View Single Post
Old 07-10-2007, 01:06 PM   #65
Alex
.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,354
Alex is the epitome of coolAlex is the epitome of coolAlex is the epitome of coolAlex is the epitome of coolAlex is the epitome of coolAlex is the epitome of coolAlex is the epitome of coolAlex is the epitome of coolAlex is the epitome of coolAlex is the epitome of coolAlex is the epitome of cool
Yes, there are services the government should provide.

But going to a single payer, government controlled system does not remove the "profit motive" it just turns it around. You can always justify adding more police or more fire stations to an environment? So why don't we have a firetruck for every block? Because it would cost too much so you try to create a balance between too few firemen and too expensive firemen. It is a political profit motive. "What is the most we can take from the taxpayers before they vote for somebody else" is just the same thing as "what is the most we can charge the customers before they stop buying."

Instead of a drone in a cubical in a suburban Minneapolis industrial park deciding that Treatment X is too expensive for you, a drone in a cubical in a suburban Washington, D.C., will make that decision. "Free" health care is not going to mean that you can go into your local hospital and get a "free" full body MRI every day just for prevention.

I am also interested in what would happen to the idea of malpractice since these rationers would generally be indemnified by official immunity from the choices they make (same reason you can't sue Rumsfeld for his poor decisions in managing the war). I have no idea how other countries handle that question so I'd be pleased to see an answer.

Also, police and fire are "emergency services." Not the sole source. We already privatize these services in non-emergency situations. The All-Star Game in San Francisco tonight will be billed for the police services they use in security and local traffic control. You need a fire inspection for your new building? That isn't free.

I have no problem with the idea that parts of the health care entirety are most appropriate for governmental provision (though I do balk at the idea that if Bill Gates has a car accident I not only pay for the firemen who extract him from the car but would also have to pay for the hospital setting his broken leg) and that there need to be certain social safety nets for those unable to provide for themselves.

I'm certainly not saying the current system is perfect and I would certainly agree that there is an incentive for insurance companies to rip off the insured and there are things that can and should be done to diminish those incentives.

But one root problem is that we want "insurance" that isn't actually insurance and get really upset when the insurance companies behave as if what they are selling is actually insurance.

But if you're going to compare health care to police services you need to compare it to the whole thing, in my opinion. We pay for the policeman who arrests the shoplifter but not the security guards who caught him.

In the very long term, earlier in this thread, I also mentioned some societal problems I have with giving complete control of our personal health to the government, the biggest of which is that the government will then eventually take control of anything that can be argued as impacting that health.
Alex is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote