.
Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2009-05-02 04:55:32)
I got one last year and it was free.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Wait. was it just a regular ECG? I got one recently and it was only like $60....BN wrote:
Me too. I went to MIA on Wed and it was $360 for an ECG. Other than waiting 2 weeks for the hospital I am not sure what other options I had.AussieReaper wrote:
It is more or less. However the competition between the private companies is a lot less than what I would like to see.
But I did get $235 of that back through Medicare.
I had to wait 2 days (not in the hospital obviously, I went to my GP (same day appointment) and got an appointment at the hospital 2 days later). That's the way the terrible NHS works.
Yer my terrible system gave me $50 dollars back on the spotBertster7 wrote:
I got one last year and it was free.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Wait. was it just a regular ECG? I got one recently and it was only like $60....BN wrote:
Me too. I went to MIA on Wed and it was $360 for an ECG. Other than waiting 2 weeks for the hospital I am not sure what other options I had.
But I did get $235 of that back through Medicare.
I had to wait 2 days (not in the hospital obviously, I went to my GP (same day appointment) and got an appointment at the hospital 2 days later). That's the way the terrible NHS works.
Socialist structures are, in many cases, more flexible. In most countries that have a socialized system, the universal care covers basic things while a smaller private system covers advanced procedures. Ideally, this is what every country's medical system should have. Basic care isn't very profitable and should therefore be a government service, while advanced care is very profitable and ahould be a private enterprise.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
This much is true, prices pushed higher than necessary more in a private system. You fail to account for the inflexibility in a socialist structure however that is the trade off for those lower costs.
Wikipedia has a good summary of what I'm talking about. It throws in the counterarguments as well, but I side with the general idea of socialized medicine's administrative costs being lower due to things like economies of scale. They use Finland as an example that shows this in action.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Opposite. There is more incentive to reduce operating costs if you are a business rather than the government.
As for my evidence I point to the physical size of the U.S. Government haha. No one gets fired.
"A 2003 study examined costs and outputs in the U.S. and other industrialized countries and broadly concluded that the U.S. spends so much because its health care system is more costly. It noted that "...the United States spent considerably more on health care than any other country...[yet] most measures of aggregate utilization such as physician visits per capita and hospital days per capita were below the OECD median. Since spending is a product of both the goods and services used and their prices, this implies that much higher prices are paid in the United States than in other countries.". The researchers examined possible reasons and concluded that input costs were high (salaries, cost of pharamaceutical), and that the complex payment system in the U.S. added higher administrative costs. Comparison countries in Canada and Europe were much more willing to exert monopsony power to drive down prices, whilst the highly fragmented buy side of the U.S. health system was one factor which could explain the relatively high prices in the United States.
Other studies have found no consistent and systematic relationship between the type of financing of health care and cost containment; the efficiency of operation of the health care system itself appears to depend much more on how providers are paid and how the delivery of care is organized than on the method used to raise these funds.
Some supporters argue that government involvement in health care would reduce costs not just because of the exercise of monopsony power, e.g. in drug purchasing, but also because it eliminates profit margins and administrative overhead associated with private insurance, and because it can make use of economies of scale in administration. In certain circumstances, a volume purchaser may be able to guarantee sufficient volume to reduce overall prices while providing greater profitability to the seller, such as in so-called 'purchase commitment' programs. Economist Arnold Kling attributes the present cost crisis mainly to the practice of what he calls "premium medicine," which overuses expensive forms of technology that is of marginal or no proven benefit.
Milton Friedman has argued that government has weak incentives to reduce costs because "nobody spends somebody else’s money as wisely or as frugally as he spends his own". Others contend that health care consumption is not like other consumer consumption. Firstly there is a negative utility of consumption (consuming more health care does not make one better off) and secondly there is an information asymmetry between consumer and supplier.
Paul Krugman and Robin Wells argue that all of the evidence indicates that public insurance of the kind available in several European countries achieves equal or better results at much lower cost, a conclusion that also applies within the United States. In terms of actual administrative costs, Medicare spent less than 2 percent of its resources on administration, while private insurance companies spent more than 13 percent. The Cato Institute argues that the 2 percent Medicare cost figure ignores all costs shifted to doctors and hospitals, and alleges that Medicare is not very efficient at all when those costs are incorporated. Some studies have found that the US wastes more on bureaucracy (compared to the Canadian level), and that this excess administrative cost would be sufficient to provide health care to the uninsured population in the US.
Notwithstanding the arguments about Medicare, there is overall less bureaucracy in socialized systems than in the present mixed US system. Spending on administration in Finland is 2.1% of all health care costs, and in the UK the figure is 3.3% whereas the US spends 7.3% of all expenditures on administration."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
Money talks much more than votes. Lobbyists essentially determine who can run for office. So before you or I can even vote for these people, they are essentially screened by special interests. The reason for this is the high cost of running for office. You have to make a lot of connections and get substantial funding -- most of which comes from lobbyism.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Influence, but not power. Power is the ability to invariably get what you want - everyone but the politicians do what they can to influence those in powerful positions. You and I have the same ability to go and attempt to influence politicians, we do not have the ability to vote at the Capitol.
The only way to counter this is to support politicians that lean more towards the will of the people in policymaking.
Uh.... While I would agree that the public is fickle, trusting lobbyists is tantamount to selling your soul to the devil.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I never said either is more beneficial to society than the other - neither is beneficial at all. The fact is however that these groups are logical entities that know what they want, and can be counted on as such. The masses on the other hand hold control over the very fabric of society, and are not restrained by any scruples of the irrational.
At least you can count on the liar to lie; you don't know when the honest man is going to start lying.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-05-02 07:38:25)
What? I thought it was socialised health care that caused the world financial crisis!?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Australia has Socialized health-care, combined with private health-care, and our economy is in far better shape than the US or UK...[TUF]Catbox wrote:
It has failed... in every country... The UK is bankrupt from having used socialized healthcare...
and good luck living on social security...
So i'd say that health care isn't the main reason why half the world is in the shitter.