| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
thellama73 
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
 Posted: July 31 2013 at 14:09 |
 The T wrote:
^I'm not sure what else qualifies as a health care system that "works". Not according to what a person wants (serious waste of resources here) but what a person needs.
The profit motive should not exist in a few industries for me, and that probably makes me lose points here but I see areas as law enforcement (and corrections) and health care as basically the most important ones (I have considered education too but there are benefits also). |
In that case, no health care system in the world works, because there are people who die from things that could have been prevented if they had called in all the best and most expensive specialists and employed all the newest and most expensive technology, but didn't because doing that for every single sick person would bankrupt any country. I'm not sure how you prevent people from making a profit on health care. Should doctors be force to work on patients if they don't want to? If so, that's slavery. If not, what's to stop a doctor from treating the person who can pay him before the person who can't?
|
|
|
 |
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 14:20 |
I understand an industry being "for profit" when the main motivation behind the trade is obtaining a profit in way of capital that can continue to make the business grow and enrich the shareholders (or owners). That is different from a business that runs with a service motivation and where any profits if any is produced is used to improve or secure the company/provider/etc. Logan, if we were to read what you say as "if it's not for profit is slavery" would mean that all teachers in non-for-profit universities are slaves, all doctors in not-for-profit hospitals are slaves and all people who work in any not-for-profit organizations are slaves. I hardly think that is the case. Check any country with reasonable universal or in general not-for-profit (they don't have to be state-run) healthcare systems in place (not going to extreme cases like N Korea of course) and I'm sure any doctors working there will not consider themselves to be slaves. The company is just not trying to use them to enlarge its profits but to expand and improve service.
Profit =/= bad, of course.
But
not-for-profit =/= slavery either.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 14:28 |
The T wrote:
I understand an industry being "for profit" when the main motivation behind the trade is obtaining a profit in way of capital that can continue to make the business grow and enrich the shareholders (or owners). That is different from a business that runs with a service motivation and where any profits if any is produced is used to improve or secure the company/provider/etc. Logan, if we were to read what you say as "if it's not for profit is slavery" would mean that all teachers in non-for-profit universities are slaves, all doctors in not-for-profit hospitals are slaves and all people who work in any not-for-profit organizations are slaves. I hardly think that is the case. Check any country with reasonable universal or in general not-for-profit (they don't have to be state-run) healthcare systems in place (not going to extreme cases like N Korea of course) and I'm sure any doctors working there will not consider themselves to be slaves. The company is just not trying to use them to enlarge its profits but to expand and improve service.
Profit =/= bad, of course.
But
not-for-profit =/= slavery either. |
I wasn't trying to say that not for profit is slavery. I was saying that if you are actively trying to prevent people from making a profit, the only way to do so is to prohibit them from working or force them to work when they don't want to, which is slavery. Of course you can set up a not for profit system, but others are free to compete with you as a for-profit operation (or at least they should be.) If you're not going to ration health care based on money, you have to do it based on time, so lots of people end up on long waiting lists for doctors. Some of these will inevitably die waiting, in which case they can hardly be said to have gotten all the health care they need, and the system does not, by your definition of the term, work.
|
|
|
|
Neelus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 346
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 14:34 |
|
[/QUOTE]
Should doctors be force to work on patients if they don't want to? If so, that's slavery. If not, what's to stop a doctor from treating the person who can pay him before the person who can't?
[/QUOTE]
Medicine as it is at the moment is unfortunately a business. Drugs get handed out even if it is not that necessary. The medical industry is exactly that, an industry. The lines blur when it comes to saving lives. I feel there should be good salaries paid to ER medical professionals to keep their eyes on the ball, lives.
Edited by Neelus - July 31 2013 at 14:36
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 14:57 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
I understand an industry being "for profit" when the main motivation behind the trade is obtaining a profit in way of capital that can continue to make the business grow and enrich the shareholders (or owners). That is different from a business that runs with a service motivation and where any profits if any is produced is used to improve or secure the company/provider/etc. Logan, if we were to read what you say as "if it's not for profit is slavery" would mean that all teachers in non-for-profit universities are slaves, all doctors in not-for-profit hospitals are slaves and all people who work in any not-for-profit organizations are slaves. I hardly think that is the case. Check any country with reasonable universal or in general not-for-profit (they don't have to be state-run) healthcare systems in place (not going to extreme cases like N Korea of course) and I'm sure any doctors working there will not consider themselves to be slaves. The company is just not trying to use them to enlarge its profits but to expand and improve service.
Profit =/= bad, of course.
But
not-for-profit =/= slavery either. |
I wasn't trying to say that not for profit is slavery. I was saying that if you are actively trying to prevent people from making a profit, the only way to do so is to prohibit them from working or force them to work when they don't want to, which is slavery.
Of course you can set up a not for profit system, but others are free to compete with you as a for-profit operation (or at least they should be.)
If you're not going to ration health care based on money, you have to do it based on time, so lots of people end up on long waiting lists for doctors. Some of these will inevitably die waiting, in which case they can hardly be said to have gotten all the health care they need, and the system does not, by your definition of the term, work.
|
Making a profit is not the same for me as making a living, a good living even. A great living. Doctors make good livings in many countries working in not-for-profit systems. Even here in the US.
Some industries where there are moral and human considerations are at hand shouldn't be opened to be for-profit at all (corrections, health care). Some can co-exist with for-profit institutions (education).
Rationing health care according to time and accessibility might work in some cases for some cases. Money isn't the best vehicle here for me. Yes, the system will not be perfect (what is?) but it will work better, at least in its supposed goal of saving lives.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 15:03 |
|
What do you mean "shouldn't be opened to be for profit?" Was that a general moral statement, like "you shouldn't make fun of the disabled" or a policy statement, in which case, how do you propose to stop people?
|
|
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 15:17 |
thellama73 wrote:
If you're not going to ration health care based on money, you have to do it based on time, so lots of people end up on long waiting lists for doctors.
|
Of course public health care must be rationed, but neither strictly on money nor time, this is where public health systems often fail. 80 years ago, if our grandfather suffered arthritis they would give him a walking stick and that's it. Nowadays we can put a titanium prosthesis in his hip and he can get along as if nothing happened. On the other hand there used to be diseases were you might die and which today can be saved by some medicines. As a simple matter of example, I don't think public health should provide everybody with titanium joints, a walking stick could be reasonable for many, but it should prevent people from dying when there is a reasonably affordable treatment.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 17:32 |
thellama73 wrote:
What do you mean "shouldn't be opened to be for profit?" Was that a general moral statement, like "you shouldn't make fun of the disabled" or a policy statement, in which case, how do you propose to stop people?
|
A... Government? I'm not a believer in anarcho-capitalism, you know, so I accept the idea of a government, though one far different and smaller than what we have nowadays. Some areas, I think, are better left in its hands, including law enforcement and, maybe (though there are successful hybrid and mixed experiences), helath care.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 18:34 |
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
What do you mean "shouldn't be opened to be for profit?" Was that a general moral statement, like "you shouldn't make fun of the disabled" or a policy statement, in which case, how do you propose to stop people?
|
A... Government? I'm not a believer in anarcho-capitalism, you know, so I accept the idea of a government, though one far different and smaller than what we have nowadays. Some areas, I think, are better left in its hands, including law enforcement and, maybe (though there are successful hybrid and mixed experiences), helath care.
|
So you endorse the idea of a government forcibly shutting down private practice doctors who want to operate as for-proft entities?
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 18:47 |
How can a private doctor operate as a for-profit entity? Of course I support the right for doctors to practice how and to whom they choose. A doctor will obviously want to generate enough income not only to live but to improve his live over time. I'm not thinking of that type of doctor (who barely seems to exist nowadays anyway) but of the health care system as a whole, where insurance companies rake enormous profits at the expense of patients and, yes, even doctors. Can't you see anything wrong in the American health care system Logan? I'm sure you can and you have expressed it in a few ocassions. It happens to be one of the most "free" health systems I know (at least in comparison). Yes, opening the system to make it full 100% free-market based would probably bring some benefits (with some costs, too) but is it really something that can be done in the US the way things are? I have read and thought about enough things that have convinced me about the need for and the merits of libertarianism. I have never been convinced how it can improve things on health care though, at least on a real and rather quick way. And since I admit the existence and need for a limited government, I would put health care as one of the things that it could probably run effectively (maybe not exclusively). As it has been proven elsewhere (besides what some people would like one to believe).
Edited by The T - July 31 2013 at 19:00
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 19:07 |
|
Of course there are problems with our health care system. Big ones. I'm not defending those. I'm just trying to understand your position, which I legitimately don't comprehend.
If you have no problem with a doctor charging whatever he wants, how can you say you want a health care system in which operating for profit is forbidden? The health care "system" in a free market is nothing more than doctors charging whatever they want. I don't understand the distinction you are making between an individual who charges high prices and pockets the difference(a profit) and a company that charges high profits and pockets the difference. Nor do I see how you can prevent such things without prohibiting voluntary and mutually beneficial transactions.
If it is insurance companies that you are opposed to, do you want to forbid people from offering insurance? It seems like a voluntary transaction to me that is perfectly reasonable.
I just don't understand what you are proposing.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 19:28 |
|
I'm sometimes terrible at explaining things. Let's use a similar scenario (not an analogy like Geoff loves to do). You know there are for-profit colleges and universities (I happen to work for one) but there also exist not-for-profit universities and schools? The former have some advantages, the latter also have some. I don't know if a fully socialized health care system would work in the US the way welfare is abused and misused here, but a similar mixed system might be an improvement. I still oppose for-profit medicine inside me but OK, I know the idea is preposterous in the US and maybe incompatible with freedom. If there's a mixed system, for-profit private insurers will have to prove their benefits or go under. Everybody would have at least one alternative if they don't want ot can't afford these companies: the central system.
Somewhere in the back of my mind the real solution appears as a world free of insurance companies (only for catastrophic situations) where the doctor and the patient agree and treatment is done. Quite the fully free system. But, maybe because I'm getting older, I don't know, I see it being something realizable less and less. Then, I choose an alternative that covers everybody in some way at least.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 20:49 |
By the way Logan, and related. Do you favor for-profit prisons? Do you agree with the idea that a company can profit off how many people are put behind bars? Would you say that we should "opened this for profit"? Would you say that impeding any big company from opening their own new for-profit system is a violation of liberty?
I would answer no. I'm not sure opening prisons to the market and making them for-profit would bring any benefits. With health care my answer is not so clear-cut, but it is somewhat linked.
|
|
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: July 31 2013 at 23:25 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I actually do have an idea to fix the healthcare system. First, you drastically decrease governmental interference in the private healthcare system and let the market do its own work. Then, you return to the good old common law principles of people taking care of their own families. Yes, this would have to be enforced by laws. No, this isn't overly coercive. Most libertarians would still agree that parents have a legal responsibility to take care of their kids. This proposal would merely extend to an obligation to care for the rest of your family. Brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, etc. This system would help people afford healthcare (and life's other necessities) while discarding the ridiculous idea that everyone should be forced on threat of imprisonment to share their wealth with perfect strangers, and would take wealth-sharing out of the hands of the government and into its proper place within the family unit, and otherwise at the discretion of individuals and private institutions. It would not be a perfect system, as some people have no living relatives (or only have impoverished living relatives) but it would eliminate much of the poverty and healthcare problem and create an easier problem to tackle for private charities. And no, I don't know of any country where this system is being used, but, as I pointed out earlier, that's rather irrelevant. We have social security and medicare, to a large extent, because people didn't want to take care of their parents. Taking care of your family is difficult and annoying. But it's still the right thing to do.
And similar systems have worked in history - for example Jewish law required children to take care of their parents in their old age.
|
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: August 01 2013 at 08:23 |
The T wrote:
By the way Logan, and related. Do you favor for-profit prisons? Do you agree with the idea that a company can profit off how many people are put behind bars? Would you say that we should "opened this for profit"? Would you say that impeding any big company from opening their own new for-profit system is a violation of liberty?
I would answer no. I'm not sure opening prisons to the market and making them for-profit would bring any benefits. With health care my answer is not so clear-cut, but it is somewhat linked. |
I don't favor prisons in general, and it's a bit of a special case since the business itself relies on depriving other people of their liberty, so I'm not really sure how to answer that. Thanks for explaining you position in more detail. It makes more sense to me now. Everyone complains about the insurance companies, and they have a point, but I don't see how you can make it illegal to sell insurance in a free society if the buyer and the seller have a mutual coincidence of wants.
Edited by thellama73 - August 01 2013 at 08:23
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 01 2013 at 09:17 |
|
I don't think having a private prison makes much sense with a public law system.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: August 01 2013 at 10:32 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I actually do have an idea to fix the healthcare system. First, you drastically decrease governmental interference in the private healthcare system and let the market do its own work. Then, you return to the good old common law principles of people taking care of their own families. Yes, this would have to be enforced by laws. No, this isn't overly coercive. Most libertarians would still agree that parents have a legal responsibility to take care of their kids. This proposal would merely extend to an obligation to care for the rest of your family. Brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, etc. This system would help people afford healthcare (and life's other necessities) while discarding the ridiculous idea that everyone should be forced on threat of imprisonment to share their wealth with perfect strangers, and would take wealth-sharing out of the hands of the government and into its proper place within the family unit, and otherwise at the discretion of individuals and private institutions. It would not be a perfect system, as some people have no living relatives (or only have impoverished living relatives) but it would eliminate much of the poverty and healthcare problem and create an easier problem to tackle for private charities. And no, I don't know of any country where this system is being used, but, as I pointed out earlier, that's rather irrelevant. We have social security and medicare, to a large extent, because people didn't want to take care of their parents. Taking care of your family is difficult and annoying. But it's still the right thing to do.
And similar systems have worked in history - for example Jewish law required children to take care of their parents in their old age.
|
|
That's exactly how I feel. Except when I say "taking care of our own families", I consider all of humanity to be a family. Therefore we should all take care of each other. Because aren't we all related, in the end? The problem with the way you limit it to direct families is this: what about the family where the dad died and the mom has been supporting the kids with her minimum wage job her whole life, and then they grew up and weren't able to afford going to college and got minimum wage jobs as well? So they can't afford their OWN health care, let alone their mother's.
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: August 01 2013 at 11:01 |
That is one of the beefs I have with a public health system, rationing. But as it was said, it's a necessity. As something publicly funded there HAS to be rationing.
Which is why I still some type of basic universal coverage, non profit government ran, but in a private health system, like many European countries have to varying degrees. So there is incentive to keep cost down but the needy can still recieve. I DO see a very strong moral case for healthcare being a right, as well as economic benefit.
Also the healthcare market in the US is very un-free, it can't hurt to open it up both inter state and allowing Americans to buy drugs and etc from other countries.
I'm not the most knowledgable but it seems to me we have a for profit health system, but one that is greatly paid for by the state. So it's an obvious way to send costs skyrocketing. I guess we have the worst of both worlds, and either need more free market or eliminate for profit insurance. As always I try to blend the two in a happy best of world, maybe that's not possible really *shrugs*
That was an impromptu rant, what I came here wondering about is how some of yall, esp more econ smart Logan, feel about the fast food workers demanding a $15 minimum wage.
Don't stone me...while I'm neutral on raising the min wage I can accept it, but $15 seems high. And sorry to sound like a righty  but a little weird to imagine a McD's worker earning more than I, after my years and many many thousands spent on school, but I digress.
What exactly would the econ impacts be? I know we have a low min wage and findings have been mixed, but if it went that high would there be the infamous dreaded impact on small business? Some say it would be the "trickle up" but I don't see it working much better than "trickle down" and others even say it'll eventually cause an upward raise in all wage, so people like me who earn low would still be above it but would that be inflationary? Or would it even happen at all? I just am torn between theory and reality, as they don't always seem to line up well.
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: August 01 2013 at 11:04 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I don't think having a private prison makes much sense with a public law system. |
Intriguing point.
I also have moderated on that stance as well. I was all for end SS (for the unretired) and go private pension, but there's just not enough data yet for me to say it'd be better over the course of a lifetime.
Also I could see an issue with incentive, wouldn't there be even more for the Fed to keep the easy river of $$ to wall street going?
I know even as the economy languished this last year my 401k was soaring like a rocket with stocks going crazy like they were. Also the risk involved.
Though aspects about it I still like about it.
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: August 01 2013 at 11:18 |
JJLehto wrote:
I guess we have the worst of both worlds
|
Agreed.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Freedom" thread or something
