|
|
#1
06-07-2007, 11:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Moore and socialized medicine
Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments).
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? 
|
|
#2
06-07-2007, 11:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
[ QUOTE ]
Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments). 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 ] It's gonna be a tough sell around here...where half the people don't even agree with his point about socialized fire departments.
|
|
#3
06-07-2007, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"?
|
|
#4
06-07-2007, 12:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
[ QUOTE ]
Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"? [/ QUOTE ] No, they would be incompetent. All capitalists are. Then they fire their workers. See Roger and Me.
|
|
#5
06-07-2007, 12:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
[ QUOTE ]
Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments). [/ QUOTE ] One of the biggest problems with socialized ___________ is the difficulty (impossibility) or performing economic calculations well. Think about how complex medicine is. How long should doctors be in school/residency? How much training do nurses need? How many ways should each specialize? How many of each are needed? How much do we pay them to get the number and quality that we need? How do you decide between doctors who specialize in organ transplants, and foot surgeons? There are millions of questions to answer when discussing how to go about figuring out quality and quantity needs. Profits and losses are used as a way to figure out if you are providing enough of service X or to much of product Y. [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] People don't care about the fire department because its 0.1% the size and complexity of the health care industry. Its less prevalent in people's lives, but if a million peoples homes caught fire every day you would damn sure want a system in place that would figure out how much fire protection to provide the best safety to cost ratio. Micheal Moore likes to pretend that we have limitless resources, and that we ought to just give them away to anyone who asks without thinking about how this effects availability to others, and how this effects future generations.
|
|
#6
06-07-2007, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
[ QUOTE ]
Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"? [/ QUOTE ] Around the turn of the last century we had for-profit fire departments. They did in fact do a half-assed job and compromised safety. That's why they were socialized.
|
|
#7
06-07-2007, 01:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"? [/ QUOTE ] Around the turn of the last century we had for-profit fire departments. They did in fact do a half-assed job and compromised safety. That's why they were socialized. [/ QUOTE ] What?!?! You mean that The Market didn't solve all of the problems? Shocking!
|
|
#8
06-07-2007, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
[ QUOTE ]
Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments). [/ QUOTE ] hmmmmmmm.....seems like there is a written contract and the court system that alleviates this strawman of an argument also, insurance companies compete with each other to get market share--it's not like they can treat their customers like crap if their customers have a brain
|
|
#9
06-07-2007, 01:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"? [/ QUOTE ] Around the turn of the last century we had for-profit fire departments. They did in fact do a half-assed job and compromised safety. That's why they were socialized. [/ QUOTE ]Not all fire departments are socialized. Where I live you have a choice to subscribe for fire service, If you don't subscribe and your house catches fire the fire department will watch it burn.
|
|
#10
06-07-2007, 01:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
[ QUOTE ]
Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. [/ QUOTE ] Which shows that Moore is even dumber than those who don't accept evolution and think the Earth is only 6,000 years old. [ QUOTE ] Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments). [/ QUOTE ] I only buy insurance which is beneficial to *me*. That means insurance which covers all procedures deemed medically necessary by my doctor. Just like any other business, it does not benefit the shareholders for the insurance company to commit fraud or to default on it's coverage. This is especially true in a competitive industry in a free market. [ QUOTE ] 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 ] You are so wrong it's scary. That health-care is often life or death makes it even MORE vital that the industry not be destroyed by government regulation or socialization. If the computer/software industry had been socialized circa 1980, do you think we'd now have better and more available computers and apps? How about the aircraft industry in the early/mid 20th century? Would passenger air travel now be safer and cheaper? Of course not, and health care is no different. 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
