"Freedom" thread or something

If you can bail out banks, muster armies to wage wars, build town halls, dams and public monuments, fund libraries, art galleries and national parks, schools, colleges and universities, launch ships, rockets and satelites, make movies and tv programmes, build factories, offices, malls, roads, bridges and rail networks, construct sports statiums and arenas, distribute basic utilities of water, gas, electricty and telephones, suport a judiciary, prision system, law enforcement and emergency services, operate personal transport devices, own houses, lawns and picket fences, eat three meals a day, play on the internet, and collect assorted items of memorabilia and trinkets, own a digital watch, flat-screen tv and a microwave, buy a bar of soap, a big mac or stick of gum, wear blue jeans and sneakers, donate to a church, charity or brewery then the country you live in can afford universal health care. You just prefer to spend your money on something else.

 

 

Epignosis wrote: All of the ideas presented assume that healthcare is inherently expensive.  I contend that it need not be.

I think you are talking of pennies. There is no doubting that you can make it less expensive, you cannot make it inexpensive. Health care is inherently expensive and can do nothing but get more expensive as the population ages, the longer health care keeps a population alive the more it is going to cost. Now we are not dying of young-age diseases like polio, tb, diphtheria, rubella, influenza, malaria, whooping cough, pneumonia, tetanus, typhoid yellow fever and smallpox, and we are not dying from infection caused by physical damage or the physical damage itself, we are dying of old-age diseases like cancer and heart failure, which are more expensive to care for. We haven't eradicated any of those young-age diseases, health care is constantly preventing them and the cost of prevention is cheaper than the cost of curing them, but it still costs money and requires a health care regime to support it.

 

Epignosis wrote: I needed an automotive repair and couldn't afford it.  My mechanic decreased my bill and offered to let me pay installments.  Fortunately, the reduction made it so that I could pay in full.

(Sorry, I've taken that quote out of context, but only slightly)

 

Bartering may save you a few dollars on fixing your car or buying a rug in a yard sale and shopping around may save you a few dollars on buying your monthly groceries, but what you are negotiation there is a percentage of the profit, the seller isn't going to sell you something for a loss. Even in the serivice industry there is a point where the provider cannot afford to do business with you, where the cost of providing the services is more than you are willing to pay. A commodity or service that is expensive cannot be made inexpensive by bartering. But as I said, analogies are specious, health care isn't a simple commodity or service so we should not treat it as one.

 

 

It's possible, could you elaborate why?

By studying a history of healthcare, it certainly seems to be inherently expensive. Driven by technology.

 

Before the 1920s hopsitals were places to die. Then things got better, and they got more expensive. I believe many Americans couldn't really afford it, thus various insurance plans/blue cross orgs/communal groups and etc started popping up. Can't really say this is due to gov intervention since there wasn't any.

 

Yes, gov has made things worse by creating the tax incentives for businesses (which should be ended) and creating HMOs and all types of laws and sh*t, this cant be denied. Ending employer provided insurance would open up competition and help business, I feel this is necessary (and Im not sure ACA will accomplish it). Should a universal health plan thus pick up the slack or leave it solely to markets? I just feel too many would be unable to afford it with the latter.

 

I mean, when my mother had a major surgery and hopstial stay, it took 2 or 3 years for us to finally get back to normal financially from that. This was WITH insurance paying 80% of it. Sure, gov has made things worse, but I can't believe it's not inherently expensive.

 

The total health care bill for treating gun-shot wounds was $629 million in 2010

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/13/2619941/gun-injuries-630-million/ 

I'd much rather govts tried to kick those overgrown pharma MNCs in the b*** and stop them from evergreening their patents into eternity.   As much as their efforts to advance healthcare are appreciated, they cannot be recovering the cost of that through extending the patent of old drugs, which I believe they do.   That alone should help bring the cost of drugs to a saner level.   That may mean some of them get out of the drug business because it is 'unviable' and some potential, expensive research to develop cures may not be undertaken.  Which brings me back to the first para.   Life expectancy has already gone up tremendously in the last century or so.   If we really want healthcare that will keep us alive for eternity, we should pay for it from our own pocket rather than conveniently pass the burden to future generations.  Oh, and by the way, govts won't do anything to those MNCs because that is the elephant in the room.  It is easier for govts to get a buy in on populist legislations than to tackle difficult issues of principle.

 

Well I will admit, in the US the healthcare market is as free as...eh I dont have any cute word play, but it's quite unfree. Most states are dominated by a few providers, employer offered insurance gives a few choices etc etc

So its not fair to call it a free market, thing is IDK why it's this way. Some claim "that'll happen w/out gov!" others say "that'll happen w/ gov tinkering" so who knows?   If we could free up, or force, competition it'd be good