Is there a right to health care?

GOP · Feb 5, 2010

Yes, sorry

Thinking about something else while you're typing has a tendency to give negative results!

And of course efficiency IS the aim! In several countries in Europe they have, mostly, government run health care, it is, in many ways I would say, very inefficient.

Dirk · Feb 5, 2010

GOP said:
And of course efficiency IS the aim! In several countries in Europe they have, mostly, government run health care, it is, in many ways I would say, very inefficient.

If efficiency were the aim, then the US Government wouldn't have fiscally supported bloated, expensive, inefficient bureaucratic insurance corporations with taxpayers' money.

The US has the most expensive healthcare system to the taxpayer, and some of the worst results, in the modern industrial West.

deanhills · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
The US has the most expensive healthcare system to the taxpayer, and some of the worst results, in the modern industrial West.

Right! And also one of the most expensive Governments too. Not to mention the largest debt!

David · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
If efficiency were the aim, then the US Government wouldn't have fiscally supported bloated, expensive, inefficient bureaucratic insurance corporations with taxpayers' money.

The US has the most expensive healthcare system to the taxpayer, and some of the worst results, in the modern industrial West.

Cuba is better off then we are and their hospitals are rat infested. That's just sad. :banghead:

deanhills said:
Right! And also one of the most expensive Governments too. Not to mention the largest debt!

Japan is worse off and Greece is facing bankruptcy. I think we're #3.

deanhills · Feb 5, 2010

David said:
Japan is worse off and Greece is facing bankruptcy. I think we're #3.

Japan has not the same deficit, nor the same debt. I believe Japan owns a significant portion of US debt after China. Greece is just plain corrupt.

GOP · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
The US has the most expensive healthcare system to the taxpayer, and some of the worst results, in the modern industrial West.

And so has countries with a government run health care. I am not saying the United States don't have any faults, they definitely do. But to give the public what they deserve, the best is for private corporations to be a part of it to create competition and different choices. So I as a customer can say: "I don't like the service here, I am moving to your competitor." In a government run system, there's no competition, it's all the same.

myp · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
If efficiency were the aim, then the US Government wouldn't have fiscally supported bloated, expensive, inefficient bureaucratic insurance corporations with taxpayers' money.

The US has the most expensive healthcare system to the taxpayer, and some of the worst results, in the modern industrial West.

Important to remember that this in a health care market that is heavily infiltrated by special interests through the government. A look at the general trends (public vs. private funding, public vs. private hospitals, government regulations, etc.) shows that as government has gotten more involved in the market, conditions have worsened.

deanhills · Feb 5, 2010

GOP said:
And so has countries with a government run health care. I am not saying the United States don't have any faults, they definitely do. But to give the public what they deserve, the best is for private corporations to be a part of it to create competition and different choices. So I as a customer can say: "I don't like the service here, I am moving to your competitor." In a government run system, there's no competition, it's all the same.

Totally agreed. Ideal would be a two-tier system where people can elect to be part of a Government insurance system, or to have their own insurance, and similarly medical corporations can elect to be contracted in the Government insurance system or contracted out. The lower cost system would be more focussed on basic medical care, and hopefully will be able to cover those who currently have no medical insurance. Probably also needs to be considered that most of the primary health care in the United States is privately owned, whereas in the UK and Canada for example most of the primary health care is in Government hands.

Dirk · Feb 5, 2010

GOP said:
And so has countries with a government run health care. I am not saying the United States don't have any faults, they definitely do. But to give the public what they deserve, the best is for private corporations to be a part of it to create competition and different choices. So I as a customer can say: "I don't like the service here, I am moving to your competitor." In a government run system, there's no competition, it's all the same.

Firstly, i'm not saying that a free market healthcare system wouldn't be any good (i'm not sure about that), i'm saying the US system is not a free market system.

I don't think profit-making businesses should be in charge of healthcare, and obviously my preference is that Goverment wouldn't either. In fact, i have my own ideas about a non-state system i call LHS but i won't bore you with the details. My main concern is that everyone actually gets treated.

Finally, the idea that Government-run systems do not allow free choice is fallacious. There is often a wide choice of doctors.

Dirk · Feb 5, 2010

myp said:
Important to remember that this in a health care market that is heavily infiltrated by special interests through the government. A look at the general trends (public vs. private funding, public vs. private hospitals, government regulations, etc.) shows that as government has gotten more involved in the market, conditions have worsened.

My point precisely, thank you.

GOP · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
Firstly, i'm not saying that a free market healthcare system wouldn't be any good (i'm not sure about that), i'm saying the US system is not a free market system.

I can partially agree with you on that now after Obama has taken a control.

Dirk said:
I don't think profit-making businesses should be in charge of healthcare, and obviously my preference is that Goverment wouldn't either. In fact, i have my own ideas about a non-state system i call LHS but i won't bore you with the details. My main concern is that everyone actually gets treated.

Details and creative new ideas are never tiresome

I disagree with you here, I think government should of course have a part in it, but the private sector should most definitely have a large, if not a ruling voice in it, to keep the competition up. It would also make it easier for the government with less financing, because the government doesn't need to take all the responsibilities by itself.

Dirk said:
Finally, the idea that Government-run systems do not allow free choice is fallacious. There is often a wide choice of doctors.

Sure there's a wide choice of doctors. But the service will all be the same, and the same financing.

Dirk · Feb 5, 2010

GOP said:
I can partially agree with you on that now after Obama has taken a control.

As i'm sure the Americans will back me up on, it wasn't before, either.

I disagree with you here, I think government should of course have a part in it, but the private sector should most definitely have a large, if not a ruling voice in it, to keep the competition up. It would also make it easier for the government with less financing, because the government doesn't need to take all the responsibilities by itself.

Governments want that power - what you and they call responsibilities, i and my fellow libertarians call power. I happen to think that people should have power, not governments or profiteering private tyrannies.

Sure there's a wide choice of doctors. But the service will all be the same, and the same financing.

Why, are doctors robots? There are good doctors and bad doctors, good surgeons and bad surgeons, good nurses and bad nurses. Services vary between individuals.

GOP · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
Governments want that power - what you and they call responsibilities, i and my fellow libertarians call power. I happen to think that people should have power, not governments or profiteering private tyrannies.

I totally agree. What kind of power does people have when they have only one institution to seek help? Then the government controls everything. One thing is that the people elects a government, the other is for the government to take all the power into their hands. I find that obnoxious.

Dirk said:
Why, are doctors robots? There are good doctors and bad doctors, good surgeons and bad surgeons, good nurses and bad nurses. Services vary between individuals.

No but if all doctors are under a public health system they are financed by the same means through and through, and yes then doctors will be robots who are slaves to the public regulations.

dave · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
I don't think profit-making businesses should be in charge of healthcare, and obviously my preference is that Goverment wouldn't either. In fact, i have my own ideas about a non-state system i call LHS but i won't bore you with the details. My main concern is that everyone actually gets treated.

Why? Because profit making is evil? What is profit making, exactly? Profit making means that the people that run the business make their living from the business, their livelihood depends on the success of the business, and they are also responsible for the business and its employees. If they don't provide what the customer wants, the business suffers and the owners suffer directly. If they don't keep the employees happy, the business suffers and the owners suffer directly.

Profit making does not mean illegal, deceitful, or corrupt.

Dirk said:
Finally, the idea that Government-run systems do not allow free choice is fallacious. There is often a wide choice of doctors.

This is not true. In government run systems, patients are limited in their options. There are all kinds of gatekeepers, you have to get approval to see specialists or to receive certain tests or use certain diagnostic equipment.

Canada is a great example. Do you think all those people waiting for treatment are doing so voluntarily? No, they are prevented by the government run system.

And, there is availability. In some countries (Germany, Japan, Taiwan) they are facing a growing problem with a lack of people working in the medical field because of government imposed restrictions on pay. Who wants to go to school for years and years, work long hours, and then not be rewarded appropriately? You can be a doctor, or be an engineer and get paid what you are worth (more than a doctor). Not a hard choice for many people. So, if there are too few doctors, your choices are limited.

Its not just physicians either. Government run systems keep costs down by restricting reimbursement to hospitals. Half of allhospitals in Japan are in the red financially.

Government run systems claim they do not limit choice, its a nice phrase, but its false.

Dirk · Feb 5, 2010

dave said:
Why?

Because i am of the crazy and radical opinion that people should get the best treatment possible, not only that which is "economical".

And, there is availability. In some countries (Germany, Japan, Taiwan) they are facing a growing problem with a lack of people working in the medical field because of government imposed restrictions on pay.

It keeps costs down without compromising the quality of healthcare. Doctors should be doctors because they want to help people, not because thay want to be payed obscene volumes of money from the public purse.

Government run systems claim they do not limit choice, its a nice phrase, but it's false.

We are speaking far too generally. The Canadian system is nothing like the British, and that, in turn, is nothing like the German system. To claim so is fallacious. In my experience as a patient, i have had no problem in choosing my own doctor or my own GKV scheme.

GOP · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
Because i am of the crazy and radical opinion that people should get the best treatment possible, not only that which is "economical".

That's exactly what you get through competition between the public and private. We all want something that's effective, a dead public system without anyone to keep an eye on them will never provide you with the "best treatment".

Dirk said:
It keeps costs down without compromising the quality of healthcare. Doctors should be doctors because they want to help people, not because thay want to be payed obscene volumes of money from the public purse.

And I believe most doctors are doctors simply because they believe in helping people. But as in all professions, you earn money off of what you do.

Dirk · Feb 5, 2010

GOP said:
That's exactly what you get through competition between the public and private. We all want something that's effective, a dead public system without anyone to keep an eye on them will never provide you with the "best treatment".

Well, my ideal would be a public private system, but i have written pages on it before, so i won't go into it. Other than that, yes, i agree. Though i think that people should play the greater role, not businesses or government.

And I believe most doctors are doctors simply because they believe in helping people. But as in all professions, you earn money off of what you do.

Yes, iagree, and German doctors earn a decent living.

(I really hope it's not *shock/horror* patriotism that drew me to defending my country's system) :unsure: Erm... NO! No, it wasn't - it was because i understand it.

dave · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
Because i am of the crazy and radical opinion that people should get the best treatment possible, not only that which is "economical" .

They get the best treatment when the people providing the treatment are directly accountable, and that happens when those providers are dependent upon the patients.

Dirk said:
It keeps costs down without compromising the quality of healthcare. Doctors should be doctors because they want to help people, not because thay want to be payed obscene volumes of money from the public purse.

Please join us in the real world.
If doctors felt like that, then why are there rich doctors? Why don't they all donate their time and money?
Do you choose your doctor based on his desire to help, or his ability to cure? And they aren't the same.

Dirk said:
We are speaking far too generally. The Canadian system is nothing like the British, and that, in turn, is nothing like the German system. To claim so is fallacious. In my experience as a patient, i have had no problem in choosing my own doctor or my own GKV scheme.

I didn't claim they were the same. They are operated in very different ways, but they are all government run. They are all in various degrees of financial trouble, they are all facing looming shortages of health care workers. It is such a problem that some are moving back towards privatization.
　

GOP · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
Well, my ideal would be a public private system, but i have written pages on it before, so i won't go into it. Other than that, yes, i agree. Though i think that people should play the greater role, not businesses or government.

But people play the largest role when they are customers. Then they get the opportunity to go to competitors if they are not happy with the service they receive.

Dirk · Feb 5, 2010

dave said:
They get the best treatment when the people providing the treatment are directly accountable, and that happens when those providers are dependent upon the patients.

Yes, and we merely have different ways of doing this. I might note that my idea does not involve Government. But i've explained it a million times before, it's late (or rather early), and i can't be bothered to argue with people that think theirs is the only and supreme masterful way of doing things.

Please join us in the real world.
If doctors felt like that, then why are there rich doctors? Why don't they all donate their time and money?
Do you choose your doctor based on his desire to help, or his ability to cure? And they aren't the same.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

Also, i think a healthy balance would be ideal. I like to have my cake and eat it. Otherwise what is the point of having the damned thing in the first place? A master doctor with little or no motivation to help his/her patients to the best of their abilities is almost a waste of space (especially if he/she has conflicting interests) and a useless but dedicated doctor has no place - except maybe in circumstances requiring minimal expertise - either.

I didn't claim they were the same. They are operated in very different ways, but they are all government run. They are all in various degrees of financial trouble, they are all facing looming shortages of health care workers. It is such a problem that some are moving back towards privatization.

Fine. I will only say i've experienced no problems in terms of free choice that i care the slightest about. There's plenty choice in GKV and doctors.

Is there a right to health care?

Similar threads