Medical care is an economic good like any other

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
TheFirstLeftist
TheFirstLeftist's picture

There is no more a right to health care than there is a right to shoes, food or cell phones.  The problem is supply and demand.  "Free" or low-priced health care increases demand.  The AMA has had a government-granted monopoly.  It uses this monopoly to restrict the number of people admitted to medical schools. Voila! Higher prices. 

State government mandates on insurance polcies drives up their prices. 

"Layers of regulation plague every aspect of medical care and health insurance in America. In the health-insurance industry, for instance, each state imposes dozens of regulatory mandates on health insurers, requiring them to include coverage of everything from massage therapy to hair implants. The reason for mandates is that the message-therapy and hair-implant industries (and many others) hire lobbyists to bribe state legislators to require insurers to cover their particular practice if they want to sell insurance within a state. Among the states with the largest number of mandates as of 2009 are Rhode Island (70), Minnesota (68), Maryland (66), New Mexico (57), and Maine (55). Idaho has the fewest mandates (13), followed by Alabama (21), Utah (23), and Hawaii (24).Each mandate increases the cost of health insurance and probably increases the typical health-insurance policy by hundreds, or thousands, of dollars yearly. This is a good example of healthcare fascism"

"Having taken over most of the hospital industry, government-run or government-subsidized hospitals have created regional monopoly power for themselves with so-called "certificate-of-need" (CON) regulation. How this regulatory scam works is that an existing hospital in an area will give itself the legal "right" to decide whether there is a legitimate "need" for more hospitals. They have given themselves, in other words, the right to veto new competition in the hospital industry. It is as if the Microsoft Corporation had a legal right to veto new competition in the computer industry."

Comments

drc2
If you want Single Payer and

If you want Single Payer and a system run by doctors and patients rather than profit seeking ghouls, you might still see Obamacare as a step up from the "killing floor."  The idea that there is no fundamental "right" to receive treatment for illness and injury within a society, that it can be rationed by economic ability or any other screen to leave some SOL is a radical departure from the norms of human culture.  

Caring for those left out of the human family is at the heart of the story of Jesus' ministry.  It was a message to counter the tendency of culture to establish and justify such fundamental inhumanity as caste, slavery, poverty and neglect.  Hunger is as basic a point of human identity as there is; and the image of the Table is the metaphor of family extended to all humanity.  This is where caring and sharing comes together, and healing is the metaphor that expresses what the grateful do.

The indictment of the commodification/commercialization of the American healthcare system, and the particularly offensive practices of the "no value added" health insurance profiteers, is correct.  There is nothing about the present 'system' I would defend or preserve.  Disconnecting employment from funding ought to be a great relief for small business.  Replacing premiums with taxes is a way to save money even if the Right can scream about tax increases.  It ought to be easy to point out the savings and even to suggest that some other taxes might pay off for the public compared to 'privatization.'

I don't know what ruling Democrats ought to have wanted other than a "win" for Obama.  I don't know that an unconstitutional mandate would have opened any doors to Single Payer that we cannot open from a better public policy position.  Romneycare is better than nothing.  It is not better than the alternatives from the Left, but it also does not settle the question.

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
drc2 wrote: Caring for those

drc2 wrote:

Caring for those left out of the human family is at the heart of the story of Jesus' ministry.  It was a message to counter the tendency of culture to establish and justify such fundamental inhumanity as caste, slavery, poverty and neglect.  Hunger is as basic a point of human identity as there is; and the image of the Table is the metaphor of family extended to all humanity.  This is where caring and sharing comes together, and healing is the metaphor that expresses what the grateful do.

Yes Jesus does call for us to help those who are less fortunate.  But he does not want the governemnt to do it, he wants the church to do it.  That's because the church actually cares about the people involved.  When politicians "help" people with tax dollars, 90% of the time they do not care about the people involved, all they are doing is trying to buy their votes. If you don't believe me, read Tip O'Neil's book where he explains that a congressman's number one job is to get re elected.  That's one way to do it, tax the rich (there are not so many of them) and pass out as much of their money as possible to the poor (lots of votes there).  Obviously there is only so far you can go down that path before the whole system collapses.

The Democrats definetely are still banging that drum! And Jesus is smart enough to see right through that sham!

delete jan in iowa
mauiman58 wrote: Yes Jesus

mauiman58 wrote:

Yes Jesus does call for us to help those who are less fortunate.  But he does not want the governemnt to do it, he wants the church to do it.

And Jesus told you this when?  My Jesus doesn't care how they are helped, just that they should be helped. We are clever enough to figure out ways to help one another.  By combining our efforts the needy can and have been helped using the tool of government.

mauiman58 wrote:
  That's because the church actually cares about the people involved.
 The church has utterly failed at helping the needy.  There are 23 million children living in poverty.  The job is too big for the churches alone, so why shouldn't "we the people, i.e. the government" help our fellow man.  Churches do not hold the moral high ground.  Moral loving people want the needy to be helped and the government as the instrument of the people can do that task.

mauiman58 wrote:
 When politicians "help" people with tax dollars, 90% of the time they do not care about the people involved, all they are doing is trying to buy their votes.

So you are privy to the hearts of men..... amazing gift that you above all other human beings has been given.  Really?  

 

 

gleannfia
gleannfia's picture
I have been in the medical

I have been in the medical profession for 25 years.  Jesus aside, I have found that most folks simply do not understand this concept until they are up close and personal with a catastrophic illness.  Then their tune changes.  Real fast. When they find out that the insurance that they thought was so great simply isn't.

 

I can only assume that some believe that they are financially and physically impervious to such a situation.  I probably felt that way, too, in my youth.  Now, at 51 and still very healthy, I an no longer so deluded.

patrickdlogan
patrickdlogan's picture
All of this is missing the

All of this is missing the point that the USA is not founded on any single religion. Some folks are Muslim, Jewish, etc. And I am not religious and do not believe in any gods at all. Whose religion and whose gods are we all supposed to depend on? I have none, thank you very much.

As a society that elects representatives, we have the power to govern ourselves within our constitution. And that includes establishing a system of laws that would provide health care for all. Whether or not some consider this an inalienable right or not is moot. We can make it the law of the land. We can even make it a constitutional right if we so choose.

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
jan in iowa wrote: mauiman58

jan in iowa wrote:

mauiman58 wrote:

Yes Jesus does call for us to help those who are less fortunate.  But he does not want the governemnt to do it, he wants the church to do it.

And Jesus told you this when?  My Jesus doesn't care how they are helped, just that they should be helped. We are clever enough to figure out ways to help one another.  By combining our efforts the needy can and have been helped using the tool of government.

mauiman58 wrote:
  That's because the church actually cares about the people involved.
 The church has utterly failed at helping the needy.  There are 23 million children living in poverty.  The job is too big for the churches alone, so why shouldn't "we the people, i.e. the government" help our fellow man.  Churches do not hold the moral high ground.  Moral loving people want the needy to be helped and the government as the instrument of the people can do that task.

mauiman58 wrote:
 When politicians "help" people with tax dollars, 90% of the time they do not care about the people involved, all they are doing is trying to buy their votes.

So you are privy to the hearts of men..... amazing gift that you above all other human beings has been given.  Really?  

 

 

So you think that poiticians are not out for themselves first?  That their number one goal is not to get re elected?  Yes I do know the hearts of men, and they are selfish and rotten.  Both sides of the aisle.  If you feel otherwise then we wiill just have to agree to disagree on that point, because you will never convince me otherwise.

Read Tip O'Neil's book if you disagree with me. 

delete jan in iowa
mauiman58 wrote: So you think

mauiman58 wrote:

So you think that poiticians are not out for themselves first?  That their number one goal is not to get re elected?  Yes I do know the hearts of men, and they are selfish and rotten.  Both sides of the aisle.  If you feel otherwise then we wiill just have to agree to disagree on that point, because you will never convince me otherwise.

Read Tip O'Neil's book if you disagree with me. 

Fair enough.  

Tip O'Neil is one person with a perspective and opinion of his own just like everyone else.  

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
TheFirstLeftist wrote: There

TheFirstLeftist wrote:

There is no more a right to health care than there is a right to shoes, food or cell phones.  The problem is supply and demand.  "Free" or low-priced health care increases demand.  The AMA has had a government-granted monopoly.  It uses this monopoly to restrict the number of people admitted to medical schools. Voila! Higher prices. 

So in a free market, everyone can afford everything they need? What a joke!

Even if your free market fantasy is right, and lifting all medical regulations will produce more health care, there will always be some people who can't afford their medical care.

And your survival of the fittest Libertarian system does nothing for them, does it?

TheFirstLeftist
TheFirstLeftist's picture
Dr. Econ

Dr. Econ wrote:

TheFirstLeftist wrote:

There is no more a right to health care than there is a right to shoes, food or cell phones.  The problem is supply and demand.  "Free" or low-priced health care increases demand.  The AMA has had a government-granted monopoly.  It uses this monopoly to restrict the number of people admitted to medical schools. Voila! Higher prices. 

So in a free market, everyone can afford everything they need? What a joke!

Of course not!  Who ever said that?  A free market will provide the best product at the lowest price.Some people will still be dependent on charity.  But more will be able to provide for themselves.  So in a nationalized system, everyone can get everything they need?  What a joke!

Dr. Econ wrote:

And your survival of the fittest Libertarian system does nothing for them, does it?

"[Free-market]Capitalism, even when undermined and hampered by government intervention, has no peer when it comes to providing more abundant, and therefore cheaper, goods and services for all. And the less it is hampered, the better it achieves those results, without violating individual liberty. That means that virtually all survive better, making capitalism dramatically anti-Darwinian. Over the past two centuries, roughly six times as many people have been enabled to survive on the earth, with dramatically longer lifespans, as well. As Sheldon Richman summarized it, "If under capitalism only the fit survive, it seems to have a knack for making people fit."

 

"The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite of the "jungle" society. The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter's property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another…. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the division of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of the "survival of the fittest" to both the jungle and the market is to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The "fit" in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The "fit" on the market are those most adept in the service of society. The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption.

The free market, therefore, transmutes the jungle's destructive competition for meager subsistence into a peaceful co-operative competition in the service of one's self and others. In the jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market, everyone gains. It is the market — the contractual society — that wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the jungle, that permits the "weak" to live productively … in a regal style compared to the life of the "strong" in the jungle. Furthermore, the market, by raising living standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes."-- Murray Rothbard, Man,Economy and State

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
Good points made by the

Good points made by the FirstLeftist.  I'll summarize if I may.  Capitalism, for all its flaws is still far and away the best economic system out there.  Show me a better system that has worked better in the real world.

mauiman58
mauiman58's picture
jan in iowa wrote: mauiman58

jan in iowa wrote:

mauiman58 wrote:

So you think that poiticians are not out for themselves first?  That their number one goal is not to get re elected?  Yes I do know the hearts of men, and they are selfish and rotten.  Both sides of the aisle.  If you feel otherwise then we wiill just have to agree to disagree on that point, because you will never convince me otherwise.

Read Tip O'Neil's book if you disagree with me. 

Fair enough.  

Tip O'Neil is one person with a perspective and opinion of his own just like everyone else.  

So let me get this straight.  You will argue that those in the private sector are just out for themselves, yet elected officials somehow are not?  The only "saints' I have run into in my life that are not out for themselves are in the church and private charities.  Not to say that there are not exceptions out there, but by and large everyone is out for themselves.  And that includes politicians on both sides of the aisle.  

ah2
Thank you leftist for

Thank you leftist for displaying the core tennant of idiocy about Libertarianism that I have explained in several of your threads.  Your title says it all, "Medical care is a good like any other."  This is representative of the common dismissal by all Libertarians that the properties of goods and our relationship to them actually matter in their market distribution, level of congestion, and the probability of corruption within the free market.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A COMPLETE EFFING IDIOT TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW A MARKET WILL DEAL WITH MEDICAL CARE AS OPPOSED TO A CELL PHONE.

Like seriously...  A complete and utter moron.  Are you a moron?  If you are not a moron, you are a liar.  So, which is it Leftist?  A moron or a liar?

I await your answer because I need to know whether to pity you or ignore you.

delete jan in iowa
mauiman58 wrote: So let me

mauiman58 wrote:

So let me get this straight........... but by and large everyone is out for themselves.    

It is very interesting that you make this statement.  by and large everyone is out for themselves....  This is what 30 years of trickle down/greed economics has brought us.  

We as a country we used to do things because it was right and moral.  Striving to stop slavery, giving the vote to women, civil rights for all, and more; and it's hard not to harp on fighting against the fascist and nazi's in WW2.  

People used to try to live by the "golden rule" of Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Well, that's gone out the window with all this "me first, every man for himself, greedy, money is god" philosophy that we've been brainwashed with since the Reagan years.   

I agree that "me first..... money is god" ideas are rising in our political discourse, i.e. the Ryan Budget, cutting food stamps, unemployment insurance, creating NO jobs, etc.  But that's not how it has to be.  We are simply going through a phase just like we have in decades past, a phase of selfishness and greed.  And as soon as it begins to hit home with everyday Americans it will be rejected again.  

We do have to elect moral individuals to office.  We need to clean house and not allow corporations to corrupt our political system.  Yes, our economic system has corrupted our political system.  

Even if you make government smaller or whatever you want to do like that, it won't solve the problem.  The problem is the structure of our economic system.  It's time for our economic system to evolve and change, just a bit..... don't throw the baby out with the bath water..... it needs to be tweaked to better fit todays world.  

The corporate structure/charters have to be modified to:  1) stop emphasising profit over country/community consequences and responsibilities; and 2) allow for labor to be represented on the boards of directors and be involved in the decision making.  

Workers should be encouraged to start their own "employee owned" enterprises using the Italian model.  Cooperatives should be encouraged.  People need to have more than one work model to chose from.  At present we do not have that "freedom of choice" when it comes to our workplace.  I know, start your own business, well then you become the dictator instead of the dictated to..... not a real choice.

So maybe we do agree that things are in the toilet..... I've given some of my solutions to the problems.  What solutions do you have?

 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
TheFirstLeftist wrote: There

TheFirstLeftist wrote:

There is no more a right to health care than there is a right to shoes, food or cell phones.  The problem is supply and demand.  "Free" or low-priced health care increases demand.  The AMA has had a government-granted monopoly.  It uses this monopoly to restrict the number of people admitted to medical schools. Voila! Higher prices. 

State government mandates on insurance polcies drives up their prices. 

"Layers of regulation plague every aspect of medical care and health insurance in America. In the health-insurance industry, for instance, each state imposes dozens of regulatory mandates on health insurers, requiring them to include coverage of everything from massage therapy to hair implants. The reason for mandates is that the message-therapy and hair-implant industries (and many others) hire lobbyists to bribe state legislators to require insurers to cover their particular practice if they want to sell insurance within a state. Among the states with the largest number of mandates as of 2009 are Rhode Island (70), Minnesota (68), Maryland (66), New Mexico (57), and Maine (55). Idaho has the fewest mandates (13), followed by Alabama (21), Utah (23), and Hawaii (24).Each mandate increases the cost of health insurance and probably increases the typical health-insurance policy by hundreds, or thousands, of dollars yearly. This is a good example of healthcare fascism"

"Having taken over most of the hospital industry, government-run or government-subsidized hospitals have created regional monopoly power for themselves with so-called "certificate-of-need" (CON) regulation. How this regulatory scam works is that an existing hospital in an area will give itself the legal "right" to decide whether there is a legitimate "need" for more hospitals. They have given themselves, in other words, the right to veto new competition in the hospital industry. It is as if the Microsoft Corporation had a legal right to veto new competition in the computer industry."

Can I copy this?  This is the best argument that I've ever seen for a Single-Payer health care system.  Good work!

Every problem you've pointed out is due to the middle man of Insurance companies.

TheFirstLeftist
TheFirstLeftist's picture
Total nationalization will

Total nationalization will make a bad problem worse.  The insurance companies per se are not the problem.  In a free market, you could buy whatever kind of insurance fits your needs.  Right now, that is determined politically by special interest groups.

Under a single-payer system, demand will be greater than supply and rationing will be inevitable.  It may be in the form of denial of service or in long lines.  It still amazes me that anyone can be for central economic planning when the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, in addition to the social welfare States in Europe have demonstrated that it hasn't worked. 

Corruption at the State level is bad enough, what makes you think that there won't be more at the Federal Level?

What is your moral basis for having one person being forced to pay for the health care of another?  What if I take care of myself?  Do I have to pay for someone who doesn't?

Will private insurance be illegal under Single-Payer?  Will fee for service be illegal?

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
TheFirstLeftist wrote: Total

TheFirstLeftist wrote:

Total nationalization will make a bad problem worse.  The insurance companies per se are not the problem.  In a free market, you could buy whatever kind of insurance fits your needs.  Right now, that is determined politically by special interest groups.

Under a single-payer system, demand will be greater than supply and rationing will be inevitable.  It may be in the form of denial of service or in long lines.  It still amazes me that anyone can be for central economic planning when the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, in addition to the social welfare States in Europe have demonstrated that it hasn't worked. 

Corruption at the State level is bad enough, what makes you think that there won't be more at the Federal Level?

What is your moral basis for having one person being forced to pay for the health care of another?  What if I take care of myself?  Do I have to pay for someone who doesn't?

Will private insurance be illegal under Single-Payer?  Will fee for service be illegal?

What is your moral basis for denying a dying child a heart transplant just because she can't afford it?  I can't wait to hear the answer to this.

TheFirstLeftist
TheFirstLeftist's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: What is

Bush_Wacker wrote:

What is your moral basis for denying a dying child a heart transplant just because she can't afford it?  I can't wait to hear the answer to this.

I assume you mean that I wouldn't have the government force other people to pay for it. And you'd be correct. The great thing is that in a properous society, there is something called charity.  There are an uncountable number of instances where people voluntarily donate their time, money and expertise to help others.  There's a TV show on TLC where an American doctor goes to foreign countries and removes ridiculously sized tumors from poor people.  You think he gets paid.

Why do you have such a dim view of your fellow man that you think that people won't help one another without a gun to their ribs?  Would you donate money to help such a child?  I'm sure you would.  What makes you think that others won't?  If you asked the hypothetical parents of the hypothetical child if it would be OK to rob a bank to pay for the surgery, what do you think they would say?

I couldn't ask you a similar question.  Why are American citizens denying food to starving people around the world?  Are you advocating that the government force Americans to feed the planet?  It's the same argument.  Wanting something or needing something doesn't give you a right to it.

ah2
I am still waiting for an

I am still waiting for an answer Leftist...

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
TheFirstLeftist

TheFirstLeftist wrote:

Bush_Wacker wrote:

What is your moral basis for denying a dying child a heart transplant just because she can't afford it?  I can't wait to hear the answer to this.

I assume you mean that I wouldn't have the government force other people to pay for it. And you'd be correct. The great thing is that in a properous society, there is something called charity.  There are an uncountable number of instances where people voluntarily donate their time, money and expertise to help others.  There's a TV show on TLC where an American doctor goes to foreign countries and removes ridiculously sized tumors from poor people.  You think he gets paid.

Why do you have such a dim view of your fellow man that you think that people won't help one another without a gun to their ribs?  Would you donate money to help such a child?  I'm sure you would.  What makes you think that others won't?  If you asked the hypothetical parents of the hypothetical child if it would be OK to rob a bank to pay for the surgery, what do you think they would say?

I couldn't ask you a similar question.  Why are American citizens denying food to starving people around the world?  Are you advocating that the government force Americans to feed the planet?  It's the same argument.  Wanting something or needing something doesn't give you a right to it.

Charities aren't doing a very good job now are they.  As far as the world is concerned, I'm all for it.  I would rather worry about my country first and foremost though.  One step at a time and maybe we can actually become a real civilized world.

T
The lack of medical insurance has had grave consequences on individuals and the nation. In 2010 alone, 26,100 people died because they had no health insurance — that is 502 preventable deaths a week.

Read more: Ten States Dying for Health Coverage - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2012/06/26/ten-states-dying-for-health-coverage/#ixzz1zOcVHdHI

Yeah for charity!!!

chilidog
Even assuming that I couldn't

Even assuming that I couldn't care less about children dying because they couldn't get heart transplants, even assuming that I actually enjoy seeing lame people thrusting about on the street because they couldn't get a broken limb properly set, I still have the self-interest of not getting sick, myself, and the odds of my getting sick are much lower when all the wretched refuse teeming in my city have access to health care.

Of course we could all abandon the cities and become bait-shop entrepreneurs in the bayou. 

chilidog
mauiman58 wrote: Yes Jesus

mauiman58 wrote:

Yes Jesus does call for us to help those who are less fortunate.  But he does not want the governemnt to do it, he wants the church to do it.  That's because the church actually cares about the people involved. 

The only reason there's a Wikipedia entry for Father Damien is that there are some ministries that NOONE wants to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Damien

Apparently, even the Protestants venerate him.

Does Paul Ryan's budget include appropriations and locales for these colonies?

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
  TheFirstLeftist wrote:  

 

TheFirstLeftist wrote:
   There is no more a right to health care than there is a right to shoes, food or cell phones.  The problem is supply and demand.  "Free" or low-priced health care increases demand.  The AMA has had a government-granted monopoly.  It uses this monopoly to restrict the number of people admitted to medical schools. Voila! Higher prices. 

Dr. Econ wrote:
So in a free market, everyone can afford everything they need? What a joke!

TheFirstLeftist wrote:
Of course not!  Who ever said that?  ....Some people will still be dependent on charity. 

Will they have a right to that charity?

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Lefty you are advocating that

Lefty you are advocating that life and health should be a commodity.  That's really what it boils down to.  I don't think that being healthy and alive should depend upon whether you can afford it or not.  Not anymore than I believe that the air that we breath is a commodity.  This is just starting to get old.  What has the world come to when your basic morality is for sale?

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
TheFirstLeftist

TheFirstLeftist wrote:

"[Free-market]Capitalism, even when undermined and hampered by government intervention, has no peer when it comes to providing more abundant, and therefore cheaper, goods and services for all. And the less it is hampered, the better it achieves those results, without violating individual liberty. That means that virtually all survive better, making capitalism dramatically anti-Darwinian. Over the past two centuries, roughly six times as many people have been enabled to survive on the earth, with dramatically longer lifespans, as well.

Ah, the usual dribble from CATO dropouts. Next you will complain that the last two centuries were a wasteland, caused by welfare states and government regulation!

The past two centuries - or at least the last 100 years of advanced industrial and technological development - were run predominantly by mixed economies.

May I remind you that the US is something like ranked 34th in health care, with a higher infant mortality than Cuba.  You can do worse than the US with bad government regulated health care, or you can do better. I propose we do better.

 

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
mauiman58 wrote: Good points

mauiman58 wrote:

Good points made by the FirstLeftist.  I'll summarize if I may.  Capitalism, for all its flaws is still far and away the best economic system out there.  Show me a better system that has worked better in the real world.

You guys are truly insane. Every 'capitalist' country in the world has some sort of government run insurance or medical system.

There is no other feasible economic system than a mixed economy - one that regulates the free market. That is the only system.

You can regulate it well, or worse. It is up to you.

Commonsense461
Yes he his Jan for he is The

Yes he his Jan for he is The shadow!