"America's health care system is like a free market in the same way that Madonna is like a virgin"

[Infohawk]

Forbes Article

Funny quote in this article that I think is true. There are so many regulations and existing government interventions that I worry we have not given the free market a chance with health care. I'd rather have a truly free-market system and hand out $5000 vouchers. (They can buy high-deductible insurance on the remainder of their needs.)

 

[senseamp]

There is a reason that even Republicans didn't try to implement this "free market" health care when they had a chance and instead added prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

 

[Vic]

"America's health care system is like a free market in the same way that Madonna is like a virgin"

Agreed.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: senseamp
There is a reason that even Republicans didn't try to implement this "free market" health care when they had a chance and instead added prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

Yes. They didn't want to cut entitlements and estrange the geezer vote and they were in bed with various pharmaceutical companies. Bush and co. were more into cronyism than capitalism.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: senseamp
There is a reason that even Republicans didn't try to implement this "free market" health care when they had a chance and instead added prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

Yes. They didn't want to cut entitlements and estrange the geezer vote and they were in bed with various pharmaceutical companies. Bush and co. were more into cronyism than capitalism.

Hehe, maybe. Either way, this "free market" solution is not going to get implemented, which is probably a good thing.
We had free market medicine before. Sick people who couldn't afford care just died.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Either way, this "free market" solution is not going to get implemented, which is probably a good thing.
We had free market medicine before. Sick people who couldn't afford care just died.

I agree that it will not get implemented. I'm undecided on whether it's a good thing. When did we have a free market health market? The 1920s? The average person, including the average poor person, is far wealthier now. And like I said, we could hand out money to poor people and let them try to save as much as possible on their healthcare, bringing down costs across the board.

At some point, someone (preferably the consumer-patient IMO) needs to ask the question, 'do I really want to pay for this and is this cost really worth the cheaper alternative?' The government is not a smart shopper and the group plan administrators are not interested in the wellbeing of the patient.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: senseamp
There is a reason that even Republicans didn't try to implement this "free market" health care when they had a chance and instead added prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

Yes. They didn't want to cut entitlements and estrange the geezer vote and they were in bed with various pharmaceutical companies. Bush and co. were more into cronyism than capitalism.

Hehe, maybe. Either way, this "free market" solution is not going to get implemented, which is probably a good thing.
We had free market medicine before. Sick people who couldn't afford care just died.

Did you bother to actually read the article?

 

[senseamp]

Handing out money to poor people is not free market healthcare. free market healthcare = you don't have money? FOAD!
I always ask myself, do I really need to pay for a full course of antibiotics or can I just take enough to make myself feel better? I mean who is this doctor guy who not only feels entitled to my money before I get my medicine, but also is telling me how much I need to consume? What happened to consumer driven medicine?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: senseamp
There is a reason that even Republicans didn't try to implement this "free market" health care when they had a chance and instead added prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

Yes. They didn't want to cut entitlements and estrange the geezer vote and they were in bed with various pharmaceutical companies. Bush and co. were more into cronyism than capitalism.

Hehe, maybe. Either way, this "free market" solution is not going to get implemented, which is probably a good thing.
We had free market medicine before. Sick people who couldn't afford care just died.

Did you bother to actually read the article?

I read it. It's palpably biased and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Handing out money to poor people is not free market healthcare. free market healthcare = you don't have money? FOAD!

Granted, handing out money to people is not a pure free market. However, you can hand out money to poor people and have them make purchasing decisions such that the health care sector is relatively free. It's sort of like Warren Buffet's negative taxation. It's not ideal but at least the poor will spend the money as opposed to the government.

Edit: And furthermore, in any system we will have to make decisions of life or death. You can't have 100 year olds getting transplants every day for example. Most people agree on that, but on some level you are saying FOAD.

I always ask myself, do I really need to pay for a full course of antibiotics or can I just take enough to make myself feel better? I mean who is this doctor guy who not only feels entitled to my money before I get my medicine, but also is telling me how much I need to consume? What happened to consumer driven medicine?

Apples and oranges. Antibiotic use is more like the vaccination issue. That's not what is meant by consumer driven medicine.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: senseamp
There is a reason that even Republicans didn't try to implement this "free market" health care when they had a chance and instead added prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

Yes. They didn't want to cut entitlements and estrange the geezer vote and they were in bed with various pharmaceutical companies. Bush and co. were more into cronyism than capitalism.

Hehe, maybe. Either way, this "free market" solution is not going to get implemented, which is probably a good thing.
We had free market medicine before. Sick people who couldn't afford care just died.

Did you bother to actually read the article?

I read it. It's palpably biased and intellectually dishonest.

I know it's a waste of time to even ask, but would you care to elaborate on those accusations?

The overall premise of the article is solid and at the basis of all economic theory. Consumption cannot be restrained without knowledge of costs, i.e. consumers who think they are getting something free will consume without restraint. What is intellectually dishonest here is for you to attack something so basic and fundamental.
We'd all like to keep sick people from dying, but the simple fact is that even sick people who can afford and do receive the best of care still die too. In fact, people often get more care than they want or need, hence death with dignity, etc. Fixing that problem will do more to solve the issue of health care costs and distribution than any of your 'socialization will magically fix everything' bullshit.

 

[Vic]

An interesting footnote to this discussion are the recent studies showing the failures of early cancer screenings. Many people have been aggressively treating early cancer diagnoses that may have ended up being benign. Doctors frequently have no way of knowing if these early stage cancers will end up malignant or benign, so they usually recommend aggressive treatment. The catch? The treatments for cancer are often as harmful (even fatal) as the disease. The cost? Who cares, we're saving lives here, right?

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Vic
The overall premise of the article is solid and at the basis of all economic theory.

There is no "solid" economic theory there at all -- it's ideology dressed up as economics. Having worked in France, I can tell you unequivocably, there is nothing even remotely similar about the US health financing model and the French...ZERO. Furthermore, she inflates the actual contributions made by employers and workers. Starting with those distortions, she constructs an completely alternate universe that would be unrecognizable to any honest health economist.

What is intellectually dishonest here is for you to attack something so basic and fundamental.

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that healthcare can be delivered as a market commodity. That's exactly the fallacy that is bankrupting individuals, companies, and government at all levels.

Why markets can?t cure healthcare

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Vic
The overall premise of the article is solid and at the basis of all economic theory.

There is no "solid" economic theory there at all -- it's ideology dressed up as economics. Having worked in France, I can tell you unequivocably, there is nothing even remotely similar about the US health financing model and the French...ZERO. Furthermore, she inflates the actual contributions made by employers and workers. Starting with those distortions, she constructs an completely alternate universe that would be unrecognizable to any honest health economist.

What is intellectually dishonest here is for you to attack something so basic and fundamental.

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that healthcare can be delivered as a market commodity. That's exactly the fallacy that is bankrupting individuals, companies, and government at all levels.

Why markets can?t cure healthcare

Oh I see what you did here... you attacked theory as ideology and then masqueraded your ideology as theory. :roll:

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Athena
It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that healthcare can be delivered as a market commodity.

Come on people, stop accusing each other of intellectual dishonesty. You may disagree that healthcare can be provided by the market, but some people do believe that it can be. It doesn't mean they're being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Athena
It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that healthcare can be delivered as a market commodity.

Come on people, stop accusing each other of intellectual dishonesty. You may disagree that healthcare can be provided by the market, but some people do believe that it can be. It doesn't mean they're being intellectually dishonest.

My disagreement with these 'socialists' is that they have no intention of getting rid of the market, they just want to change who is doing the buying. Socialism is like in the UK, where doctors are govt employees. Govt-provided healthcare with private doctors, hospitals, insurers, etc. is still a market-based system, NOT a socialism, and it should be treated like a market-based system. At least honest people can call it a 'single-payer' system and not go on meaningless anti-market tirades while promoting a market system.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh I see what you did here... you attacked theory as ideology and then masqueraded your ideolology as theory. :roll:

There is no theory there ... and no fact either.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
[You may disagree that healthcare can be provided by the market, but some people do believe that it can be. It doesn't mean they're being intellectually dishonest.

It is intellectually dishonest to misrepresent your "evidence".

There is a big difference between bias (e.g. cherry picking facts that support your argument) and outright misrepresentation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh I see what you did here... you attacked theory as ideology and then masqueraded your ideolology as theory. :roll:

There is no theory there ... and no fact either.

From you? I agree.

Let me ask you a question: under your pretend socialist and supposed anti-market system, how will the cost of good and services be determined? IOW, how will a doctor's pay be decided upon?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: senseamp
There is a reason that even Republicans didn't try to implement this "free market" health care when they had a chance and instead added prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

Yes. They didn't want to cut entitlements and estrange the geezer vote and they were in bed with various pharmaceutical companies. Bush and co. were more into cronyism than capitalism.

Hehe, maybe. Either way, this "free market" solution is not going to get implemented, which is probably a good thing.
We had free market medicine before. Sick people who couldn't afford care just died.

Did you bother to actually read the article?

I read it. It's palpably biased and intellectually dishonest.

I know it's a waste of time to even ask, but would you care to elaborate on those accusations?

The overall premise of the article is solid and at the basis of all economic theory. Consumption cannot be restrained without knowledge of costs, i.e. consumers who think they are getting something free will consume without restraint. What is intellectually dishonest here is for you to attack something so basic and fundamental.
We'd all like to keep sick people from dying, but the simple fact is that even sick people who can afford and do receive the best of care still die too. In fact, people often get more care than they want or need, hence death with dignity, etc. Fixing that problem will do more to solve the issue of health care costs and distribution than any of your 'socialization will magically fix everything' bullshit.

She completely fails to mention that France and Germany better outcomes than we do in healthcare, and downplays the fact that France spends 11% vs 16% or 1/5th that she claims US spends depending on which of her quotes you read. Even taking 16% number, it means we are spending 1.5 times more than they do to get worse outcomes.

 

[sportage]

Ever consider the whole problem with us healthcare "is" the free market, non-government aspect?
The us post office is very successful. It is government ran.
The fed tax system is very successful. Its government ran.
The us military is very successful. Its government ran.

Maybe the whole problem with us healthcare system that it is NOT totally government ran.
MAybe free market has been the problem all along.
Maybe we need a 100% ran government healthcare system, like the military, post office
and fed tax system.
After all, in Iraq (for example) it was the independent non-government controlled
contractors that cost us, that failed us, and were out of control.
If the us military were the only factor in the Iraq war, would not the outcome
have been successful? Costs controlled? Losses eliminated?
As with healthcare, maybe the for-profit independent part of the system has always been
the whole problem.

They need to quit giving free market, healthcare for profit, a place at the table.
Cut free market totally out of the system, when it comes to healthcare.
Have the government run the entire system, i.e. drugs, care, Medicare, medicade,
everything. Keep the greed out of healthcare.
I think you'd see a totally functional healthcare system, affordable and successful ran like clockwork. Much like the us post office, the military and the federal tax system.
Yeah we hate the federal tax system, but it DOES collect the money, right out of your paycheck before its in your hand. Very functional. Very sucessful.
Same with the post office. A stamp is still under $1. They still deliver to your door.

CAn you imagine a third independent part of the tax system responsible for collection, then responsible to the federal government? Much like the stock market and banks/housing, you would see greed and corruption. But we have no such third independent part of the federal tax system, so no issue there.
Only when the military outsourced its duties, did we see huge loss in funding, accountability and failure to produce.

Maybe Reagan had it totally wrong. Backwards. Maybe there are parts of our society that need protecting from independent non-government influence. Protecting to be sucessful. Cost controlled.

 

[First]

Medicare and Medicaid do not significantly alter private insurers' healthcare policies. The U.S. has by far the most free market healthcare system in the world of the industrialized countries and it isn't even close.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Evan
Medicare and Medicaid do not significantly alter private insurers' healthcare policies. The U.S. has by far the most free market healthcare system in the world of the industrialized countries and it isn't even close.

I agree. It's a doctor's choice to accept a medicare/aid patient. It's a doctor's choice to accept a patient using insurance. (A growing number are going cash only) In short, a doctor's practice is his business to run as he sees fit.

We have a free market system. What is sitting in front of congress is the opposite of that.

 

[Double Trouble]

That's actually a surprisingly good article. No matter what system we set up - single payer, private option, public option etc etc, the bottom line is that in order to be successful, we must figure out how to control the actual cost, not just who is paying for it and how.

Unless you have limitless resources available to pay, at some point there has to be "rationing" of care. I'd personally rather have the patient (you and I) make the rationing decisions than have those decisions made by a bureaucrat. In order for that to happen, there has to be a direct connection between your choices as a patient and the impact to your wallet.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Forbes Article

Funny quote in this article that I think is true. There are so many regulations and existing government interventions that I worry we have not given the free market a chance with health care. I'd rather have a truly free-market system and hand out $5000 vouchers. (They can buy high-deductible insurance on the remainder of their needs.)

If you gave every American 5 grand to spend on medicine, the drug companies and hospitals would raise their prices.
Thats what the so-called "free market" would get you.