Socialized healthcare

[David S]

If the US had a socialized healthcare system how would it affect costs? Please explain your answers.

[John Dibble]

It'll burden the healthy with the costs via taxes - they don't pay for as much healthcare now, since they are healthy, but they'll be paying for it even if they don't use it under a socialized system.

[opebo]

I assume the rich would pay for the care of the poor.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Like all state run things, it depends how it's planned.

[A18]

I don't really care what will happen to the costs. What's important is that (A) there needs to be competition, and (B) taxes shouldn't go up, nor should government get involved.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(A) there needs to be competition

Wrong

[MaC]

A18 IS right in the first assertion.  There needs to be competition.  With competition businesses strive to produce the safest, cheapest, and all around best product available.  Without competition, there's really no incentive to do better and things get worse.  This is only one of the many reasons why I support a free market in health care rather than a government controlled monopoly.

[Cashcow]

It's generally a very bad idea.

[J.R. Brown]

I don't really care what will happen to the costs. What's important is that (A) there needs to be competition, and (B) taxes shouldn't go up, nor should government get involved.

This may be an extremely idiotic question, but is there any way you can maintain that much needed competition without forcing families into debt with outrageous hospital bills?

[David S]

I don't really care what will happen to the costs. What's important is that (A) there needs to be competition, and (B) taxes shouldn't go up, nor should government get involved.

This may be an extremely idiotic question, but is there any way you can maintain that much needed competition without forcing families into debt with outrageous hospital bills?

Its not an idiotic question. In my honest opinion the best system for delivering quality goods and services at the lowest price is a competitive free market. But that system requires that the person receiving the goods or services must be the one who is paying for them. As soon as you make a third party the payer then the incentive to shop for the best price is lost.

Medical Insurance or government provided healthcare don't make healthcare cheaper. They just redistribute the costs to others. For big ticket items, redistributing the cost through insurance  makes sense to protect yourself from unexpected and expensive things that probably won't happen to you but which would be financially disasterous if they did. That's what we should have insurance for. But for routine items like doctor visits, prescriptions etc we should pay out of pocket. If insurance pays for the routine stuff they have to add on administrative costs, and profits , and worst of all it insulates us from the price, so we don't make good shopping decisions.

A competitive free market on the other hand can make healthcare cheaper. When healthcare providers are forced to compete they must either delivery quality products at low prices or lose business to their competitors. Competition is a powerful force that drives innovation.

[Dave from Michigan]

socialized healthcare is bad the quality will suffer too.

[J.R. Brown]

I think the two main things that we need to focus on in reforming the Healthcare policies in this country would have to be:
1) Maintaining effective competition and the highest quality of healthcare technology.
2) Making sure NOBODY is left behind. The individual must not suffer from this competition. We need to make sure that all people receive high quality healthcare. I believe that this is the most crucial component in healthcare reform.

[John Dibble]

I think the two main things that we need to focus on in reforming the Healthcare policies in this country would have to be:
1) Maintaining effective competition and the highest quality of healthcare technology.
2) Making sure NOBODY is left behind. The individual must not suffer from this competition. We need to make sure that all people receive high quality healthcare. I believe that this is the most crucial component in healthcare reform.

Pick one or the other - I don't think you can necessarily have both. Of course, if we were really a free market in healthcare, costs probably wouldn't be as high as they are.

[David S]

I think the two main things that we need to focus on in reforming the Healthcare policies in this country would have to be:
1) Maintaining effective competition and the highest quality of healthcare technology.
2) Making sure NOBODY is left behind. The individual must not suffer from this competition. We need to make sure that all people receive high quality healthcare. I believe that this is the most crucial component in healthcare reform.

Getting costs under control should be of utmost importance. Medicare and Medicaid were created in the mid 60's to provide basic healthcare for the elderly and the poor. But now the cost of those programs is 100 times as much as it was then. Thats a much greater rise than inflation. And now healthcare is so expensive that working people can't afford it and even huge companies like GM are struggling under the weight of healthcare costs for employees and retirees. Healthcare now accounts for about 15% of US GDP, and it is still going up with no sign of slowing down. If we don't get it under control soon no one will be able to afford it. It also seems unfair that working people can't afford health insurance but their taxes subsidize Medicaid for the poor.

[J.R. Brown]

I think the two main things that we need to focus on in reforming the Healthcare policies in this country would have to be:
1) Maintaining effective competition and the highest quality of healthcare technology.
2) Making sure NOBODY is left behind. The individual must not suffer from this competition. We need to make sure that all people receive high quality healthcare. I believe that this is the most crucial component in healthcare reform.

Pick one or the other - I don't think you can necessarily have both. Of course, if we were really a free market in healthcare, costs probably wouldn't be as high as they are.

We need both. Either one these without the other would be a pointless attempt at reform.

[Jake]

Both aren't possible. You can't subsidize health care for one group and still expect a free market for the rest.

[John Dibble]

I think the two main things that we need to focus on in reforming the Healthcare policies in this country would have to be:
1) Maintaining effective competition and the highest quality of healthcare technology.
2) Making sure NOBODY is left behind. The individual must not suffer from this competition. We need to make sure that all people receive high quality healthcare. I believe that this is the most crucial component in healthcare reform.

Pick one or the other - I don't think you can necessarily have both. Of course, if we were really a free market in healthcare, costs probably wouldn't be as high as they are.

We need both. Either one these without the other would be a pointless attempt at reform.

Well, if you had to ensure that nobody was left behind, it would require the state butting in, decreasing the competitive and free nature of the market. I'd go with a free market with competition, because prices would decrease that way(as I said, we are not now a real free market).

[J.R. Brown]

The main problem with this bullsh**t debate is that too many people think of healthcare as an industry whose main purpose is to provide profit to those who facilitate the technologies in the field instead of thinking of it as an industry used to sustain life.

[David S]

The main problem with this bullsh**t debate is that too many people think of healthcare as an industry whose main purpose is to provide profit to those who facilitate the technologies in the field instead of thinking of it as an industry used to sustain life.

The purpose of every industry in America is to make a profit. If they don't make a profit they go out of business. Even in a socialist system they at least have to break even. But the advantage with capitalism is that competition forces innovative means of improving the product and reducing the cost. The PC you're sitting at now is a classic example of that process. My first PC, purchased 15 years ago, cost $2000. The second one, purchased about 7 years ago, cost $1400 and it was bigger, better, faster and had more features. The one I own now cost about $700 two years ago and it is way better in all respects than the previous  two. The manufacturers didn't make these improvements because they like me, or for the benefit of mankind. They did it to make a profit by staying  ahead of the competition. But even though their motivation was greed, the end result was indeed a benefit to mankind. Thats the beauty of  a competitive free market.

[J.R. Brown]

The main problem with this bullsh**t debate is that too many people think of healthcare as an industry whose main purpose is to provide profit to those who facilitate the technologies in the field instead of thinking of it as an industry used to sustain life.

The purpose of every industry in America is to make a profit. If they don't make a profit they go out of business. Even in a socialist system they at least have to break even. But the advantage with capitalism is that competition forces innovative means of improving the product and reducing the cost. The PC you're sitting at now is a classic example of that process. My first PC, purchased 15 years ago, cost $2000. The second one, purchased about 7 years ago, cost $1400 and it was bigger, better, faster and had more features. The one I own now cost about $700 two years ago and it is way better in all respects than the previous  two. The manufacturers didn't make these improvements because they like me, or for the benefit of mankind. They did it to make a profit by staying  ahead of the competition. But even though their motivation was greed, the end result was indeed a benefit to mankind. Thats the beauty of  a competitive free market.

So, you think that the most innovative and most effective healthcare technologies should be given to those who can afford it. Going with your "free market" idea, if a new drug or technology came out that cured Cancer, people would have to wait for the price to drop in order to afford the drug or technology. That makes sense. You can't compare healthcare to material things like PC's. That's just cold man.

[MaC]

actually, if we had a true free market system, people in general would have a great deal more money and health costs would be cheaper.  However the free market adresses your point of the poor people.  In a free market there would be plenty of private charities (including health care charities) for those who are less economically sound.  People who would have far less taxes would probably be more generous in giving to these charities, since the money they put into them will be given at will rather than at force.

Does that answer it J.R.?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's always nice to see your predjudices confirmed. In this case that Libertarians should be kept away from having anything to do with healthcare with a bargepole.

Like it or not, the private sector cannot deliever healthcare effieciently to the bulk of the population. It has no incentive to do so and the only way you could make that happen is for the state to subsidise it... something that you lot should be very, very opposed to. And if that were the case, it would cost even more and would be very ineffiecient.

Unfortunately, the state isn't always all that effiecent at providing healthcare either; it needs to be planned properly or it doesn't work very well IMO.

I would argue that the U.S's current problems with healthcare won't get resolved unless there's a will among politicians for very radical changes. A Nye Bevan is needed.

[John Dibble]

It's always nice to see your predjudices confirmed. In this case that Libertarians should be kept away from having anything to do with healthcare with a bargepole.

Like it or not, the private sector cannot deliever healthcare effieciently to the bulk of the population. It has no incentive to do so and the only way you could make that happen is for the state to subsidise it... something that you lot should be very, very opposed to. And if that were the case, it would cost even more and would be very ineffiecient.

Unfortunately, the state isn't always all that effiecent at providing healthcare either; it needs to be planned properly or it doesn't work very well IMO.

I would argue that the U.S's current problems with healthcare won't get resolved unless there's a will among politicians for very radical changes. A Nye Bevan is needed.

It's always nice to see your prejudices confirmed. In this case that Socialists should be kept away from having anything to do with healthcare with a bargepole.

[David S]

The main problem with this bullsh**t debate is that too many people think of healthcare as an industry whose main purpose is to provide profit to those who facilitate the technologies in the field instead of thinking of it as an industry used to sustain life.

The purpose of every industry in America is to make a profit. If they don't make a profit they go out of business. Even in a socialist system they at least have to break even. But the advantage with capitalism is that competition forces innovative means of improving the product and reducing the cost. The PC you're sitting at now is a classic example of that process. My first PC, purchased 15 years ago, cost $2000. The second one, purchased about 7 years ago, cost $1400 and it was bigger, better, faster and had more features. The one I own now cost about $700 two years ago and it is way better in all respects than the previous  two. The manufacturers didn't make these improvements because they like me, or for the benefit of mankind. They did it to make a profit by staying  ahead of the competition. But even though their motivation was greed, the end result was indeed a benefit to mankind. Thats the beauty of  a competitive free market.

So, you think that the most innovative and most effective healthcare technologies should be given to those who can afford it. Going with your "free market" idea, if a new drug or technology came out that cured Cancer, people would have to wait for the price to drop in order to afford the drug or technology. That makes sense. You can't compare healthcare to material things like PC's. That's just cold man.

Why do you believe that nothing good can happen unless the government does it? My comment on PCs was meant to show that the free market has made fantastic computers available at prices that people of modest means can afford. Whats wrong with that? I've also shown, in other posts, how vision correction surgery has become less expensive under a free market system, while other medical costs have skyrocketed. 

Do you expect government to provide your house for you? No- you buy it yourself without government help. Same thing for your clothes, your car and for the most part your food. It is you who gets these things for you not the government. Why do you think it inconceiveable that the same could happen with healthcare?

[angus]

If the US had a socialized healthcare system how would it affect costs? Please explain your answers.

according to Carol Moseley-Braun, we are currently spending about 14% of our GDP on health care.  Personally, I spent next to zero on healthcare before I was married and never really payed attention to the issue.  I was among the 41 million americans with no insurance and I liked being there.  I had a great deal, if I wanted, and it would have cost less than 100 per month for excellent insurance, but I figured I'd rather have had that 100 in my pocket.  Nowadays, I'm married and have a child, and I reckon  I spend about 9% of my gross income, additively, on premiums, bills, doctors, pills, etc.  I get excellent healthcare.  If you offer a plan whereby I could get the same quality healthcare for 15% of my gross income rather than 9%, I'd say go screw.  If you offered a healthcare plan whereby I would still only spend 9% of my gross income, but the quality would be worse, I'd still say go screw.  And these, frankly, are the two plans being bandied about by the socialized healthcare people.  In one scenario, we spend, collectively, about 15% of our income and get the same quality treatment.  In the other scenario, the price goes down, and so does the quality.  Since I'm in a position in which I'd be adversely affected by either one, I say go back to the drawing board and come up with something else.  Or, just don't bother, since I'm satisfied with what I have.  Go sell it to the Russians or something, and leave me the  alone.  Thank you.