Universal Healthcare? Can it work? I'm doubtful...

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All these things got cheaper because of technology. Medical costs go UP because of technology. Amazing.

Now if you could only convince me that by opening up the market, prices would go down and everybody would be happy, I'll jump right along side of you. But for all your ramblings about the evils of government, you haven't given me anything to show that this would actually be the case. Medical care vs Ball Point Pens really doesn't do it for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
TomVeil,

http://www.mises.org/story/917

Pls to be "jumping right along side of me"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't say anything about how to fix the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

Let's try a little logic test, Tom. Assuming that, as this author says, "government actions have been a major factor in forcing up the price of health care in America," would it make sense to favor more or less government intervention in the health care industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would make sense that increasing the efficency of the system would make it better. Are costs staying down in countries that do not have universal health care? Why not?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All these things got cheaper because of technology. Medical costs go UP because of technology. Amazing.

Now if you could only convince me that by opening up the market, prices would go down and everybody would be happy, I'll jump right along side of you. But for all your ramblings about the evils of government, you haven't given me anything to show that this would actually be the case. Medical care vs Ball Point Pens really doesn't do it for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
TomVeil,

http://www.mises.org/story/917

Pls to be "jumping right along side of me"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't say anything about how to fix the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

Let's try a little logic test, Tom. Assuming that, as this author says, "government actions have been a major factor in forcing up the price of health care in America," would it make sense to favor more or less government intervention in the health care industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would make sense that increasing the efficency of the system would make it better. Are costs staying down in countries that do not have universal health care? Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

OMFG. What thread have you been reading?

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]

It would make sense that increasing the efficency of the system would make it better. Are costs staying down in countries that do not have universal health care? Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't say. There are no other countries comparable to the US that don't have universal care. If that doesn't put things in perspective, I don't know what can.

[calmB4storm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All these things got cheaper because of technology. Medical costs go UP because of technology. Amazing.

Now if you could only convince me that by opening up the market, prices would go down and everybody would be happy, I'll jump right along side of you. But for all your ramblings about the evils of government, you haven't given me anything to show that this would actually be the case. Medical care vs Ball Point Pens really doesn't do it for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
TomVeil,

http://www.mises.org/story/917

Pls to be "jumping right along side of me"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't say anything about how to fix the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

Let's try a little logic test, Tom. Assuming that, as this author says, "government actions have been a major factor in forcing up the price of health care in America," would it make sense to favor more or less government intervention in the health care industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would make sense that increasing the efficency of the system would make it better. Are costs staying down in countries that do not have universal health care? Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]
1. I agree, increasing the efficiency of the system would help lower costs. I propose, based on the arguments laid out by Borodog and the article I linked to, that eliminating any and all government intervention is the way to do so. You still disagree? Why?

2. No Universal Health Care =/= No Government Intervention in Health Care

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is going to force the government to do a good job of providing healthcare and avoid wasting money if it doesn't have to compete with anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're called elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Health care is a basic human right. As such, everyone is entitled to care.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're in favor of slavery?

Also, has it *always* been a basic human right? Or is this a recent development?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me expand on this a little - I know some of you don't speak the language of freedom.

If health care is a basic human right that we all are justly ENTITLED to, then what you are saying is that it is morally justifiable for someone, even a WEALTHY person, to enter a doctor's office waving a gun whilst demanding free and immediate treatment for his cold. After all - said wealthy person is ENTITLED to it - it justly belongs to him - it is his most basic right as a human. And I think everyone would agree that when our most basic rights as humans are violated, utilizing the amount of force necessary to solve the problem is a justifiable response.

Now let's talk about entitlements vs. obligations. Where there is an *entitlement*, there MUST also be an *obligation*. So if health care is a basic human right that everyone is MORALLY ENTITLED to, then SOMEONE must be MORALLY OBLIGATED to supply it.

So what exactly are the moral requirements surrounding these obligations? Are only doctors/insurance companies obligated? Besides sounding an awful lot like slavery, it really isn't very fair, considering that (# of people on earth) > (# of doctors/insurance agents). The doctors and insurance agents are obligated to provide a lot more than what they receive. To repeat - they are actually MORALLY OBLIGATED to provide more than they themselves are MORALLY ENTITLED to receive! They are in the hole from the day they are born! There's certainly nothing universal or basic about that. What's that, you say? The obligation doesn't come until they become a doctor? When exactly does this turnover take place? Are you claiming their basic moral nature as a human somehow changes because they become a doctor? What about when doctors retire? Does their basic moral nature as humans change again and now they're entitled to be net receivers of health care again rather than net providers? Doesn't sound like you're talking about universal basic human rights to me.

So surely you're not in favor of slavery - let's go with something more fair that's universal and equal for everyone throughout all time - everyone is morally entitled to X $ of health care, and everyone is also morally obligated to provide X $ of health care. This is more fair and equitable, right? Well, there are several problems. In this way of doing it, your downtrodden poor are actually quite evil, since they clearly aren't meeting their provider requirements, which, let me remind you, they are MORALLY OBLIGATED to provide, so this is a pretty steep offense. They seem like the biggest offenders here, not the victims.
We should really be designing a system that forces them to provide their morally just share, not a system that further subsidizes them.

Also, has this universal moral right to X $ of health care been true for all time, for everyone, or is it a recent development? If it hasn't been true for all time, then, again, it certainly isn't very equitable and doesn't sound like something we can be calling a basic human right. As a matter of fact, I am very certain that (total $ amount of available health care 10k years ago) < (total $ amount of available health care today). (DUCY? Capitalism FTW!) So does the amount correspond to then or now? If it corresponds to now, then we have certainly had a lot of despicable human beings over the years who have been defaulting on the health care they are morally obligated to provide. If it corresponds to then, then it looks to me like the current system actually provides health care to everyone already way, WAY in excess of that dollar amount. This would make an excellent case for reducing gov't health care subsidies.

So which is it exactly? Or were you really just talking out of your ass about all that basic human right/entitlement stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

bump for OneOuter

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It would make sense that increasing the efficency of the system would make it better. Are costs staying down in countries that do not have universal health care? Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't say. There are no other countries comparable to the US that don't have universal care. If that doesn't put things in perspective, I don't know what can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you use this argument if all countries "comparable to the US" endorsed slavery as well? If not, WTF are you saying?

[Money2Burn]

Mobility is a basic human right therefor the government should provide cars and segways for everyone.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Mobility is a basic human right therefor the government should provide cars and segways for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It would make sense that increasing the efficency of the system would make it better. Are costs staying down in countries that do not have universal health care? Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't say. There are no other countries comparable to the US that don't have universal care. If that doesn't put things in perspective, I don't know what can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you use this argument if all countries "comparable to the US" endorsed slavery as well? If not, WTF are you saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to try and be respectful. Saying people are entitled to care, and therefore doctors are enslaved, is absolutely retarded.

I tried.

There is nothing inherent in the idea of a social entitlement that says people should not be compensated for their labor. Quite the opposite, progressives believe that everyone should be fairly compensated. Working for the government is not slavery.

This is so typical. I understand where you're coming from, it's just childish. You have what you need, and you have no responsibility to anybody else. That's just wrong. We all have a responsibility to each other. That has nothing to do with slavery.

Anther thing, arguing by analogy isn't valid. Stop it. Abstractly express your point like a halfway intelligent human being. That's a good test for whether or not something makes sense. If you can say it without using an analogy it's retarded. Use that before you say anything. Somehow I suspect if you actually did this I wouldn't hear a response.

EDIT: Also, there is no argument in my "can't say" post. It is a literal fact that no other developed nation on earth is stupid enough to deprive millions of their own citizens of health care. There are no examples to shed light on the OP's question.