Sounds like a bad idea to me . . . .

[future_doc]

Generally speaking, history repeats itself.

[A-Stark]

Unfortunately, this is a plan that never works. Governments have no incentive to try to save citizens money. If companies charge too much, they will lose business and go bankrupt - that is their incentive. Government, however, has no motivation to keep costs down. They get their money not through free will, but by using lethal force in the form of taxes.

 

Governments never make cutbacks? Someone should tell the CBC, DFAIT, Nova Scotia health authorities, the TTC, Corrections Canada (see Kingston Pen...), BC anesthesiologists (CRNAs anyone?), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the Katimavik program that their recent cutbacks were all a big joke.

 

And no "men with guns" have ever come to my door demanding I pay GST or file income taxes. But let's not disturb libertarian/Randian fantasies too much...

 

Also, they decided, "Let's have a monopoly over the hospitals, so that inefficiency of letting the guy who owns the hospital take a cut is removed too." This doesn't work either. Long story short - governments can't run anything properly.

 

I don't really follow what this is supposed to mean...

 

Whenever government tries to run something, the price goes up due to inefficiencies. They hire too many people. The people unionize, so now the janitor is getting paid $25 an hour when he should be getting paid $10. People make stupid management decisions, driving up the price of insurance.

 

So now instead of the insurance costing $8000 per person, it costs $10,000. Due to government inefficiencies. Everybody loses.

 

Yes, surely we would all be better off if more people were paid minimum wage with fewer or no benefits. McJobs for everyone!

 

Instead of paying $8000 to the insurance company, you pay $10,000 in your taxes. $2000 more than you would have paid otherwise.

 

An interesting claim inasmuch as it's based on purely arbitrary numbers you invented to make your argument. But, please, I promise to continue reading your gloriously fact-free post.

 

"BUT ATOMSMASHER, NOT EVERYBODY PAYS SO MUCH MONEY IN TAXES, SOME PEOPLE R BEING SUBSIDIZED!!!!!!!!!!" the leftists squeel. That's true, but only because of wealth distribution.

 

Public healthcare should not be an excuse to redistribute wealth. If you want to redistribute wealth, just take money from the rich, then write out some welfare cheques to the poor.

 

People who advocate public healthcare are just using it as an excuse for more wealth redistribution. If you want wealth redistribution, FINE. Just force the rich to write out welfare cheques to the poor. But DON'T create this huge bull**** system that is totally inefficient in terms of cost, and gives BAD healthcare.

 

How is public healthcare an "excuse" to redistribute wealth? How does it do this in any case?

 

If the system was privatized with an EQUAL amount of wealth distribution as in the public system, the rich would STILL be paying for the healthcare of the poor, but they would be paying LESS.

 

Riiiight.

 

Also, the actual treatment would be better, because government can't run anything properly.

 

Long story short, with government medicine, everyone loses.

 

Too bad governments don't "run" hospitals; they fund them. Not sure how your arguments work with physicians being paid essentially as independent contractors on a fee-for-service (or even shadow billing) basis.

[aaronjw]

You sound like someone who's been fed a bit too much of the kook-aid.

 

Time to educate yourself, son.

 

I ask myself this question: for all you med students and residents who advocate a privatized, for-profit system, you knew the realities of health care in Canada when you signed up and now you want to change it to a model that, financially, suits you better?

 

Cry me a river.

 

There is little doubt that health care in Canada requires an overhaul but suggesting a simple move to a privatized system is doing to do that makes you sound delusional at best and stupid at worst.

 

 

Privatization of medicine is a great idea, and here's why.

 

I'm going to explain this very slowly to you public medicine believers so you get it once and for all.

 

Medical care costs money. Everytime you see a doctor, his salary AND overhead expenses need to be paid.

 

Unfortunately, this is a lot of money. A night in the hospital costs the hospital, in terms of salaries and overhead, about $5,000. If you get cancer, you might be out $100,000.

 

There's a solution to this problem that people have created. It's called insurance.

 

Instead of paying out of pocket for every procedure, people got together and created insurance.

 

Let's say there are 1,000 people in an insurance plan. Let's say it cost $500,000,000 dollars to cover the medical expenses of all of these people for the whole lives. Some people didn't have to pay that much, but some people came down with diseases that were expensive to treat and had to pay a lot of dough.

 

In order to eliminate the risk of having to pay a lot of money, these people simply divided the total cost their medical care for their whole lives by the number of people, and agreed that everybody has to pay that amount. Over the course of a lifetime (70 years), this comes out to a very managable amount of $7100 per year. Now, nobody has to worry about going bankrupt from a huge expense as long as they pay the fare.

 

When you have an insurance company, in the free market, take care of this, the company takes a cut of the money. So instead of paying $7100 per year, people now have to pay $8000; $900 of which goes to the company. This is the only disadvantage.

 

But, the Canadian government has taken a different route. They said, "**** it, instead of paying an insurance company extra money to handle this, let's just do it ourselves and save money."

 

Unfortunately, this is a plan that never works. Governments have no incentive to try to save citizens money. If companies charge too much, they will lose business and go bankrupt - that is their incentive. Government, however, has no motivation to keep costs down. They get their money not through free will, but by using lethal force in the form of taxes.

 

Also, they decided, "Let's have a monopoly over the hospitals, so that inefficiency of letting the guy who owns the hospital take a cut is removed too." This doesn't work either. Long story short - governments can't run anything properly.

 

Whenever government tries to run something, the price goes up due to inefficiencies. They hire too many people. The people unionize, so now the janitor is getting paid $25 an hour when he should be getting paid $10. People make stupid management decisions, driving up the price of insurance.

 

So now instead of the insurance costing $8000 per person, it costs $10,000. Due to government inefficiencies. Everybody loses.

 

Instead of paying $8000 to the insurance company, you pay $10,000 in your taxes. $2000 more than you would have paid otherwise.

 

"BUT ATOMSMASHER, NOT EVERYBODY PAYS SO MUCH MONEY IN TAXES, SOME PEOPLE R BEING SUBSIDIZED!!!!!!!!!!" the leftists squeel. That's true, but only because of wealth distribution.

 

Public healthcare should not be an excuse to redistribute wealth. If you want to redistribute wealth, just take money from the rich, then write out some welfare cheques to the poor.

 

People who advocate public healthcare are just using it as an excuse for more wealth redistribution. If you want wealth redistribution, FINE. Just force the rich to write out welfare cheques to the poor. But DON'T create this huge bull**** system that is totally inefficient in terms of cost, and gives BAD healthcare.

 

If the system was privatized with an EQUAL amount of wealth distribution as in the public system, the rich would STILL be paying for the healthcare of the poor, but they would be paying LESS.

 

Also, the actual treatment would be better, because government can't run anything properly.

 

Long story short, with government medicine, everyone loses.

[bigdiesel]

I like this explanation of American health care costs.

 

[holiday1001]

You sound like someone who's been fed a bit too much of the kook-aid.

 

Time to educate yourself, son.

 

I ask myself this question: for all you med students and residents who advocate a privatized, for-profit system, you knew the realities of health care in Canada when you signed up and now you want to change it to a model that, financially, suits you better?

 

Cry me a river.

 

There is little doubt that health care in Canada requires an overhaul but suggesting a simple move to a privatized system is doing to do that makes you sound delusional at best and stupid at worst.

the CMA was one of the most viscious opponents of health care going public back in the day. doctors even went on strike.

[aaronjw]

the CMA was one of the most viscious opponents of health care going public back in the day. doctors even went on strike.

 

I know the history of HC in Canada dating back to the 1700's

[bigdiesel]

Sorry the last one only posted half of the graphic. Here is the full image.

[wcoast11]

^^^

A lot of interesting arguments up there.

 

Here is highly commented-upon article by The Economist that looks at some of the failures of the US healthcare system.

 

Obviously an overhaul of Canadian's healthcare system wouldn't mean necessarily adopting the US version, but at least we have a clear example of what not to do...

 

Regardless, there's no easy solution to the complex issues facing our Canadian system.

 

http://www.economist.com/node/13900898

 

"Even though one dollar in every six generated by the world’s richest economy is spent on health—almost twice the average for rich countries—infant mortality, life expectancy and survival-rates for heart attacks are all worse than the OECD average. "

[A-Stark]

Far be it from me to get involved in a flame war but...

 

I never said government doesn't make cutbacks. I said that government is less efficient than private businesses.

 

I take it you've never worked in an office.

 

What happens when you don't pay your taxes? You go to jail. If you try avoid going to jail using force, the police will shoot you in self-defence. A ---> B ---> C. Logic, not libertarian fantasy.

 

Well, you can be charged with tax evasion and will go to jail only in the event of a conviction and sentence mandating it. That's called the "rule of law" and, frankly, few people decide to be law-abiding solely for the purpose of avoiding going out in an armed firefight with the police.

 

The government said, "Instead of letting private industry running the insurance system and taking a cut for themselves, let's run it ourselves so nobody gets a cut."

 

Actually, in any insurance system costs are minimized when the maximum amount of risk is pooled over the largest group of insured persons. Single-payer insurance is by actuarial definition the most efficient form of insurance. Indeed, since government health insurance lacks specific premiums or cost-adjustments for individualized risk, there is minimal overhead and billing is simple and transparent.

 

Kid, why do you think communism failed? Because the government was running all of the businesses, something they inherently suck at doing. By saying you want government to be in charge of your health insurance, you're advocating for more communist policy. Why are we all not buying our food, clothes, houses, and cars from the government right now, instead of private companies?

 

Blah, blah, blah. No doubt public auto insurance in BC, Sask, Manitoba, and Quebec has failed too.

 

Have a look at Soviet era cars that were made by the Soviet government during the 40's-80's. You'll see that while American cars improved rapidly during this time, the Soviet cars stayed pretty much the same minus some minor cosmetic changes. In fact, compare a Soviet government car from the 50's to an American car in the 50's made by private industry. Both cost the same, but the government one is indisputably a piece of ****.

 

Perhaps. But they did get to space first.

 

As you can see, the system is crumbling under the weight of big labour. You have to make a choice: McJobs or a crumbling system. You can't your cake and eat it too.

 

Yes!! Everyone race to the bottom! Janitors of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your living wage!!

 

I never claimed that my numbers were accurate, but my argument does not rest on them either. They were an example to demonstrate the concept.

 

No, they were numbers you made up without attribution to simply repeat the exact same point.

 

To answer your first question: it is easier to negotiate with "benefits" than with cold, hard cash because it is sometimes hard to quantify the value of a benefit. This is essentially what leftists have done - in order to compromise with the right, they have negotiated a "benefit" (the alternative being a welfare cheque... which would have resulted in less income redistribution). This is why the government gives you redistributed wealth in the form of services, rather than in the form of a cheque in the mail that you use to buy the same thing for cheaper.

 

I don't know, maybe you should an intro economics text about natural monopolies and public goods.

 

To answer your second question: I do not pay income tax, yet I get free healthcare. I got something for free that somebody else paid for. That is wealth redistribution.

 

If only income taxes were the only form of taxation! In any case, this is simply insurance based essentially on the ability to pay.

 

Explain, with logic, why this is not the case.

 

Look, "kid", you haven't explained why the rich would be paying less in your privatized utopia. In fact, the obvious US experience aside, there is demonstrable evidence that privatized health care is more expensive. How is it that the US spends *more* than 50% more on health care than Canada per capita? Or that administration costs in private health care on both sides of the border are *at least* triple those in the public sector? Private corporations of all sorts spend considerable amounts on administration while rewarding executives - bureaucrats by any other name - with considerably greater remuneration. And you suggest that this costs less?

 

Stop kidding yourself. It doesn't matter who is running the hospital, the fact is that government is being the middleman here that is pissing away a certain fraction of the money.

 

Nope. You are quite simply wrong. There is always "inefficiency" in every system, but you'd be hard pressed to show that Canadian hospitals are swimming in extra cash (I will say that there is lots of room to abolish individual hospital boards and administrations, at least in Ontario). Arguably, the move in some provinces to elements of "activity-based" funding will improve the cost incentives for hospitals, but your simple-minded poorly-argued claims are pretty silly.

[holiday1001]

I know the history of HC in Canada dating back to the 1700's

course you would

[bigdiesel]

If I recall correctly (it has been a few years since I studied health policy) the biggest danger to our system is private health insurance. Under NAFTA American insurance companies would be able to enter into the market and it would be game over for anyone who can't afford insurance. I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly can't afford the $2000/month that my friends in Florida pay for health insurance.

[aaronjw]

So because you can't pay, you think you are entitled to having somebody else pay for you?

 

If I can't afford a Mercedes-Benz, am I entitled to have the taxpayers buy me one?

 

You can't be happy without healthcare, I can't be happy without a Benz, what's the difference?

 

The fact I've subsidized the medical training fo people like you and Brooksbane makes me wish I could apply to have that momey refunded to me.

 

Speaking of which, can the tax payers of Canada have our money back? You went to school thanks to tax payers so I'd like to formally request we get our money back. Cash, no cheques - I dkn't trust you.

[bloh]

Ahhh, the privatization vs public health care debate, also known as figuring how to make 1 + 1 add up to more than 2.

[A-Stark]

A-Stark, answer this question for me.

 

Do you believe in wealth redistribution?

 

Sure. Answer this: Why did you respond with this rather than address the points I made?

[A-Stark]

Because that was taking too long.

 

I meant to ask if you are arguing for the government healthcare system for the sake of wealth distribution.

 

No, but I will argue for publicly-funded healthcare as demonstrably superior to privately-funded healthcare from criteria of efficiency, equity, and effectiveness.

 

If you are, you are arguing for a failing system that is hurting people in order to accomplish your political goals, that could have easily been accomplished with a welfare cheque in the mail.

 

What an absurd opinion. This is just free market "voucher" BS with no connection to reality. We have given your arguments from more space than they deserve.

 

Government does not run things more efficiently than private business do, that's an indisputable fact that history has definitively proven. If it wasn't, communism wouldn't have failed, and we'd all be buying our food and clothes from the government right now.

 

Government-funded organizations are often as or more efficient than comparable private ones due to better workplace morale (sometimes) and less top-heavy administration. But it varies. In any case, no one here is arguing for the nationalization of the whole economy, Soviet-style. By all means, continue to repeat these straw men - it means nothing.

[A Second Daniel]

No, but I will argue for publicly-funded healthcare as demonstrably superior to privately-funded healthcare from criteria of efficiency, equity, and effectiveness.

 

What an absurd opinion. This is just free market "voucher" BS with no connection to reality. We have given your arguments from more space than they deserve.

 

Government-funded organizations are often as or more efficient than comparable private ones due to better workplace morale (sometimes) and less top-heavy administration. But it varies. In any case, no one here is arguing for the nationalization of the whole economy, Soviet-style. By all means, continue to repeat these straw men - it means nothing.

 

The best kind of health care is a mix between private and public sectors that appeal to what society needs. Falling towards one end of the spectrum will fail to address the needs of a diverse group of people within that society. People should at least be given an option of whether they want to pay into a public medical model, but they're not given that option because it's a money-grab by the political elite and the medical establishment which wants to keep the money flowing in. Once the system begins to deteriorate as it is in Canada, the free market becomes ever increasingly attractive. Just tell it to John Doe who's been waiting a few months to get an MRI.

 

Finally, your last point is so indicative of a level of misunderstanding on your part that I feel like I'm writing to a child now. Your failure to grasp basic economic principles, evident in your defence of the superiority of public medical care, becomes so much more pronounced in saying that gov't organizations are more efficient than private ones. At least once or twice every day I feel like my head is going to explode-this is one of those moments. PLEASE, for the love of everything that is good on this earth, explain to me the INCENTIVE that welfare bums/bureaucracies have; those who know their cheques will come in the mail, paid by the good ol' public purse. The only group of people that have something to lose are those whose performance actually depends on it- gov't organizations have nothing to lose. If you know that money will be coming in no matter what, then why the hell would you work harder?

 

I'm not saying we should give up on John Doe. Social programs need to be in place for the more unfortunate ones because medicine has to be a universal principle. What we need to do is blend the public and private model, making the rich pay more because they are not in a situation of being unfortunate. My argument is only scratching the surface and I could go on for pages, but I think this is a good amount for you to learn something practical. It would be a shame if our future doctors are still floating in a fantasy world of ignorance and economic obliviousness.

[PhoenixFlare500]

 

1) Corruption. This does not exist in industry.

 

2) Unions. Unions also exist in industry, but they are less of a problem.

 

3) Lack of motivation to remain efficient. Companies are motivated to stay efficient in order to stay alive. If a company cannot stay efficient, it will go bankrupt. If the people who work for a company cannot make decisions that are efficient, they will be fired. The same cannot be said for government.

1. Yes it does

2. Unions have the same benefits and problems in the public and private sectors

3. Unions give workers no incentive to remain efficient. Private companies can find ways to stay financially efficient while sacrificing quality of product, both legal or illegal.

 

Quality is another issue. Wait times are a good indicator of quality. Wait times in the US are MUCH less than those in Canada. Communism has shown that product quality drops when governments run things.

Your wait time's also much less if you decide to fly to China to get a back alley organ transplant but I don't think you wanna do that. I think a better indicator of quality would be patient quality of life and survival rates.

 

Equity: who gives a ****. Life's not fair.

Good for you that you were born into a rich family.

 

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that is has been PROVEN that governments are inherently less efficient organizations than privately run businesses. This has been proven time and time again, in economics, and also in history: with communism.

As far as I know, communism usually fails because the people in power are corrupt and take the resources for themselves. Why would people in a private business have any incentive not to do the same thing?

 

Why people still believe what you believe is beyond me when the facts are right in front of their eyes. That's why I'm convinced that leftism is a brain disorder.

I'm sorry you see it that way. Then again half your post is full of fallacies. Do you have some kind of brain disorder you're not telling us about?

[bigdiesel]

This one starts out a bit slow but by the end it provides a very good look at what is really happening in our capitalist model.

Enjoy.

 

[A Second Daniel]

As far as I know, communism usually fails because the people in power are corrupt and take the resources for themselves. Why would people in a private business have any incentive not to do the same thing?

 

Because private businesses would lose customers and their reputations. Fortunately for communists, their customers are the entire state and those people usually have no where to run when their cities get walls built around them like East Berlin.

[A-Stark]

The best kind of health care is a mix between private and public sectors that appeal to what society needs. Falling towards one end of the spectrum will fail to address the needs of a diverse group of people within that society.

 

What does this mean? Only 70% of total health care spending comes from public funds; the rest is private. Most European countries have an even higher proportion (UK, France, Germany, Sweden, etc.). Canada is somewhat unique in that physician services are almost completely publicly funded, while dental and optometry care are almost wholly private. While hospitals are largely publicly funded, they are operated by autonomous local boards or district health authorities and typically operate private charitable foundations to supplement public funding. On the other hand, physicians pay for their own overhead and usually operate private solo or group practices.

 

In any case, Canada already has a mix of privately and publicly funded health care, the latter of which is delivered in "public" hospitals which are actually non-profit corporations and in private, community based clinics and practices. What "spectrum" do you mean?

 

People should at least be given an option of whether they want to pay into a public medical model, but they're not given that option because it's a money-grab by the political elite and the medical establishment which wants to keep the money flowing in. Once the system begins to deteriorate as it is in Canada, the free market becomes ever increasingly attractive. Just tell it to John Doe who's been waiting a few months to get an MRI.

 

Money-grab? What "elite" are benefiting from this? This doesn't even make any sense. And, no, people don't get the option of whether to pay for publicly funded services and infrastructure. Please refer to the "free rider problem".

 

Anyhow, there are numerous private imaging clinics in the country, some of which even operate outside Medicare. We even have one in Halifax at the corner of Lacewood and Dunbrack.

 

Finally, your last point is so indicative of a level of misunderstanding on your part that I feel like I'm writing to a child now. Your failure to grasp basic economic principles, evident in your defence of the superiority of public medical care, becomes so much more pronounced in saying that gov't organizations are more efficient than private ones. At least once or twice every day I feel like my head is going to explode-this is one of those moments.

 

Hah! Well, I wouldn't want your head to explode, though I'd offer that you have much to learn about how to have a respectful discussion. My answer was along the lines of "it depends", which, as with so many things, is the best reply. Organizations - and, more specifically, hospitals - are highly variable and they function well (or not) depending on management structures and skills, resources, and a host of other factors. Maybe you should wake up and realize that Econ 101 has little to no relationship to organizational behaviour or administration.

 

PLEASE, for the love of everything that is good on this earth, explain to me the INCENTIVE that welfare bums/bureaucracies have; those who know their cheques will come in the mail, paid by the good ol' public purse. The only group of people that have something to lose are those whose performance actually depends on it- gov't organizations have nothing to lose. If you know that money will be coming in no matter what, then why the hell would you work harder?

 

A bureaucracy is nothing more and nothing less than an organizational hierarchy with departments, divisions, and varying levels of responsibility and authority. A government agency is not the same as Manulife, but the notion that the average employee operates according to varying principles depending on some outside "incentive" that only upper management thinks about is nothing more than a laughable conceit.

 

In fact, in the federal government, advancement occurs by obtaining additional training and, yes, by merit (!!!!! more exploding heads !!!!!). The military is perhaps the most rigid example of this, but *EVERY* bureaucracy operates on that principle and *EVERY* organization regardless of its sector is subject to workplace politics, personal rivalries, and other "inefficiencies". Why do you think HR departments exist?

 

Anyway, government managers have excellent incentive to show that they're doing something useful efficiently. And usually they have to do more with less - that certainly holds at the moment for Corrections and CFIA and a vast many other federal departments and agencies. However, I don't think I'd want to see Corrections Canada or our food inspectors operate according to the profit motive. These are regulatory/governance functions. You are displaying an appallingly limited conception of political economy, governance, and administration.

 

I'm not saying we should give up on John Doe. Social programs need to be in place for the more unfortunate ones because medicine has to be a universal principle. What we need to do is blend the public and private model, making the rich pay more because they are not in a situation of being unfortunate. My argument is only scratching the surface and I could go on for pages, but I think this is a good amount for you to learn something practical. It would be a shame if our future doctors are still floating in a fantasy world of ignorance and economic obliviousness.

 

The rich do pay more; that's called progressive taxation (and even the same rate applied they'd pay more in absolute terms).

 

And, you're what, an undergrad? I've worked in nine different hospitals in four provinces and two countries, along with two community practices. And what's your economic training that frees you from "floating" in said fantasy world? I'd say I've had more than enough "practical" training in med school and before. Good luck with your application.

[A-Stark]

A-Stark:

 

OK, sounds like you are pro wealth distribution. I personally disagree with you, but that's not what this debate is about. I also find that strange, given that you are a MS, because in the future, YOU are going to be the one paying for other people's ****, getting nothing in return.

 

[...]

 

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that is has been PROVEN that governments are inherently less efficient organizations than privately run businesses. This has been proven time and time again, in economics, and also in history: with communism. Why people still believe what you believe is beyond me when the facts are right in front of their eyes. That's why I'm convinced that leftism is a brain disorder.

 

You know, I was originally going to reply to this point-by-point, but considering your entire argument boils down to Medicare = communism, I believe I shall refrain. It is a demonstrable fact that private for-profit insurance is intrinsically more expensive than single-payer public insurance or non-profit social insurance. It has nothing to do with the need for a profit margin; it's simply the cost of all those actuaries and adjusters and managers and customer service agents and god-knows-who-else. Maybe you should familiarize with the concept of "deadweight loss" as this is about as clear an example of the gross inefficiency of the private for-profit model compared to the public/non-profit one.

 

Note also that insurance exists in health care because there is no free market solution that meets any standard of justice. Since "demand" for health care is individually sporadic and/or chronic and - to a large extent - determined by social and hereditary factors, the costs can be financially catastrophic, such that insurance is the natural solution. However, since an insurance plan's efficiency increases with the amount of pooled risk (i.e. number of individuals enrolled), the most efficient plan is one that covers everyone.

 

Because private businesses would lose customers and their reputations. Fortunately for communists, their customers are the entire state and those people usually have no where to run when their cities get walls built around them like East Berlin.

 

This is becoming the Red equivalent of Godwin's Law. What's up with the Communist fetish? And the Berlin Wall has been gone for 23 years.

[futureGP]

You know, I was originally going to reply to this point-by-point, but considering your entire argument boils down to Medicare = communism, I believe I shall refrain. It is a demonstrable fact that private for-profit insurance is intrinsically more expensive than single-payer public insurance or non-profit social insurance. It has nothing to do with the need for a profit margin; it's simply the cost of all those actuaries and adjusters and managers and customer service agents and god-knows-who-else. Maybe you should familiarize with the concept of "deadweight loss" as this is about as clear an example of the gross inefficiency of the private for-profit model compared to the public/non-profit one.

 

Note also that insurance exists in health care because there is no free market solution that meets any standard of justice. Since "demand" for health care is individually sporadic and/or chronic and - to a large extent - determined by social and hereditary factors, the costs can be financially catastrophic, such that insurance is the natural solution. However, since an insurance plan's efficiency increases with the amount of pooled risk (i.e. number of individuals enrolled), the most efficient plan is one that covers everyone.

 

 

 

This is becoming the Red equivalent of Godwin's Law. What's up with the Communist fetish? And the Berlin Wall has been gone for 23 years.

 

i agree.

 

making medicare = communism... probably the most ignorant thing i've ever heard.

 

a single-payer system is a great system for both patients and doctors. If the single-payer system is run by the government, it's a lot more convenient for both patients and doctors. Is it perfectly efficient? Probably not, but is it less efficient than a for-profit privatized health care system? absolutely not.

There isn't much proof to support that private health care system is more efficient.

The idea that a privatized health care system will be more efficient due to the drive to efficiency from a for-profit company's point of view is an ideal thought that can't be put into place for 'health-care'.

The health care industry is very unique compared to other sectors of the economy, and history is telling us that privatized health care system doesn't work (look at the whole issue with US)

[A-Stark]

Ok we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

PS, fvck equality. Anybody too slow to keep up in life should go down in flames. That's how it's been since life began, and 50 years of "progress" doesn't mean ****. It's dog-eat-dog in 90% of the world, and all this care-bear bull**** makes me SICK.

 

Such attitudes make ME sick.

 

People should not be rewarded for being inferior - but that's what the system does. Too stupid to get a job? Here, take this welfare money. Spent your money on a car instead of health insurance? Don't worry, taxpayers got your back. Defaulted on OSAP? It's ok, don't worry about it!

 

Well I certainly wouldn't want to reward your inferior arguments.

 

Anyway, one reason why we mandate health insurance - and why Obama has passed it into law - is that people DO make stupid decisions, e.g. buying the car instead of insurance. So when they crash that car and end up in an emerg trauma room, the hospital must absorb the cost and send them a bill which may never be paid and which they have to hire collectors to try to get. In the meantime, this unfortunate person with poor foresight is now permanently disabled and on disability. If the latter couldn't necessarily be avoided, the system has had to absorb a lot of excess costs which rather clearly illustrate the problem of negative externalities caused by "free riders". But then I wouldn't want to go introducing too much economics terminology.

 

One book I'll recommend, though, is The Efficient Society by Joseph Heath. It's about 10 years old now, but the discussions of game theory and collective action problems are instructive for those employing naive "free market" rhetoric.

[preppy038]

this is true,

 

back in the days, there were lots of patients who couldnt pay their bills -- too expensive, so then like A-stark said -- the hospital would have to face the costs etc.

 

Right now, the public system is such that you can bill for what you do no matter what (even if your patient doesn't have $ on them)

 

It makes things a lot easier for docs and allow them to focus on the medicine, not the business -- at least acutely.

[moo]

First of all I don't think anyone here is advocating communism. Communism is essentially the same as fascism. Instead of corporations owning everything, the government owns everything, and power/money are concentrated in the hands of a few. I bet if you calculate the GINI coefficient for North Korea (not available), it would demonstrate far more inequality than the United States.

 

Second, who's to say that the janitor who works two jobs supporting his or her family is working less hard than the physician or the lawyer or the executive. Sure he/she has less education, but does that mean he/she is of less worth than the rest of us in the upper echelons of society?

 

Third, who decides how much one should be worth? If you say the minimum wage people shouldn't have partied in high school or should've gotten an education, I ask you, what about us? I as a physician provide a valuable service, or at least I think I do. Why should the CEOs and execs on Wall Street/financial planners makes millions more than I? I have way more education than them, and I *think* I have more responsibility than them; after all I hold people's lives in my hands. Is their job 100x more difficult than mine? Also we NEED janitors. Are you going to clean the bathroom in the malls and your clinic? Are you going to be your own mechanic? Are you going to do your own farming? How about construction? You going to build your own home? We NEED all these people and we're lucky that as humans we're as diverse as can be. The least we can do is make sure they have a decent life.

 

This is the inherent inequality. No one is advocating that everyone make the same amount of money. But inequality has grown over the decades and our middle class has been eroded. This is not good for society as it has been shown time and time again that inequality (even when total wealth is high as in the US) has been shown to lead to poorer health outcomes FOR ALL.