NationStates

Reaganiffic wrote:Every argument that can be said for socializing healthcare can be said for any other product.

Uhh, no it can't. I've got chronic but non-debilitating conditions that prevent me from purchasing health insurance from free market providers. Even if I don't choose to treat them, I'm necessarily covered in case I DO need to treat them in the future. As such, I'm far outside the normal risk pools, and insurers won't even take my calls.

If I've got cash in my account, I can buy food, cars, and other comsumer products at will. I can't buy insurance unless a government-imposed insurance pool is established. Don't tell me there's no difference or that it's simple. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Rebellious Fishermen wrote:I don't mind a public healthcare plan as long as the private healthcare sector is left alone.

Apparently that's not something anyone can accept with this all or nothing attitude.

I doubt that is possible as public healthcare will drive potential customers into the public healthcare and hurt the private healthcare sector, which will subsequently hurt the far more flexible private sector.

I think you misunderstand, the public healthcare option would create a baseline for every citizen to have basic healthcare provided by the government. This way everyone has healthcare even if they can't afford it while those that can afford higher level healthcare would pay for it via the private sector. Unfortunately this would mean an increase in taxes or a decrease in spending elsewhere.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Lalaki wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... _blog.html

Most countries with universal health care have shorter waiting periods than the United States. Canada happens to be an exception.

How about countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore with true, not phony free market healthcare?

Hong Kong and Singapore are in very unique situations, with different cultural attitudes than found in western countries. Plus, both of them are very small city-states with international economies. Their systems are not feasible for a country as large as the United States.

What is feasible is a universal system under a market framework.

When people have consistent access to basic healthcare at no direct cost it is actually cheaper for all involved and has a massive economic benefit to the point where the cost is far outweighed by the profit because healthy workforce is a productive workforce. By all means let there be some private institutions but the current system in the US for example is cost ineffective and leaves many people either with no ability to get treatment or their finances in total ruin when they do get it - nobody should have to suffer because the cost of treating their sicknesses which they have no control over is too much. If you have a right to life why do you not have a right to your health? The privatge sector can and should handle elective treatments and procedures while the necessary treatments and procedures should be available to anyone who needs them and it should not have to cost anything out of their pocket.

Lalaki wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:If you can afford taxes that can pay for health insurance, protection and other necessities then you are more than able to afford private health insurance. The problem is that we have an income tax that costs more than the rest of your living costs. We take that out of the equation, and naturally more people will become insured.

And what happens to the American lower class?

We need a compromise. Like I've said before, we should provide universal health care under a market system, with a public option included.

American lower class...lets assume that they earn 15-20k/year (pretty typical for a lower class worker)

They pay 10% of that to the government, which is $1500-$2000

Health Insurance plans range from $750-$2000 (depends on the quality), so yes, they will be able to afford it, and the lower cost healthcare plans are not that bad, especially for young people. Just end the income tax.

Reaganiffic wrote:Too often I hear the arguments from liberals that healthcare is somehow different than buying potatoes or an ipod, that the free market cannot work. I think these arguments are a load of rubbish.

Information asymmetry exists in all markets, you don't know where your potatoes come from or how much pollution making them costs. There are various concentrations in various industries, many of them successfully run by the free market. If you buy a parachute and you choose wrong you still die, but the free market runs the parachute industry with success. So why not free markets?

Could it be that liberals don't want to give the American way a chance before they go around making things more socialist? I sense some bias at work here.

They can, however what the markets deem as efficient we would not approve of.

The market would view once the cost of life saving treatment exceeds your savings and expected earnings ( what you can borrow against), treatment is ceased. This would be perfectly efficient as people would not use more than they produce.

The problem is doctors are people and few are willing to cease life saving treatment on the grounds of can't pay the bills. Further, hospitals, and governmental bodies are composed of people unlikely to cease life saving treatment on the basis of cost.

So excepting human nature as what it is generally compassionate a single payer system gives us more of what we want from a health care system.

Public sector health insurance is better able to smooth risk over larger risk pools by subsidising high-risk people (often the neediest, since poverty is causally related with poor health), regardless of income. This is done by leveraging higher premiums on higher-income person through proportional taxation. In other words, a risky person with lower income is paying less of a "premium" in taxes than a high-income person with relatively lower risk, since how much you pay in taxes toward health insurance isn't dependent on your personal health risk. Basically, the public sector can transfer the risk-adjusted premium onto people more capable of bearing it.

Private sector health insurance necessarily has to provide each person with a risk-adjusted premium, so you get people who are riskier for any number of reasons burdened with a higher premium to mitigate that risk for the insurer - and ensure profitability -, whether or not they can afford it. It's nowhere near as equitable, especially when we're dealing with something as basic as healthcare.

The Grim Reaper wrote:

Reaganiffic wrote:Every argument that can be said for socializing healthcare can be said for any other product. We know that a command economy is bad, therefore arguments for socializing healthcare are wrong. It's that simple, and it's the truth.

Let's take this one step at a time.

Firstly, apply that argument to iPods, and then we talk about potatoes.

We should nationalize Apple because they have a monopoly since their appeal is their branding so the market is not competitive since other companies can't use their branding stuff. iPods cannot exist in a real free market, just like healthcare.

So do I get an award?

Reaganiffic wrote:

United States of The One Percent wrote:First, create a free market somewhere. Then we'll see if it can provide healthcare, or anything else for that matter.

btw do a little research on outcomes and costs before boosting for "the American way," especially in healthcare.

It may cost more but at least we don't have those terrible Canadian wait times. It's like saying that we should ban three-star Michelin restaurants because they are more expensive than McDonalds.

No, it's like saying we shouldn't pretend America's health care system is "the best in the world" just because it costs a lot when the outcomes it produces are some of the worst in the industrialized world. That's like paying for Beluga caviar, foie gras and lobster and getting a lukewarm Happy Meal with no toy.

Rebellious Fishermen wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:I doubt that is possible as public healthcare will drive potential customers into the public healthcare and hurt the private healthcare sector, which will subsequently hurt the far more flexible private sector.

I think you misunderstand, the public healthcare option would create a baseline for every citizen to have basic healthcare provided by the government. This way everyone has healthcare even if they can't afford it while those that can afford higher level healthcare would pay for it via the private sector. Unfortunately this would mean an increase in taxes or a decrease in spending elsewhere.

It might actually lead to a decrease, the fed spends billions subsidizing hospitals whose customers are not paying for emergency room treatment - if emergency treatment was already from a public pool there would be more standards in pricing. If you make basic preventative medicine available to the public as well then you decrease the amount of people needing emergency treatment and could in fact actually save money.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Lalaki wrote:
And what happens to the American lower class?

We need a compromise. Like I've said before, we should provide universal health care under a market system, with a public option included.

American lower class...lets assume that they earn 15-20k/year (pretty typical for a lower class worker)

They pay 10% of that to the government, which is $1500-$2000

Health Insurance plans range from $750-$2000 (depends on the quality), so yes, they will be able to afford it, and the lower cost healthcare plans are not that bad, especially for young people. Just end the income tax.

Add housing, education, food/water, transportation, childcare, and everything else on top of that. Lower class Americans would be struggling to make ends meet, more so than they already do.

Lalaki wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:How about countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore with true, not phony free market healthcare?

Hong Kong and Singapore are in very unique situations, with different cultural attitudes than found in western countries. Plus, both of them are very small city-states with international economies. Their systems are not feasible for a country as large as the United States.

What is feasible is a universal system under a market framework.

How does any of that effect the affect of free market healthcare to the populace? I understand that there are cultural differences, I know many people from those places and they have different cultural attitudes, but that does not mean Free Markets won't be feasible and workable in America. Furthermore, their economies are large and they do have a lot of people, so they aren't that different from countries and if we can just blow the system up proportionally, what will go wrong?

Reaganiffic wrote:

The Grim Reaper wrote:
Let's take this one step at a time.

Firstly, apply that argument to iPods, and then we talk about potatoes.

We should nationalize Apple because they have a monopoly since their appeal is their branding so the market is not competitive since other companies can't use their branding stuff. iPods cannot exist in a real free market, just like healthcare.

So do I get an award?

So, you don't understand what I mean by a public good.

Lalaki wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:How about countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore with true, not phony free market healthcare?

Hong Kong and Singapore are in very unique situations, with different cultural attitudes than found in western countries. Plus, both of them are very small city-states with international economies. Their systems are not feasible for a country as large as the United States.

What is feasible is a universal system under a market framework.

This. And why do you hate America all of a sudden? If you don't like Obamacare go live in Hong Kong or Singapore; just don't tweet anything bad about China or spit your gum on the sidewalk respectively....

Markets usually fail (under very strict textbook economics perspectives). Some things are just more important than others to risk it. Healthcare is one of those (and it's probably externalities, i.e. misleading price signals that are the bigger issue here). That said, I don't see any reason to not let a private health system exist, it's just that only having one is gambling with lives.

Lalaki wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:American lower class...lets assume that they earn 15-20k/year (pretty typical for a lower class worker)

They pay 10% of that to the government, which is $1500-$2000

Health Insurance plans range from $750-$2000 (depends on the quality), so yes, they will be able to afford it, and the lower cost healthcare plans are not that bad, especially for young people. Just end the income tax.

Add housing, education, food/water, transportation, childcare, and everything else on top of that. Lower class Americans would be struggling to make ends meet, more so than they already do.

Then how don't the poor struggle as you depict them to do so right now? HealthCare costs less than taxes, so if we abolish the income tax, they will pay for the healthcare that costs less and they will have a net increase in income, improving their situation.

Reaganiffic wrote:

Avenio wrote:Lots of externalities and the inherent inability to square a profit motivation with providing effective and humane health services.

Why can't we say the same thing for agriculture?

... Agriculture really isn't all that much like the healthcare sector.

Single payer health care is superior because it can control costs and utilize economies of scale. Also, it can ensure that everyone has coverage at no direct cost to them. Its the most equitable and efficient model.

United States of The One Percent wrote:

Lalaki wrote:
Hong Kong and Singapore are in very unique situations, with different cultural attitudes than found in western countries. Plus, both of them are very small city-states with international economies. Their systems are not feasible for a country as large as the United States.

What is feasible is a universal system under a market framework.

This. And why do you hate America all of a sudden? If you don't like Obamacare go live in Hong Kong or Singapore; just don't tweet anything bad about China or spit your gum on the sidewalk respectively....

...what? I love my country. That is precisely why I am advocating for reforms to make it better, especially for our hardworking and struggling lower class.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Lalaki wrote:
Add housing, education, food/water, transportation, childcare, and everything else on top of that. Lower class Americans would be struggling to make ends meet, more so than they already do.

Then how don't the poor struggle as you depict them to do so right now? HealthCare costs less than taxes, so if we abolish the income tax, they will pay for the healthcare that costs less and they will have a net increase in income, improving their situation.

We provide welfare to them. Food stamps, Medicaid for eligible individuals, public schools, housing aid, etc.

United States of The One Percent wrote:

Lalaki wrote:
Hong Kong and Singapore are in very unique situations, with different cultural attitudes than found in western countries. Plus, both of them are very small city-states with international economies. Their systems are not feasible for a country as large as the United States.

What is feasible is a universal system under a market framework.

This. And why do you hate America all of a sudden? If you don't like Obamacare go live in Hong Kong or Singapore; just don't tweet anything bad about China or spit your gum on the sidewalk respectively....

I don't hate America, I want it to improve. I love America, and that is exactly why I am talking about these issues. If I hated America I would let it slide into this dangerous path of socialism and fractional banking.

Lalaki wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:Then how don't the poor struggle as you depict them to do so right now? HealthCare costs less than taxes, so if we abolish the income tax, they will pay for the healthcare that costs less and they will have a net increase in income, improving their situation.

We provide welfare to them. Food stamps, Medicaid for eligible individuals, public schools, housing aid, etc.

Food doesn't cost much, HealthCare I already covered and we can move towards vouchers, while housing can also be paid for without aid (cheap housing is perfectly payable with $15k-$20k)

SaintB wrote:

Rebellious Fishermen wrote:
I think you misunderstand, the public healthcare option would create a baseline for every citizen to have basic healthcare provided by the government. This way everyone has healthcare even if they can't afford it while those that can afford higher level healthcare would pay for it via the private sector. Unfortunately this would mean an increase in taxes or a decrease in spending elsewhere.

It might actually lead to a decrease, the fed spends billions subsidizing hospitals whose customers are not paying for emergency room treatment - if emergency treatment was already from a public pool there would be more standards in pricing. If you make basic preventative medicine available to the public as well then you decrease the amount of people needing emergency treatment and could in fact actually save money.

I'm always down for a plan that actually lowers costs while maintaining effectiveness.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Lalaki wrote:
We provide welfare to them. Food stamps, Medicaid for eligible individuals, public schools, housing aid, etc.

Food doesn't cost much, HealthCare I already covered and we can move towards vouchers, while housing can also be paid for without aid (cheap housing is perfectly payable with $15k-$20k)

Cheap doesn't necessarily mean quality. A house may cost $15,000 but it could be made out of substandard materials, badly maintained and bhave a whole load off issues with it such as poor heat retention or moisture retention.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Lalaki wrote:
We provide welfare to them. Food stamps, Medicaid for eligible individuals, public schools, housing aid, etc.

Food doesn't cost much, HealthCare I already covered and we can move towards vouchers, while housing can also be paid for without aid (cheap housing is perfectly payable with $15k-$20k)

Again, take everything in combination. Food can be a lot for American families, especially if you are trying to maintain a healthy diet.

Health care can be paid for with $15k. Food can. Shelter can. Transpiration can. Schooling can.

But $15k won't pay for all of that in total.