Quote: The doctor is should be free to allocate his time as he pleases. If hed rather spend his time kissing my toe and this bothers you: put your money where your mouth is, and go to medical school.

Hospitals aren't managed that way. The doctor doesn't get to decide who he will get to heal in a private health care system. His employer does. It's also his employer who is safely tucked away from the horrifying consequences of his decisions. The doctor, or orderly, has to bear the brunt of the guilt, and he has to lift the heavy hand.

There's really very little choice in the matter, and what choice there is is extremely unfair. Either a doctor opens a private practice, does pro bono work, and basically lives his life on a tattered string (Especially in an unforgiving System like the one in the U.S.), or he sucks it up. I'm not going to fault someone for choosing his own financial security over charity. It's not exactly an easy decision. I could easily forgo my career, my personal ambition, and go do missionary work in Africa.

I certainly respect people that do it, but I'm not brave enough to make that step. Not many people are.

Mind you, we are talking about serious life-saving medical intervention. Dentists and family GPs here still have private practices--Because the free clinics are completely useless. And if I hurt my toe (To use the same analogy), or I have a cough, I go to my family GP, who prescribes my medication, and who advises me to go to the Hospital only if necessary. I don't go to the Emergency room--Although some cheap bastards do that here >/.

Consultations with Specialists from the hospital usually carry a long waiting list though, unless the GP decides that I need to be examined right now--I believe that good communication between the Private sector and the Public Health system is a must. GPs and private hospitals also do most of the blood tests.

So you see, instant quick response examinations are handled by the private sector (Which everyone can damn well afford), while the serious stuff is handled by the public sector.

I actually like that system. If you have to go through the public sector to get a mediocre procedure or examination, then I agree, that's extremely broken. On the other hand, I can't imagine living without the security that if I ever get run over by a car, I can look forward to prompt and proper treatment, with the bill already paid, and no further hassle (Except my own recovery) required.

Quote: My healthcare is largely forced from others at gunpoint. That is enough to make me dissatisfied with it. Me deciding what is best for me, or me delegating those decisions to others on a consensual basis, is completely illigal.

I generally respect Laize-Fairre economic theory. But at the end of the day one can't deny the pure and simple fact that "Market Failure" has a lot of case studies.

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan

Quote: The doctor is should be free to allocate his time as he pleases. If hed rather spend his time kissing my toe and this bothers you: put your money where your mouth is, and go to medical school.

Hospitals aren't managed that way. The doctor doesn't get to decide who he will get to heal in a private health care system. His employer does. It's also his employer who is safely tucked away from the horrifying consequences of his decisions. The doctor, or orderly, has to bear the brunt of the guilt, and he has to lift the heavy hand.

There's really very little choice in the matter, and what choice there is is extremely unfair. Either a doctor opens a private practice, does pro bono work, and basically lives his life on a tattered string (Especially in an unforgiving System like the one in the U.S.), or he sucks it up. I'm not going to fault someone for choosing his own financial security over charity. It's not exactly an easy decision. I could easily forgo my career, my personal ambition, and go do missionary work in Africa.

I certainly respect people that do it, but I'm not brave enough to make that step. Not many people are.

You arnt brave enough, so other people should be forced to fill the gap between your words and deeds?

In general, i think it is unfair to place the burden of egalitarian ideals on the shoulders of a small subset of people. If 'society wants' everyone to have healthcare, then society as a whole should foot the bill, instead of limiting the freedoms of doctors.

Quote:
Mind you, we are talking about serious life-saving medical intervention. Dentists and family GPs here still have private practices--Because the free clinics are completely useless. And if I hurt my toe (To use the same analogy), or I have a cough, I go to my family GP, who prescribes my medication, and who advises me to go to the Hospital only if necessary. I don't go to the Emergency room--Although some cheap bastards do that here >/.

Consultations with Specialists from the hospital usually carry a long waiting list though. Unless the GP decides that I need to be examined right now--I believe that good communication between the Private sector and the Public Health system is a must. GPs and private hospitals also do most of the blood tests.

So you see, instant quick response examinations are handled by the private sector (Which everyone can damn well afford), while the serious stuff is handled by the public sector.

I actually like that system. If you have to go through the public sector to get a mediocre procedure or examination, then I agree, that's extremely broken. On the other hand, I can't imagine living without the security that if I ever get run over by a car, I can look forward to prompt and proper treatment, with the bill already paid, and no further hassle (Except my own recovery) required.

I am not arguing against insurance against catastropic situations. Thats whats insurance is for. And such insurance is very affordable, in places where it is allowed to exist.

But insurance isnt allowed to be insurance. If obama has his way, for instance (and this is already true to a large extent), you can no longer buy insurance, but only some frankenstein deal consisting of insurance, a savings plan, all cemented together with loads of redistributative measures.

Im insured for female contraceptive pills, a montly recurring cost, and im a man. Not because i chose to, i can guarantee you that. They call it insurance, but the intent and effect is redistribution.

The idea of insurance against dental care, or other repetitive and relatively minor costs, is completely riciulous. That most people are insured against this sort of thing, is a sign of a horribly fucked mindset (spurred by some horribly fucked incentives, such as no taxation on empoyer-provided healthcare). For such small sums, the arbitration costs far outweight the money involved in actually paying for care.

Quote:

Quote: My healthcare is largely forced from others at gunpoint. That is enough to make me dissatisfied with it. Me deciding what is best for me, or me delegating those decisions to others on a consensual basis, is completely illigal.

I generally respect Laize-Fairre economic theory. But at the end of the day one can't deny the pure and simple fact that "Market Failure" has a lot of case studies.

I think there is a strong case to be made for centralizing emergency care to some degree. You dont want to haggle over whether you have your insurance card with you when you are bent into a burning car wreck, and simply saying 'you can not refuse emergency care!' is again nothing but shifting the burden to the people who actually provide medical care.

As far as redistribution of wealth is concerned: please be honest about your aims, instead of sneaking redistribution in through all sorts of cracks, full of unintended consequences.

Quote: Original post by CirdanValen
I don't want hospitals to end up being run like the DMV. Then there is the whole increasing our national deficit. Gov't control = BAD. VERY BAD.

It's funny you mention that.

I went to the DMV 2 months ago to renew my license. I walked in without an appointment, and saw probably about 130 people waiting. I was prepared to wait for 3+ hours.

30 minutes later my license was renewed and I was on my way home, pleasantly surprised.


Now lets contrast that with my last doctor appointment, which was just a regular checkup. I had an appointment for 10am, and an important business meeting to get to at 2pm. I come in at 9:30 and sign in. There's about 20 people in the waiting room. Around noon I get hungry but I can't leave, he could call me in at any moment. 1:30 arrives and I'm still sitting there, having read the past 4 months of Time magazine. Finally, I decide to just leave, because guess what, I have a meeting I have to get to or else I'll get in trouble at my job.

A week later I get a bill in the mail for $200 for breaking an appointment.

Un fucking believable. A Doctor wastes 4 hours of my life by not being able to see me at the appointed time, and then has the audacity to charge me for wasting my time. I still to this day have refused to pay it, and it's now on my credit report as a delinquent debt (I don't care, I'm debt free and don't need any loans).

The worst part is that all the while I was sitting there, at least a half dozen drug reps entered the office and were able to have a meeting with the doctor almost immediately each time.

This is the current state of our healthcare system.



It constantly amazes me that people actually think that a company that has no obligation to anything but profit would be more beneficial to your health than a government that you elect.

Another funny argument. Wait a minute. I thought the government was so inefficient and ridiculous that it could never match the "efficiencies" of a free market. But then the biggest complaint I hear about government provided health insurance is that it would be unfair competition because they'll be able to offer better service. What's that? I thought the government was incompetent and couldn't possibly provide a working product.

Hmm. Someone's being dishonest it seems.

Quote: You arnt brave enough, so other people should be forced to fill the gap between your words and deeds?

In general, i think it is unfair to place the burden of egalitarian ideals on the shoulders of a small subset of people. If 'society wants' everyone to have healthcare, then society as a whole should foot the bill, instead of limiting the freedoms of doctors.

I don't exactly see what freedom a doctor has in a system where someone else gets to choose who he will let die, and who he will let live. Except choosing someone else who gets to decide for him. When an option has a lot of strings, and risks attached, it's not exactly a fair option.

Here, if a doctor decides he's had enough of curing everyone, he can go open a private practice--Again, joining a private hospital wouldn't give him much choice, that's not how they are managed--and play golf in his free time like the classic stereotype.

I never quite understood why so many people who support personal freedom above all else, demand the private sector to be the only possible choice.

Quote: I am not arguing against insurance against catastropic situations. Thats whats insurance is for. And such insurance is very affordable, in places where it is allowed to exist.

I'm not going to give a detailed study of how insurance works in the United States, seeing as I never experienced it. My impression is that even if it wasn't broken due to the internal monopoly existing between the Health Insurance providers, it was inherently broken to begin with. A state has far greater capital to work with, and when you have insurance income which covers the whole populace, then you have a lot more to work with.

The state doesn't need to resort to raising insurance premiums, or denying health insurance to people with specific disorders, so that it can make a profit. I'm not going to wave a red flag, and scream "Corruption in Government is non-existent", or "All forms of public health care are immaculate". That would be extremely naive of me.

But a private insurance company needs to resort to those measures in order to insure it's survival. It doesn't have the same capital or income as the State. Especially since the State has more sources of income than health insurance.

Quote: Im insured for female contraceptive pills, a montly recurring cost, and im a man. Not because i chose to, i can guarantee you that. They call it insurance, but the intent and effect is redistribution.

The idea of insurance against dental care, or other repetitive and relatively minor costs, is completely riciulous. That most people are insured against this sort of thing, is a sign of a horribly fucked mindset (spurred by some horribly fucked incentives, such as no taxation on empoyer-provided healthcare). For such small sums, the arbitration costs far outweight the money involved in actually paying for care.

My impression is that you're more concerned with what you feel is a broken public health care system, rather than the concept of public health care in general. A distinction always needs to be made between a broken implementation, and a broken concept.

Certainly this is one area where any state run organization fails. If you don't feel it is correctly implemented, you don't get to be the one who fixes it. What I feel is a common misconception however, is that people think it's completely different in the private sector. Unfortunately, that's not quite true.

In the private sector, you get to choose between different tyrants. And if the tyrant you want doesn't exist, or all the tyrants started a little club between them, there isn't really much choice anyway.

As for the state, when it is democratic you get to choose a different tyrant every four years from two or more clubs.

Both concepts are inherently broken in my opinion. But that's human nature for ya.

Quote: As far as redistribution of wealth is concerned: please be honest about your aims, instead of sneaking redistribution in through all sorts of cracks, full of unintended consequences.

I feel that redistribution of wealth, although immoral by nature, is necessary in some cases.

Anyone who thinks the government wants to help you is sadly misguided. The government is just as obsessed with money, power, and control as anyone in charge of a large group of people.

Quote:
Another funny argument. Wait a minute. I thought the government was so inefficient and ridiculous that it could never match the "efficiencies" of a free market. But then the biggest complaint I hear about government provided health insurance is that it would be unfair competition because they'll be able to offer better service. What's that? I thought the government was incompetent and couldn't possibly provide a working product.

It isnt hard to offer a compelling offer out of someone elses pocket.

Quote:
Hmm. Someone's being dishonest it seems.

Indeed.

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan
I don't exactly see what freedom a doctor has in a system where someone else gets to choose who he will let die, and who he will let live. Except choosing someone else who gets to decide for him. When an option has a lot of strings, and risks attached, it's not exactly a fair option.

He gets to choose his employer.

Quote: I never quite understood why so many people who support personal freedom above all else, demand the private sector to be the only possible choice.

The public sector may lead to 'positive rights', it necessarily infringes upon 'negavtive rights'.

Quote:
The state doesn't need to resort to raising insurance premiums, or denying health insurance to people with specific disorders, so that it can make a profit. I'm not going to wave a red flag, and scream "Corruption in Government is non-existent", or "All forms of public health care are immaculate". That would be extremely naive of me.

An insurance company needs to fullfill its contractual obligations in order to make a profit. If the legal system is operating smoothly, you should get what you pay for.

The state needs to resort to raising taxes, price-fixing, rationing, etc. What are you talking about? What sort of magic do you attribute to government?

Quote: My impression is that you're more concerned with what you feel is a broken public health care system, rather than the concept of public health care in general. A distinction always needs to be made between a broken implementation, and a broken concept.

Sure.

Quote: In the private sector, you get to choose between different tyrants. And if the tyrant you want doesn't exist, or all the tyrants started a little club between them, there isn't really much choice anyway.

There is always the choice to be your own tyrant. Thats all the choice im asking for.

Quote: As for the state, when it is democratic you get to choose a different tyrant every four years from two or more clubs.

I dont get to choose anything.

Quote:

Quote: As far as redistribution of wealth is concerned: please be honest about your aims, instead of sneaking redistribution in through all sorts of cracks, full of unintended consequences.

I feel that redistribution of wealth, although immoral by nature, is necessary in some cases.

Redistribution is not much of a matter of argument, but of a matter of tyrannical majorities, and might making right.

All im asking for, is that if you insist on redistribution, is to be honest about your aims and methods, and not go on a populist class-warfare rampage aimed at delivering maximal destruction to consentual alternatives.

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan
As for the state, when it is democratic you get to choose a different tyrant every four years from two or more clubs.

You mean the media chooses.

(And don't get me started on ACORN)

:sigh:

As usual, there's no actual discussion of solving the issues, just laying blame and claiming the other side is obscuring the truth. Who cares?

How do we fix our problem? If you think the private approach is superior, fine: how do we fix the private system to cover more people, provide the coverage they've actually paid for, and improve the quality of care? If you think the public approach is superior, fine: how do we design a public system that covers people but doesn't impose an undue tax burden, and maintains a high quality of care?

I think WazzatMan described an interesting approach in Malta, where out-of-pocket expenditure covers simple medical issues for which you want immediate care (the cheap or genuinely indigent can seek state care for these, too, I gather, but then they have to wait until the system can accommodate them), while state care is provided for significant conditions. I presume those who wish can still elect for private care in these cases and pay out of pocket?

I think that's a good starting point. There's no reason why we should be taxed to pay for anyone stubbing their toe, but paying to save a child with MS or a young adult with kidney failure is quite fine by me.

Quote: Original post by CirdanValen
(And don't get me started on ACORN)

Don't start on ACORN. It just marks you as a bullshit conspiracy theorist - and a selective one at that, because all presidential candidates have their "questionable" associations.

Get over it.