What makes competition inherently better than monopoly? Hint: competition.
Advertisement
by Arkolon » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:04 am
by Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:05 am
by Murkwood » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:05 am
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by Fortschritte » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:06 am
by Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:07 am
Fortschritte wrote:Countries with universal healthcare are doing better.
by Fortschritte » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:07 am
by The Sons of Adam » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:09 am
by Arkolon » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:10 am
by The Sons of Adam » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:10 am
Arkolon wrote:Fortschritte wrote:
Thanks for not answering multiple posts. Like usual, you're picking certain posts to respond to.
Anyways, how so?
More supply, fixed demand..? It's pretty self-explanatory. Competition has always either vastly reduced prices or vastly increased the quality of services. What I'm suggesting is a middle-way between the modern liberal case and the ultraconservative case: subsidising competitive health plans. Not nationalising health plans, and not leaving health plans solely up to private competition.
by Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:12 am
The Sons of Adam wrote:Privatized- Encourages competition, making companies have to provide better services for less. (You know, like how capitalism works)
Public Sector- The government has control, if it gets bad it isn't likely to get better, and you know (Collapse of Soviet economy)
by Murkwood » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:13 am
Arkolon wrote:Fortschritte wrote:
Thanks for not answering multiple posts. Like usual, you're picking certain posts to respond to.
Anyways, how so?
More supply, fixed demand..? It's pretty self-explanatory. Competition has always either vastly reduced prices or vastly increased the quality of services. What I'm suggesting is a middle-way between the modern liberal case and the ultraconservative case: subsidising competitive health plans. Not nationalising health plans, and not leaving health plans solely up to private competition.
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by Shilya » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:16 am
The Sons of Adam wrote:Fortschritte wrote:
Why should healthcare be competitive? What makes private healthcare inherently better than public healthcare?
Privatized- Encourages competition, making companies have to provide better services for less. (You know, like how capitalism works)
Public Sector- The government has control, if it gets bad it isn't likely to get better, and you know (Collapse of Soviet economy)
by Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:17 am
Shilya wrote:This would be a good argument if this was about the healthcare industry, but it isn't - it's about healthcare insurance. In other words, not doing it, but paying for it.
And there the massive buying power of the government - which has a monopsony in countries with full UHC - prevents overcharging. This encourages more effective drugs that are actually worth it, as well as competition between providers to offer the cheapest alternative. If some place wants to charge too much, they can simply not buy, and the place loses its complete customer base.
by Olivaero » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:02 am
by Arkolon » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:07 am
Olivaero wrote:Arkolon wrote:What makes competition inherently better than monopoly? Hint: competition.
Competition wont reduce the cost of health care, when your having a heart attack your in no position to make a rational judgement about which hospital offers the best care for the most reasonable price. You need the closest care and that is the one you'll be given.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:12 am
Arkolon wrote:Olivaero wrote:Competition wont reduce the cost of health care, when your having a heart attack your in no position to make a rational judgement about which hospital offers the best care for the most reasonable price. You need the closest care and that is the one you'll be given.
... don't you know how the health insurance system works?
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Arkolon » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:16 am
by Soldati Senza Confini » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:21 am
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Arkolon » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:23 am
Soldati senza confini wrote:Arkolon wrote:In any case, I doubt that in any economy with health insurance, where one has health insurance, one having a heart attack would not be directly brought to the hospital.
Oh no, the problem is not being refused on an emergency.
It's that afterwards you can end up paying up to 10,000-60,000 dollars in debt just for saving your own life by going to the hospital and not having insurance. It's ridiculous.
by The Nihilistic view » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:27 am
by Soldati Senza Confini » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:29 am
Arkolon wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:
Oh no, the problem is not being refused on an emergency.
It's that afterwards you can end up paying up to 10,000-60,000 dollars in debt just for saving your own life by going to the hospital and not having insurance. It's ridiculous.
So you make health insurance more affordable by relaxing regulatory policies and by subsidising insurance programs through voucher systems. Nationalising the whole ordeal is what sounds ridiculous to me.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Celritannia » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 am
Republic of Coldwater wrote:You mean that Singapore, which outspends the US in private healthcare has terrible health coverage? A government system not only bankrupts a nation, but hurts competition and lower prices. The reason for shitty, expensive healthcare in America is due to the lack of competition, as insurers have basically no competition. As a result, they make the decision to give you shit healthcare and high costs, but when competition happens, a company must get that customer by having the highest quality for the lowest costs without operating at a loss, and that results in lower costs for the consumer.
My DeviantArt Obey When you annoy a Celritannian U W0T M8?
| Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman. Atheist, Environmentalist |
by Agritum » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:34 am
Vazdaria wrote:Rhodisia wrote:Hello NSG, Rhodisia here. I describe myself as a social conservative, but see some very clear arguments for universal health coverage. This thread is intended to encourage debate and the free exchange of ideas regarding healthcare. Here is my conservative case for universal health coverage:
1. The current healthcare system, as it stands, is woefully inefficient. It's a national shame that we allow this system to perpetuate.
As a percentage of GDP, we outspend every other country on healthcare through private insurers, then again in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but our quality of healthcare is shameful - especially pursuant to treatable and preventable conditions. We consistently fall behind Canada, a country with universal coverage and our proverbial "little brother", in three crucial areas: in quality of care, in accessibility, and in cost. This is also true in almost all European countries. Think about it: we're a world power, and we're three hundred million strong, but we can't even make sure our citizens recover from illnesses? That is ridiculous, and the fact that we as Americans allow this to continue is shameful.
2. The current American mindset with healthcare is penny-wise and dollar-foolish.
Going back to 1776, the entire American Revolution started because of taxes. We as a nation clearly don't like taxes - but at the same time, we allow ourselves, our children, and our elderly to get sick and die from entirely curable diseases. It is far better to plan for 40 or 50 years down the line, when the next generation of Americans are in power, and we're old and fat and sick and need a doctor, than to worry about short-term ROI and taxes. I for one would much rather be taxed slightly higher than to worry about my future regarding health coverage.
3. We have certain religious and moral imperatives to take care of our own citizens - including the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally unstable.
If some of my fellow American conservatives relentlessly insist that America is a Christian nation (which it isn't), then whatever happened to Ephesians 4:32? You know, "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you?" If anything, the current attitude of calling universal health coverage "communism" is Gluttony - wanting to constantly stuff your face, but never leaving anything for the disadvantaged segments of society. If we continue to call ourselves a Christian nation, then I think it is better that we start living to some of those ideals. That, and the fact that allowing our citizens to die from lack of medical attention is morally wrong.
4. Economies of scale inherently favor a single-payer system.
Any socioeconomic institution benefits from having a larger number of participants rather than few. Healthcare is no exception to this economic law.
5. A single-payer system would reduce the number of government personnel needed to administer it - thus keeping the government from expanding.
Even when accounting for population differences, Canada - which has had a single-payer system since 1984 - still has fewer government personnel administering the funds necessary to provide universal health coverage. Compare that to the US, where our patchwork system of private insurers, Medicare, Obamacare and other laws make it very unruly to administer - for coverage that still doesn't reach our most vulnerable citizens.
Are you quite certain you're conservative? Because you sound very liberal.
by Arkolon » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:37 am
Soldati senza confini wrote:Arkolon wrote:So you make health insurance more affordable by relaxing regulatory policies and by subsidising insurance programs through voucher systems. Nationalising the whole ordeal is what sounds ridiculous to me.
The problem is that we already had to regulate them because when they were unregulated they created the mess we're in right now in the U.S.
The private market for health insurance here in the U.S. has proved to be an abject failure.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:41 am
Arkolon wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:
The problem is that we already had to regulate them because when they were unregulated they created the mess we're in right now in the U.S.
How was it unregulated, and how did you regulate it?The private market for health insurance here in the U.S. has proved to be an abject failure.
Good thing I didn't root in favour of just the market system, then, no?
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Decapoleis, Nermias, Sarduri, Shazbotdom, Tungstan
Advertisement