Michael Moore and socialized medicine

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
You are so wrong it's scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, as I am trying to learn more about this subject. But, don't other countries have socialized healthcare programs that work, by and large, pretty well? And don't these countries sometimes invent life-saving new medicines and procedures? I mean, it's not only America making advances in medicine, is it?

As for the insurance issue... many people get their health insurance through their jobs, so their choices are limited to whatever their employer has. Also, the for-profit nature of insurance leads to 150-page coverage documents written in jargon and legalese, which most people don't understand (and don't even read) until they are denied coverage for something they assumed would be covered.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are so wrong it's scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, as I am trying to learn more about this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know; just trying to emphasize how vigorously I disagree with the idea.

[ QUOTE ]

But, don't other countries have socialized healthcare programs that work, by and large, pretty well?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's difficult to judge, since:

-- All countries (including the U.S.) regulate/socialize health care and the economy in general to various degrees.

-- We don't really know how much better the quality of health care would be in those countries if it wasn't socialized. Again, I refer you to Hazlitt's "broken window" fallacy.

-- The socialized countries do benefit from advances made in the freer economies. For example, I gather computers & software are reaonably cheap & available in Sweden. This is surely due in part to the (relative) free market in that industry in the U.S. and Japan. I wonder how many people in Sweden would have pc's if the U.S. and Japan had socialized the computer/microchip industry 30 years ago?

[ QUOTE ]

And don't these countries sometimes invent life-saving new medicines and procedures? I mean, it's not only America making advances in medicine, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is no way to know what additionally *would* have been developed. How can you compare?

[ QUOTE ]

As for the insurance issue... many people get their health insurance through their jobs, so their choices are limited to whatever their employer has. Also, the for-profit nature of insurance leads to 150-page coverage documents written in jargon and legalese, which most people don't understand (and don't even read) until they are denied coverage for something they assumed would be covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

It still comes down to crappy if not fraudulent service. If so many insurance companies really do business that way, I'll start my own company which does not give customers the run around, and I'll become very wealthy and successful. The freer the market is, the easier it will be for such competitors to compete.

That many people buy health insurance through jobs is not relevant. If I don't like the choices offered by my employer, I'll look for a job with better benefits or better pay to buy my own. Again, that's only possible in a free market.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
He then mentioned that we already have some socialized services in the USA, which people have no problem with. He used the example of fire departments, which provide service to everyone and are not expected to turn a profit. He argued that if fire departments were forced to maximize revenues for shareholders, it would be a terrible idea that might compromise safety in life-or-death situations. Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

This seemed like a reasonable argument to me. Am I wrong for thinking this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think you are wrong for thinking this. For one thing, I think it is wrong to assume that having a profit mechanism will make things worse or inefficient; if anything, the opposite is true. Without a price structure (which would at least allow for profits, though not at the exclusion of charity), there is no real way of efficiently allocating resources (Mises argues this point well in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth).

But beyond this point, I think part of the problem is that the desire for 'socialized' medicine is present mostly because our system is so horrible. So a proponent of socilized medicine asks: what system is better, our current one or a socilized one (like Sweden?). And honestly, I'm not sure that a socialized system wouldn't be better than what we have. But, whether it gets explicitly stated or not, our current system somehow ends up getting labeled as a free market system, and then it becomes a battle of 'profits vs nonprofits' and 'capitalist vs socialist', and we more and more want the latter because the former is working so poorly. But we don't have a free market system, and the problem with our system has nothing to do with profits (if it did, why wouldn't our 'shoe-providing system' suffer similarly?). The problem is one of corporatism, of government regulations (regulations that benefit the large medical corps at the expense of the poor), of licensing and rampant monopolization.

So I am skeptical of the degree to which socializing healthcare can fix the system--I think it may (depedning on the specifics) switch which problems are biggest (socialist systems may be much less detrimental to the poor, but often at the expense of both efficiency and expediency, as well the obvious loss of freedom).
Luckily I think that completely voluntary solutions can solve both problems--and in fact they have, historically. We had a very functional and reasonable system in this country until government "fixed" it.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
He then mentioned that we already have some socialized services in the USA, which people have no problem with.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not casting about with a critical eye. Most every service that is provided exclusively by government is annoying or awful. Most every privately provided service that is awful goes extinct in a hurry.

Look back in your life and identify where you've found yourself in the longest lines for service. You might be tempted to suggest getting tickets for some one shot event but the single provider nature of such an event is almost the same as a single (government) provider of driver's licenses or building permits or health care.

A private business with a long line for service will either expand or face competetion or both. The line will go away. When there's only a single provider AND that provider gets paid the same no matter what quantity or quality of service they provide, how do you like your chances?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
But beyond this point, I think part of the problem is that the desire for 'socialized' medicine is present mostly because our system is so horrible. So a proponent of socilized medicine asks: what system is better, our current one or a socilized one (like Sweden?).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a good point and one that applies in a whole lot of other contexts as well. For example, I think a lot of the pro death penalty support comes from people who are fed up with our criminal justice system and don't want to see "killers walking free." You almost get into a "Well if x is bad, then the opposite of x must be good" sort of mentality which ignores a whole world of possibilities.

Big Government is bad therefore no government must be good;
Weak on crime is bad therefore death penalty is good;
etc.

[pokerbobo]

Govt run health care will be great....we can bring in affirmative action too, I think there are way too many asian and indian doctors out there. I think its time we open up the medical profession to all people.

[maxtower]

The problem is that people believe every individual has a right to the best medical care money can buy. (How can you value a life?) The problem is, that there isn't enough money for everyone to consume the best health care money can buy.

Socialized health care would only benefit those who don't have any health care today (the poor). Everyone else (the majority) will see substantial decreases in quality and availability of their care once their employers stop buying coverage, which they would under a socialized system. Wages would not likely rise much in this scenario, but taxes most definitely will. So everyone who has a real job today will get less pay and worse health care.

I do think government should provide coverage for children since they can't provide it for themselves in a lot of cases where parents have other priorities.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a good point and one that applies in a whole lot of other contexts as well. For example, I think a lot of the pro death penalty support comes from people who are fed up with our criminal justice system and don't want to see "killers walking free." You almost get into a "Well if x is bad, then the opposite of x must be good" sort of mentality which ignores a whole world of possibilities.

Big Government is bad therefore no government must be good;
Weak on crime is bad therefore death penalty is good;
etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as an anarchist I do think no government is good (and not just because big government is bad [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

But I do agree that this type of reasoning factors into both the decision to be pro-death penalty (which is bad) and anarchist (which is good).

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]

Look back in your life and identify where you've found yourself in the longest lines for service. You might be tempted to suggest getting tickets for some one shot event but the single provider nature of such an event is almost the same as a single (government) provider of driver's licenses or building permits or health care.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I wait in line longer on a busy evening at Wal-Mart than I ever have at the DMV. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or maybe Wal-Mart emulates a "single provider" on the Tulalip reservation. *shrug* But isn't Wal-Mart one of your corporate heroes or something?

[lozen]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the situation is even worse than that. If health care is socialized, what we'll never see are the possibly revolutionary, life-saving new medicines and procedures which would have been invented, but never come to be. The loss here is similar to the "broken window" fallacy demonstrated in Henry Hazlitt's lesson, but on a life or death scale.

Socializing health care will not only make it less available and of lower quality, in the longer-term it will destroy life-saving innovation. It is the dumbest idea ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wrong. Look north to Canada. They are developing many life saving intiatives. Some of the top cancer iniatives are coming out of facilities here. Also many research and private entities are working on cures as there is a profit to be had if you discover the cure. Our socialized health care system is not the best but it is so much better than the US's.

I did see that Moore interview he also used the example of the education system and police services. He also mentioned that you have to regulate the Drug Companies also. Good luck on that they have bought both the Republicans and Democrats.