 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by pchang
Places like the UK with "universal" health care really have a two tier system. Poor people rely on "universal" health care for basic needs. They can even get things like hip replacements, but there are long waiting periods, because the number of applicants far exceeds the capacity of the system. |
Depends on the country, and depends on the kind of operation (all countries don't have a system identical to Britain's).
For complex or non-urgent operations like hip replacement, there can be a long waiting time (Personally, I have been stalling a coloscopy for years because my studies prevent me from being able to arrange a date monthes in advance, and I can't hope to have a coloscopy any faster).
But for everyday practice, at least in France and Germany, things go very fast. If I want to see the doctor (any doctor), I simply go to his practice and wait in the waiting room. In France, I have to pay up front, and I'll be reimbursed later. In Germany, I don't even need to carry money, as it is immediately paid by the Healthcare system.
Same goes for emergencies. They work. Same goes for conditions that are not life-threatening, but are under time pressure nonetheless, like abortion. They work too, and in time.
Now, it is true that private medicine (by "private", in France and Germany, I mostly mean "who have prices higher than those decided by the healthcare system", because most health personnel in these two countries is not employed by the State anyway) progresses quickly.
But the immense majority of people continue to rely on State-sponsored medicine, especially for the most important operations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Personally, I have been stalling a coloscopy for years because my studies prevent me from being able to arrange a date monthes in advance, and I can't hope to have a coloscopy any faster |
Are you serious?
I'm having a little bit of issues back there, and I just went to the doctor and, after the examination, gave me some dietary advice and cautioned me that, because of my age, it wouldn't kill me to have a coloscopy. When I asked him about it, he began by saying "We can probably get you in to see one (a coloscopist? Coloscopologist?  ) by next week, with the actual scoping happening about a week after that..."
Of course, I haven't the slightest idea what your problem is so it might not be urgent (like the removal of anal warts*), but here in the US we take (or are supposed to take) things like colon issues very seriously. So scoping is quite a common procedure and is by no means considered "complex" or "non urgent".
*Old Saturday Night Live joke.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
Of course, I haven't the slightest idea what your problem is so it might not be urgent (like the removal of anal warts*), but here in the US we take (or are supposed to take) things like colon issues very seriously. So scoping is quite a common procedure and is by no means considered "complex" or "non urgent". |
For me it's a supposedly routine check, as my mother nearly had a colon cancer when she was young. The last time I did it (when I was 15, i.e 8 years ago), no problem appeared, but I was to make one more 5 years later.
I'm very mobile with my studies, with me being between Bordeaux, Stuttgart and Paris. Besides, I don't like coloscopies, so the several monthes of waiting time is a good excuse 
I don't know if it would go fast if it wasn't considered a routine check, but an important check. I guess that at least I would be more motivated for it to happen quickly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
.
Last edited by Kuciwalker on 23-12-2004 at 22:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by pchang
Places like the UK with "universal" health care really have a two tier system. Poor people rely on "universal" health care for basic needs. They can even get things like hip replacements, but there are long waiting periods, because the number of applicants far exceeds the capacity of the system. In fact, this is the case for most things. Anyone with sufficient money pays for private insurance which operates much the way the US system does. These people get whatever they require and with much shorter waiting periods. |
Not correct with respect to Canada. very few people have private health insurance except with respect to travels outside the country. It is sort of two -tiered though in that 98% of people get treated the same while a truly rich person may pay a premium to get something done quicker in the states.
Mrs Flubebr worked in a US private hospital and was appalled at the rates charged and the fact that some insurance provider would be dictating the drugs that could be given to treat patients . .. The canadian system is far from perfect but we spend a LOT less money and the result is a pretty good system
If I feel the need to go to a doctor, I call my regular physician and make an appointnment ( and get in within 2-3 days usually . .. If I feel a more immediate need, I go to a walk-in clinic and usually get seen inside an hour. Neither visit would cost me a penny as long as I have my health card--- The system gets billed a standardized rate for the visit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
One reason US healthcare is expensive is we have a quasi-socialist system that piggybacked on the growth of a 3rd party payment system begun during WW II. All health care systems, even in a libertarian system, has "cost-shifting", but when the cost shifting becomes institutionalised thru partial government take overs of health care, the cost goes up for everyone with private consumers hit the hardest and earliest.
"Hello Doc, we're from Medicare and we don't want you charging that much for hip replacements. If you need to, charge your other patients more to make up for the loss..."
chegitz - quote:
Yes. Rights are not intrinsic. |
Right - n. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
righter n.
Synonyms: right, privilege, prerogative, perquisite, birthright
These nouns apply to something, such as a power or possession, to which one has an established claim. Right refers to a legally, morally, or traditionally just claim: “I'm a champion for the Rights of Woman” (Maria Edgeworth). “An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment” (Hugo L. Black).
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession —see also NATURAL RIGHT
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Aggie
quote:
Because it is an established economic phenomenon. I doubt there is a first year economics course in which you don't learn about them. It's not some invention of the left, but an established fact.
You argued that I was concerned with free riders when I'm not, that concern is yours. I don't care if some guy in the neighborhood benefits from the police my neighbors and I pay for. According to your argument, the USA would be morally right to force European countries to pay us because Europe got a free ride during the cold war. |
That's not much of an analogy, but it doesn't matter because it's not a moral question. The problem is not about who pays for it, but whether the supply meets demand. Market failure just means that supply fails to meet demand, often because the prospect of free riding is a disincentive.
If you want adequate supply, then you need collective action. You can't have collective action without coercion (because lack of individual coercion creates the problem), ergo we give up certain liberties in order to secure a good we all need, but can only secure by doing that.
It's quite simple. You can raise all sorts of moral objections if you want, but they will fall flat because we are simply all better off doing it this way. If you want to hold a moral theory that leaves people worse off, then go ahead, but you will find few takers.
quote:
quote:
For some activities governmental intervention is the only thing that can stop the free riding problem. The reason is quite simple, people wish to get as much as they can for as little as possible. Free riding in certain circumstances is prevented by markets, but other kinds of free riding are created by them. A society that adheres to an austere version of capitalism will be plagued with such problems. We are plagued with them now, but it would be worse if the government lost its power to engage in coercive taxation because we would then lose the only effective means of solving certain collective action problems.
Liberals don't care about free riding, they endorse the free lunch society. So why do liberals care about free riders under libertarianism when there are far fewer than under a quasi-socialist system? Because there are fewer free riders under libertarianism and liberals endorse the free lunch society. I think its for left wingers to feign concern over free riders given their ideological imperative to create a welfare state. |
Welfare programs are generally not "free lunch" programs except in the cases where people never contribute (the permanently unemployed, the severely disabled, etc.). People pay taxes and receive benefits back in return when they need them - just like any other insurance scheme. A few people receive more than they pay, a few less, most about the same. But overall everyone receives a lot more than they would under a private system.
As I said earlier, taxation is simply that portion of our incomes that we spend collectively and not individually. The benefits still accrue to us.
You haven't provided anything close to a refutation of my argument. You need to show how free individual choices will overcome market failures. Given that they are what cause market failures in these cases, you need to show us by what magic it will suddenly be different next time.
This is not a moral question, it is simply asking how the libertarian society will be able to supply health care cheaper and more efficiently than a public insurance program. The evidence is not on your side, there is no private program that is as efficient as the public programs in Canada, Europe and Australasia.
Worrying about transfers of wealth from the rich to the poor is a red herring. Even if we all paid exactly the same amount of tax, a public system would still be better than a private system because it can stop free riders.
quote:
quote:
Taxation just represents that portion of our incomes that we spend collectively, instead of individually.
It represents time and labor forcibly taken from other people usually under the threat of injury or death. Give us your money or else... |
Or else you will suffer the effects of market failure. Being taxed is preferable. You seem to think that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Only a lunatic would choose to live in a society with no taxation. Many things we take for granted would simply not get done, because individual incentives would work against them. The key truth is that individual self interest can be collectively self defeating. As I said this is an established fact in economics. You need to show why they are wrong, or submit to the conclusion that individuals must be compelled in certain areas for their own good. This means you must pay tax, but in return you end up paying a lot less for health care than you otherwise would have.
quote:
quote:
The government by and large does not waste money, but spends it on things that we need, like roads and the police.
Doesn't waste it? Compared to whom? |
Compared to the private sector trying to sell healthcare. Statistic after statistic shows that Canadians spend less on healthcare overall than Americans, yet Canadians get better value for the money they do spend. That means Americans are throwing money away needlessly.
quote:
That's no different than the police example, contrary to what you guys think most people will pay taxes to support a fire department if they are free. Every time we debate this issue you make these assertions backed up only by claims about "economic models". Btw, we have a volunteer fire dept here. |
No they won't. I am better off if everyone else around me pays and I don't. Their payment produces a postive externality that I can benefit from for nothing.
Do you know what an externality is? If so please explain to me why one does not exist, and why it is rational for me to pay for something I could get for free.
quote:
quote:
What this means is that it is worthwhile letting all the other people pay for the fire department because there is a good chance they'll put out the fire at your place to stop it spreading.
So no one would buy fire insurance because there's a good chance their house wont burn down? How can you depend on economic models that ignore how people really behave? |
That is how people actually behave. This is how markets work to set prices among other things. Competitors will lower prices to avoid having unsold stock, this means that they end up earning less than they might have hoped (the optimal situation is where you sell all yours and no-one else does, you get the highest price that way).
quote:
quote:
The people who pay for fire protection create a positive externality which others can take advantage of at no cost. That means it is rational not to pay.
There is always a cost, the cost of pissing people off to the cost of not getting help in case of fire. |
No there is not always a cost, that is not how externalities work. The whole point of an externality is that it is a positive or negative effect on someone else who has not consented to the transaction. There are many people who are quite happy pissing off their neighbours in our society, so your point is moot. Simple disapproval does not work, otherwise we wouldn't need laws to deal with obnoxious neighbours.
quote:
quote:
What usually happens in these situations is that very few people pay the fire department gets underfunded and the fire risk goes up.
And people react accordingly with increased funding. |
Whoever does is just subsidizing everyone else's fire protection - that will cause more people to stop paying. The free riding will get worse.
quote:
quote:
The obvious solution is to allow an authority the power to force people to pay for their own fire protection.
That is an immoral solution. |
Only if you believe that having cities burn down is better than having adequate fire protection. This is another absurdity which exposes the fundamentally mistaken assumptions of libertarians.
quote:
quote:
This makes sure that no-one can free ride on any externalities.
What if I don't want your fire protection? I get punished? How is this any different than Mafia "protection"? |
No. Externalities are what you get despite what you want. You cannot charge other people for them in a free market - that's true by definition.
You need to read up on some basic economics before you start adovocating the wholesale destruction of society.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-12-2004 18:59
|