Healthcare in America explained.https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hard-truths-about-health-care
Healthcare in America explained.https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hard-truths-about-health-care
I'd love to see his "market-based reforms." That article offers nothing. Does that "market-based" plan include insurance?
Apparently shared risk isn't a part of it. They throw around those tags without getting into specifics. If you get a cancer diagnosis can the insurer drop you? Jack up rates so you can't afford them? Can other carriers then deny coverage for cancer? They always throw out "let the free market reign" but never get down to specifics. Pure free market means the second the insured isn't profitable... get out of the contract. Right?
It sometimes astonishes me how little understood is the concept of the free market. People apparently think it would entail a government-imposed "mandated free market policy," a one size fits all program run by an agency of the state that would dictate how things are to be. What is astonishing to me is that's what we have now! It's what we've had in all our lifetimes. And as things get worse we are told it's because our bureaucrats don't have enough power to force more things onto us. "Just give us more control and we can make things great again." So they take more control and things get worse. Is there a point at which people will realize that government interference is the problem, not the solution?
A free market solution would enable free individuals to make choices they determine are in their best interest. Not choices dictated to them by an unseen, unknown, uncaring bureaucrat.
People like you, Sys, could pool your resources and form your own cooperative insurance program that would cover pre-existing conditions, be guaranteed you could never be dropped, would be at prices you prefer, simply give you everything of your dreams. I'm sure there are tens of millions of people who think like you who would willingly join the coop. I'm sure there would be a market for you. The point being that you would join of your own free will, nobody would force you. Why would you object?
The best line in the article is where he says healthcare is not a right, it's not a privilege, it's a commodity. When you understand that it's a commodity it becomes clear that a free market is the only "policy" that would be effective.
You've left out 1/2 of the equation: free market also means that companies can insure who, when and for what they want and squeeze as much profit and minimize their own risk and all over a consumer that is in an inferior bargaining position.
Btw, i wholeheartedly agree that consumers can pull together and form their own health plans. The percent of the general public that is capable of doing that is about .0001% so we'll hire someone with enough resources to do it. Its called the federal government. Why if consumers democratically get together and set up a health care plan, that's a bad thing? BC/BS can offer whatever they want to, and the taxpayer can have their own. What's more American?
If healthcare is "not a commodity in and of itself" what is it?if healthcare was a commodity in and of itself i would agree
but let's not kid ourselves into thinking marcus welby can come trotting over to your house and trade out delivering a baby for two dozen eggs a gallon of milk and your kid mowing his lawn for the summer
way too many fingers in the pie
Those fingers got there because money was available with an enabling government paving the way. It's no different than many aspects of our lives. School tuition is enormous today for many of the same reasons. We have student loans and all sorts of grants to try to get everyone possible through the doors when many have no desire but feel pressure into it. Then many others go get a degree in art and wonder why they can't get that six figure job.If healthcare is "not a commodity in and of itself" what is it?
Actually I grew up in an era in Ponca City when good old Dr. Terry came to my house when I had a sniffle. He was a little richer than most of us, but not by much. Certainly there was not the "wage gap" we see today. You say there are "too many fingers in the pie." I agree. Why do you suppose that is? How did all those fingers get there?
If healthcare is "not a commodity in and of itself" what is it?
Actually I grew up in an era in Ponca City when good old Dr. Terry came to my house when I had a sniffle. He was a little richer than most of us, but not by much. Certainly there was not the "wage gap" we see today. You say there are "too many fingers in the pie." I agree. Why do you suppose that is? How did all those fingers get there?
Those fingers got there because money was available with an enabling government paving the way. It's no different than many aspects of our lives. School tuition is enormous today for many of the same reasons. We have student loans and all sorts of grants to try to get everyone possible through the doors when many have no desire but feel pressure into it. Then many others go get a degree in art and wonder why they can't get that six figure job.
We artificially raise demand without increasing supply by much.
i think you would agree healthcare is a lot of things besides healthcare. whether we are talking semantics or not i don't know.
take lawyers and malpractice out of the equation and costs enter a free fall
but there's some dumbass that operates on the wrong side like he did my sister and we can't have that either.
i bet the good dr terry lived humbly to live amongst his patients and this "wage gap" is a mirage.
And mandated?Health insurance needs to be like homeowners and auto insurance.
Artificially constrained supply (see AMA) does not a commodity make - sure you agree with that...If healthcare is "not a commodity in and of itself" what is it?
Actually I grew up in an era in Ponca City when good old Dr. Terry came to my house when I had a sniffle. He was a little richer than most of us, but not by much. Certainly there was not the "wage gap" we see today. You say there are "too many fingers in the pie." I agree. Why do you suppose that is? How did all those fingers get there?
Artificially (read government interference) constrained supply does not alter the fact healthcare is a commodity. It just distorts it into an unrecognizable one. That's what I agree with.Artificially constrained supply (see AMA) does not a commodity make - sure you agree with that...
And mandated?
Up until now this has been a civil discussion about ideas. I would ask that you keep it so, and dispense with the ad hominem comments.and 40 extra pounds enjoying all that extra pie you don't pay for
driving away childhood obesity and the cycle of 24oz tomahawk ribeye eating fatties that gorge on this nations healthcare supply would sure help drive costs more in line with revenues
somebody is paying for that 3rd margarita
C- on the trolling. You need to try harder.and 40 extra pounds enjoying all that extra pie you don't pay for
driving away childhood obesity and the cycle of 24oz tomahawk ribeye eating fatties that gorge on this nations healthcare supply would sure help drive costs more in line with revenues
somebody is paying for that 3rd margarita
My point is, if you want to treat healthcare as a commodity then you need to look at supply side distortions as much as demand side.Artificially (read government interference) constrained supply does not alter the fact healthcare is a commodity. It just distorts it into an unrecognizable one. That's what I agree with.
My point is, if you want to treat healthcare as a commodity then you need to look at supply side distortions as much as demand side.
You know like corn, oil, timber... wait, each of those also has significant distortions. How about other professions - say lawyers - damn the Bar Association...
Is there a single true open trade commodity in the US Economy?
I would add, however, that for the most part the fewer distortions in the trade of a commodity (distortions caused by government interference) the larger the supply in proportion to the demand, the higher the quality and the lower the price."Is there a single true open trade commodity in the US economy?"
I would say unfortunately not, which is why I find it so discouraging to hear people blame our economic problems on the free market.
I would add, however, that for the most part the fewer distortions in the trade of a commodity (distortions caused by government interference) the larger the supply in proportion to the demand, the higher the quality and the lower the price.
To what do you subscribe as to the cause of the distortions? Obviously it can't be a lack of government regulation, my God there's an ample supply of that. So if it isn't government intereference in the trading process what is it?My point is, if you want to treat healthcare as a commodity then you need to look at supply side distortions as much as demand side.
You know like corn, oil, timber... wait, each of those also has significant distortions. How about other professions - say lawyers - damn the Bar Association...
Is there a single true open trade commodity in the US Economy?
Generally agree with your point, though honestly don't believe humans are capable of organizing economically or socially in a true free market."Is there a single true open trade commodity in the US economy?"
I would say unfortunately not, which is why I find it so discouraging to hear people blame our economic problems on the free market.
Human nature.To what do you subscribe as to the cause of the distortions? Obviously it can't be a lack of government regulation, my God there's an ample supply of that. So if it isn't government intereference in the trading process what is it?
And mandated?
And yet, it remains the law.Poor example of a mandated success story, given that over a quarter of the vehicles on the road in Oklahoma are uninsured.
But we are able to organize economically and socially through the violence or threats of violence applied by the state?Generally agree with your point, though honestly don't believe humans are capable of organizing economically or socially in a true free market.
No, not really. Generally we don't abandon law simply because it is poorly enforced so long as it provides a greater social good. Mandatory licensure and liability insurance - aren't those of value to society writ large?And a failure, agree?
Up until now this has been a civil discussion about ideas. I would ask that you keep it so, and dispense with the ad hominem comments.
In a free society each individual would be at liberty to live as he pleased, with the complete understanding that he, and he alone, is responsible for the consequences of his actions. If someone chooses to eat bon bons until he is 40 pounds overweight, that's his right. If that leads to him having a heart attack or diabetes or a stroke the responsibility falls on him. If he can't afford the care needed to make him well then his plight falls onto the charitable good graces of those living around him or those like Sys who would feel a moral imperative to assist. In a free society there would be plenty of Syses eager to contribute. But none of us would
be forced at the point of a gun to be charitable. That would remain a topic between ourselves and our consciences.
Descriptively humans consistently operate communally with some variation in defining individual responsibilities and rights over time and across various geographic or other boundaries. By descriptive I do not mean this is how it "should be" but rather an assertion of "how it has been". Are there any examples of a true free culture that you would cite as a counter to this view?Now that's interesting! Please expand!
what is snap?you can personalize and characterize my comments as an ad hominem attack that's your choice and your perspective
healthcare is mandated not equated
the only choice in the equation is how serious a person chooses to take their health.
call it trolling shaming or uncivilized
but get to the dollars and cents of what obesity smoking alcohol abuse and inactivity cost the healthcare system and the individual whose wealth is being redistributed.
snap spends 7billion a year on sugary drinks
flip that 7billion and the 7 billion in costs into healthcare and how much in premiums are saved?
sorry to ruin your black panther party
Look, we agree that each individual should be responsible for his actions. After asking politely for you not to make it personal I went to great lengths to support your argument. Please do not take insult to polite requests. How did you know I'm an active member of the Black Panther Party? I thought I was keeping it so well hidden! (Blue)you can personalize and characterize my comments as an ad hominem attack that's your choice and your perspective
healthcare is mandated not equated
the only choice in the equation is how serious a person chooses to take their health.
call it trolling shaming or uncivilized
but get to the dollars and cents of what obesity smoking alcohol abuse and inactivity cost the healthcare system and the individual whose wealth is being redistributed.
snap spends 7billion a year on sugary drinks
flip that 7billion and the 7 billion in costs into healthcare and how much in premiums are saved?
sorry to ruin your black panther party
I think humans figured out along the way that prosperous society's were characterized by balancing the larger social good with rewarding some categories of peoples including those who provided knowledge and strength - in our modern parlance security and innovative. Capitalism is IMO the optimal means of sorting out the innovative. Politics unfortunately looks like the home of security.But we are able to organize economically and socially through the violence or threats of violence applied by the state?
Look, we agree that each individual should be responsible for his actions. After asking politely for you not to make it personal I went to great lengths to support your argument. Please do not take insult to polite requests. How did you know I'm an active member of the Black Panther Party? I thought I was keeping it so well hidden! (Blue)
I did... saw this:google it