And rootkits aside, consider a Linux box used in a residential environment, everyone using the same user account, downloading and running whatever they like. What's to stop them downloading and running any sort of malware that now starts every time this user logs in?
That's the fault of the owner though a Linux distro can help. About 20 months ago, almost 2 years, I bought a new PC with Linux preinstalled. When I got it home, connected everything up then booted on that first boot it asked me to setup a root user account. Once I did it asked me to setup a user account, one that couldn't install software or mess with the OS, and suggested I use it for most things.
Unless the worst viruses in the world are interested in your music collection, stored in your home folder. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for a virus to run on a Linux machine, the user would have to either knowingly execute it, or run a program that executes it. And even then, unless the user does it as root, the virus is almost totally harmless to the system.
But the OS X is the same, unless something is installed as root it's harmless to the system.
I've seen many comments saying Ubuntu users don't deserve to use Linux because they aren't any better than Windows users. I've seen many comments complaining about Ubuntu users not knowing how their operating system works. I've seen many comments complaining about Ubuntu bringing in people to Linux who know nothing about Linux.
In other words they're pissed a normal person can use Ubuntu instead of needing to be a sysadmin or guru to use it.
The only people who don't consider Apple's practices to be tyrannical are Apple fanboys and people who don't know or care about anything beyond whether or not their computers gets them to Facebook/Myspace/whatever.
I am not an Apple fanboy. Nor do I use my MacBook Pro to get to either Facebook or Myspace though I do use it for the web. I also will be using it for photography and web development.
Oh, I also have a Linux PC and up until it died used a Windows PC. If the Amiga were alive today I'd probably using it as well.
In reality, though, Apple could never keep a dominant position for long, at least not with their current practices. The word "antitrust" comes to mind...
Antitrust hasn't stopped Microsoft yet, what makes you think it would stop Apple? And how could Apple become a case for antitrust? If I wanted to I could run not only Mac software but Linux and Microsoft software as well, actually I have installed and used Linux, FOSS, and cross platform software. For instance for my office suite I use NeoOffice, the native Mac port of Open Office.
I never said no babies had to be hospital born.
Then you're only bringing down the cost of the average hospital bill, not the maximum cost. Sure, some people may be able to save some money, but that doesn't do a thing for the people who still have to face a 5+ figure bill, or death.
Well that's what it's all about, lowering the cost of medicine for most, isn't it? For those who have high medical costs, like accidents and cancer, that's where catastrophic insurance steps in. By lowering normal medical costs then people can pay out of pocket for them.
And no, I don't think that industrialized countries should use worlds poorhouse as a reference for the availability of medical services.
Maybe you didn't understand my point which was that most babies don't need to be born in a hospital. Even in Africa many babies are born outside a hospital and are healthy. For many of those who aren't prenatal care will help more than the hospital will.
No, but if you're going to play Russian roulette, do you pick the revolver that's loaded with two bullets, or the one loaded with one ?
And who says homebirths is playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the revolver whereas hospital births only have one bullet?
What all this hubbub about medical malpractice, and tort reform, then?
Well, I'm fortunate enough to live in country where there's slightly more sanity in this area than in the US. No ambulance chasers over here.
OK. So you're not living in the US where those who cause harm can be held accountable whereas under socialized medicine they may not be as the government, and therefore taxpayers, pays. I have personal knowledge of this, for while as a college student I was hit when I was riding my bike after class. My medical bills were more than $120,000 and eventually the employer of the driver who hit me was made to pay those bills whereas under socialized medicine taxpayers would be made to pay. Unfortunately US taxpayers still pay as I am now on disability, Supplemental Security Income, which taxpayer pay for. And because of my injury from the accident I have been refusee health insurance. Under a fair system the employer would have had to pay all of it, including insurance.
Great. If we had tried that the last two times, my wife would have bled to death twice.
I never said no babies had to be hospital born. There are some that need to be delivered in hospitals. But the majority don't. Do you think every village in Africa, I'm using Africa because it has the highest population growth in the world, has a hospital? Or even a clinic?
And do you have any idea how much a "small mistake" during delivery can cost ? One severely handicapped kid will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And "small mistakes" never happen in hospitals? What all this hubbub about medical malpractice, and tort reform, then?
Try to national food though and watch productivity fall.
Try to take away food stamps and watch the riots tear apart the cities.
To a limited extent I support food stamps, especially over nationalizing food production. Farmers still get paid while the hungry get food. Actually I'd rather more money go to those programs that actually feed people rather than how it's done in the US today. Large agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, and Cargill get billions of taxpayer dollars in farm subsidies. If that money went to charities like soup kitchens and food banks it would help more of those who need the help.
If the tech exists for the insured to discriminate (e.g. "I am low risk so I won't buy insurance" vs "I am high risk so I will buy insurance") then the insurers will have no choice but to raise all premiums as a counter-strategy.
Years ago even though I was healthy, because my employer didn't offer health insurance I checked into getting my own policy. The cheapest I found was 1/3 of my income. So I didn't get it. If it had been 1/5 I might of gotten some. With the tax benefits employers get for offering health insurance extended to everyone the competition would drive premiums down.
Either I pay lots of money out of my paycheck (including a lower salary just for participating in the plan), or the government taxes me.
Extending the tax benefits employers get for offering health insurance to employees to everyone will allow competition for health insurance which will drive prices down.
At the end of the day we would still have a bloated, expensive system, but if the government runs it, we have better accountability.
The same thing would've happened in Canada too, of course
Ok.
In the US, if you have a problem that needs treatment but isn't yet an emergency, you just don't get treated at all if you don't have enough money. In Canada, you do get treated, even though you might have to wait first.
This is where Health savings accounts and walkin clinics come in. Lower costs at clinics would allow people to show up and ask for assistance. Perhaps a person notices their eyesight isn't as good as it used to be so they go down to the neighborhood clinic. A Nurse Practitioner orders a blood test which shows low levels of vitamin A in the blood so the NP then gives them a shot of A and counsel on what they need to eat to raise the level.
I see. So, apparently when you say "free market", you don't just mean getting rid of tax breaks - you want to get rid of every regulation and let anyone practice medicine if they feel like it.
What I want is for everyone to have the same tax benefits that employees and their employers have now. Even employers like McDonald's may pay employees a dollar an hour more so that full time workers could pay insurance on their own, and save money in the process. As for getting rid of regulations, yes some can be eliminated, such as the ban on midwives. If nothing else, though I oppose it, they can be licensed after passing an exam.
Sounds like a great plan. I can't wait for the opportunity to go to my local barber for a good old-fashioned bleeding, instead of having to go to one of those phony "MDs" who want to charge me for a bunch of useless tests and dangerous anesthetic. If it was good enough for my great-great-great-grandfather, it's good enough for me!
If I have to pay $250 a month for medical/dental/vision to an insurance carrier that is more concerned with their profit margin than my health I would rather put that money into universal care.
I'll reverse your position. Between having to pay $250 a month in a universal health care plan to support someone who sits around all day smoking 3 packs and eating at McDonald's 5 days a week and paying an insurance company who gives a $50 discount to people who eat healthy food, I'd rather pay the $200 a month.
You're describing a medical payment plan, not insurance. If you are paying into a medical plan in order to have it pay for expected medical costs down the road, you would get a much better rate of return by investing the money yourself and paying for those medical costs when they happen.
In the US just as with IRAs a Health savings account can be invested. The only difference between the savings plan and just investing the money is that the plan is tax deductible. When you need the money for medical expenses you can withdraw some but if you don't need any the money just keeps building up, only faster than a regular investment plan because you're not paying taxes on it.
if at all, if routine medical services were not covered. Catastrophic events would occur much more frequently due to lack of preventative care. A person who has to pay $100 out of pocket for a test or checkup may not get one. Whether it's because they think they can beat the system or because they feel they can't afford it, insurance companies would have to pay for the expensive cleanup afterwards.
First, if I were paying out of pocket I'd shop for a doctor who has reasonable rates. Then as far as catastrophic coverage is concerned, the company providing it can require the insured to have regular exams. When the doc says additional tests are needed the issuer can say either the person has them or s/he will be denied any catastrophic coverage for not having them done.
Meanwhile, you ignore all the national health care systems that do work.
Yes they do work, but just as with the US system they all have problems.
Actually, if I needed surgery and didn't have health insurance, I'd take Canada over the US any day. Waiting in queue is a hell of a lot better than going without treatment.
Living in the US without insurance, not only did I not have to be put on a waiting list but I was also medivaced in a helicopter to the hospital. Though there was a hospital a couple of miles away I was taken to one that had the expertize to work with my injury a lot further away.
That doesn't make sense. Remember, you said government intervention was keeping prices high, and that eliminating the tax break for employer-provided health insurance would cause prices to drop. If prices drop, that will discourage people from becoming doctors -- the opposite of what you want. Basic economics, you know?
It does make sense, it doesn't seem like it to you because you haven't thought of something, something I brought up. One high expense for health care is childbirth. Whereas childbirth in a hospital, where the doc may perform a C section, could cost thousands of dollars homebirths with a midwife can deliver the baby for less than a $1000 saving thousands of dollars. Yet midwives are illegal in some states while others require a midwife to be a licensed nurse. A person doesn't have to be a doctor to practice health care, in a free market midwives would be allowed to practice, even as a nurse but not necessarily. And whereas a doctor will be in college 8 years or more, a person can get a nursing degree and be licensed in 2 years.
I don't think people should ever be forced to live against their wishes, and I think it's unfortunate that medical ethics and law that's attached to it has come to another conclusion on that topic.
Thanks. While I wished I had died I realize there's nothing they could have done. It was pretty obvious I would live once I came out of the coma and I didn't have a living will. However my mom had to go to court to have a judge declare her my legal guardian so I'm not sure having the will would have had an effect.
Of course, you will say that this isn't the same as nationalizing the food industry, and you're right. The difference is that its pretty cheap to put food in your belly and some sort of roof over your head. Medical care is not. If you get pretty sick, and you are not very very wealthy, you're pretty fucked. Of course, there is insurance. This isn't a perfect system either: its still not cheap. Lots of people truly can't afford it.
Ah but competition for health care and insurance will drive those costs down. If employers were able to pay employees more without either having to pay more in tax then the competition between insurance companies to get people to sign up for health insurance will drive premiums down. As it is now employers get a tax break for offering their employees insurance, however more and more employers are dropping insurance as a benefit because costs are escalating. But, say employers spend $3000 on each employee's insurance, if the employer were able to pay the person $3000 more while neither has to pay more taxes there would be a flood of person wanting to buy health insurance on their own. To entice as many of those people as they can to buy their insurance insurance companies will lower their premiums and offer different policies. One couple with children can get a policy that only covers catastrophic expenses, in which case their premium will be low, then they can put a little away with each paycheck into a health savings account tax free to pay for normal medical expenses like annual checkups. Another person living alone may want compleat medical coverage, in which case their premium will be higher.
Plus the companies have every economic incentive to treat you as little as possible, and if you're seriously ill it is better for their balance sheet to just let you die.
Insurance companies can get away with treating you poorly because they have little if even competition. Add competition then if they want to keep you they'll need to treat you better. If they aren't willing to the company down the street will be happy to have you paying them instead. As for letting you die, it may be cheaper to let you die but if they're slapped with a lawsuit it can end up costing a lot more. Even if they win a wrongful death case in court it still costs them a lot. There's the attorney costs, court costs, and expert witness costs.
I really wonder how your guys opinions would change if a misfortune occurred that incapacitated you so you couldn't make money, you got socked with a medical bill you couldn't pay.
Done that. While I was unemployed and without health insurance I was hospitalized. I spent about a month in the hospital then was transfered to a rehab house, where I lived several weeks. After that I spend almost 3 months in therapy. Up through then my medical bills came to more than $120,000. Because of my injury there was no expectation I'd ever be able to pay it back, heck while in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. Well, it's been hell for me since then even though I spent another year in therapy.
Force is not the only harm worth considering in society - starvation, bankruptcy, financial ruin, these are all real too, and ruin lives in a much more concrete way than someone being asked to pay taxes.
More than most, although there are a number of others coming back from Iraq learning it too, I know all too well about having your life ruined. I know because my life has been ruined, I am a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. The docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived, my sister told me after I came out of the coma I screamed at everyone to let me die and I wish they had.
And the fact that you can't point to a single real world example of your proposal working leads me to conclude that you haven't thought it through. Since this "basic economics" is so obvious, do you really think you're the first one to think of it?
Health care is already rationed. Everything is rationed when demand exceeds supply. It's just that in a "free market", it's rationed by price: the scarce resources go to the people who are willing and/or able to pay the most for them.
And under socialized medicine it comes to whomever has the most clout or can afford to pay more.
I contend, and a majority of American citizens and doctors apparently agree, that rationing health care by price is a poor way to do it. If 100 people want to see a doctor, but the doctor only has time to see half of them, we would prefer him to see the 50 sickest people -- but a free market will inevitably lead him to see the 50 wealthiest people instead.
In a free market more people would want to be medical professionals, more doctors can see more patients. in a free market midwives could deliver babes in homes thus reducing significantly the cost of child birth. Many doctors perform C sections unnecessarily which drives up costs as well. In a free market groups could bargain for lower cost drugs. Heck Walmart has pledged, and is, offering to sell many prescription drugs for no more than $10. When I last had insurance I had 3 prescriptions, one of them cost more than $100 even with insurance. If however I had been able to join with others who needed the drug we could have bargained to buy it in bulk at a lower price.
I contend, and a majority of American citizens and doctors apparently agree, that rationing health care by price is a poor way to do it.
Oh, I agree that any one who wants health care should be able to get it but I also believe the best way to lower costs so everyone can afford it is by having a free market.
That's not surprising. Lots of people support policies that go against their own interests.
Quite the contrary, I believe it's in my own interest, along with many others', to support a free market in medical care. Though I've asked others to prove a free market isn't better, and may be worse than other choices, no one has yet.
Neo-con am I? And other call me socialist. I am neither, instead I am a Classical liberal. I want liberty and small government.
Instead of 12 to 20 million "illegal aliens" crossing the US's southern border there's that many Americans trying to cross into Canada. These illegals don't want to immigrate into a country, the US, that has bad health care, they want Canada's great health care.
That's also why so much more medical research is done in Canada than in the US? Oops things seem to be reversed: "But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country."
Wake up US - you're in a bad situation, and the rest of the world is amazed that you can't understand this.
Yea, the US is so bad we have 12 to 20 million "illegal aliens" on the country and many more risking their lives trying to get in every day. If the US is so bad why are they doing this?
Ah, poor Canadians. Is that why the world is seeing such massive waves of immigrants from Canada flying the catastrophe?
AH, we have the reverse of that in the US. A lot of the posters responding to TFA want universal health care because the health system "sucks" for them. At the same tyme people are in a rage about the 12 to 20 million "illegal aliens" in the US. If the US health care system is so bad why are so many willing to risk their life to get into the US?
I mean, in any western developed country, it's hard to justify a system where somebody might die 'cause they can't afford chemotherapy or something, and that the status quo isn't really acceptable.
So, people should be made to work more so they can pay for someone else's chemotherapy?
Slashdot Mirror
And rootkits aside, consider a Linux box used in a residential environment, everyone using the same user account, downloading and running whatever they like. What's to stop them downloading and running any sort of malware that now starts every time this user logs in?
That's the fault of the owner though a Linux distro can help. About 20 months ago, almost 2 years, I bought a new PC with Linux preinstalled. When I got it home, connected everything up then booted on that first boot it asked me to setup a root user account. Once I did it asked me to setup a user account, one that couldn't install software or mess with the OS, and suggested I use it for most things.
FalconUnless the worst viruses in the world are interested in your music collection, stored in your home folder. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for a virus to run on a Linux machine, the user would have to either knowingly execute it, or run a program that executes it. And even then, unless the user does it as root, the virus is almost totally harmless to the system.
But the OS X is the same, unless something is installed as root it's harmless to the system.
FalconI've seen many comments saying Ubuntu users don't deserve to use Linux because they aren't any better than Windows users. I've seen many comments complaining about Ubuntu users not knowing how their operating system works. I've seen many comments complaining about Ubuntu bringing in people to Linux who know nothing about Linux.
In other words they're pissed a normal person can use Ubuntu instead of needing to be a sysadmin or guru to use it.
FalconIn what way is Apple draconian?
The only people who don't consider Apple's practices to be tyrannical are Apple fanboys and people who don't know or care about anything beyond whether or not their computers gets them to Facebook/Myspace/whatever.
I am not an Apple fanboy. Nor do I use my MacBook Pro to get to either Facebook or Myspace though I do use it for the web. I also will be using it for photography and web development.
Oh, I also have a Linux PC and up until it died used a Windows PC. If the Amiga were alive today I'd probably using it as well.
In reality, though, Apple could never keep a dominant position for long, at least not with their current practices. The word "antitrust" comes to mind...
Antitrust hasn't stopped Microsoft yet, what makes you think it would stop Apple? And how could Apple become a case for antitrust? If I wanted to I could run not only Mac software but Linux and Microsoft software as well, actually I have installed and used Linux, FOSS, and cross platform software. For instance for my office suite I use NeoOffice, the native Mac port of Open Office.
FalconI never said no babies had to be hospital born.
Then you're only bringing down the cost of the average hospital bill, not the maximum cost. Sure, some people may be able to save some money, but that doesn't do a thing for the people who still have to face a 5+ figure bill, or death.
Well that's what it's all about, lowering the cost of medicine for most, isn't it? For those who have high medical costs, like accidents and cancer, that's where catastrophic insurance steps in. By lowering normal medical costs then people can pay out of pocket for them.
And no, I don't think that industrialized countries should use worlds poorhouse as a reference for the availability of medical services.
Maybe you didn't understand my point which was that most babies don't need to be born in a hospital. Even in Africa many babies are born outside a hospital and are healthy. For many of those who aren't prenatal care will help more than the hospital will.
No, but if you're going to play Russian roulette, do you pick the revolver that's loaded with two bullets, or the one loaded with one ?
And who says homebirths is playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the revolver whereas hospital births only have one bullet?
What all this hubbub about medical malpractice, and tort reform, then?
Well, I'm fortunate enough to live in country where there's slightly more sanity in this area than in the US. No ambulance chasers over here.
OK. So you're not living in the US where those who cause harm can be held accountable whereas under socialized medicine they may not be as the government, and therefore taxpayers, pays. I have personal knowledge of this, for while as a college student I was hit when I was riding my bike after class. My medical bills were more than $120,000 and eventually the employer of the driver who hit me was made to pay those bills whereas under socialized medicine taxpayers would be made to pay. Unfortunately US taxpayers still pay as I am now on disability, Supplemental Security Income, which taxpayer pay for. And because of my injury from the accident I have been refusee health insurance. Under a fair system the employer would have had to pay all of it, including insurance.
FalconGreat. If we had tried that the last two times, my wife would have bled to death twice.
I never said no babies had to be hospital born. There are some that need to be delivered in hospitals. But the majority don't. Do you think every village in Africa, I'm using Africa because it has the highest population growth in the world, has a hospital? Or even a clinic?
And do you have any idea how much a "small mistake" during delivery can cost ? One severely handicapped kid will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And "small mistakes" never happen in hospitals? What all this hubbub about medical malpractice, and tort reform, then?
FalconTroll
FalconTry to national food though and watch productivity fall.
Try to take away food stamps and watch the riots tear apart the cities.
To a limited extent I support food stamps, especially over nationalizing food production. Farmers still get paid while the hungry get food. Actually I'd rather more money go to those programs that actually feed people rather than how it's done in the US today. Large agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, and Cargill get billions of taxpayer dollars in farm subsidies. If that money went to charities like soup kitchens and food banks it would help more of those who need the help.
FalconIf the tech exists for the insured to discriminate (e.g. "I am low risk so I won't buy insurance" vs "I am high risk so I will buy insurance") then the insurers will have no choice but to raise all premiums as a counter-strategy.
Years ago even though I was healthy, because my employer didn't offer health insurance I checked into getting my own policy. The cheapest I found was 1/3 of my income. So I didn't get it. If it had been 1/5 I might of gotten some. With the tax benefits employers get for offering health insurance extended to everyone the competition would drive premiums down.
FalconEither I pay lots of money out of my paycheck (including a lower salary just for participating in the plan), or the government taxes me.
Extending the tax benefits employers get for offering health insurance to employees to everyone will allow competition for health insurance which will drive prices down.
At the end of the day we would still have a bloated, expensive system, but if the government runs it, we have better accountability.
Yea, Bush is being held accountable. NOT!
FalconThe same thing would've happened in Canada too, of course
Ok.
In the US, if you have a problem that needs treatment but isn't yet an emergency, you just don't get treated at all if you don't have enough money. In Canada, you do get treated, even though you might have to wait first.
This is where Health savings accounts and walkin clinics come in. Lower costs at clinics would allow people to show up and ask for assistance. Perhaps a person notices their eyesight isn't as good as it used to be so they go down to the neighborhood clinic. A Nurse Practitioner orders a blood test which shows low levels of vitamin A in the blood so the NP then gives them a shot of A and counsel on what they need to eat to raise the level.
I see. So, apparently when you say "free market", you don't just mean getting rid of tax breaks - you want to get rid of every regulation and let anyone practice medicine if they feel like it.
What I want is for everyone to have the same tax benefits that employees and their employers have now. Even employers like McDonald's may pay employees a dollar an hour more so that full time workers could pay insurance on their own, and save money in the process. As for getting rid of regulations, yes some can be eliminated, such as the ban on midwives. If nothing else, though I oppose it, they can be licensed after passing an exam.
Sounds like a great plan. I can't wait for the opportunity to go to my local barber for a good old-fashioned bleeding, instead of having to go to one of those phony "MDs" who want to charge me for a bunch of useless tests and dangerous anesthetic. If it was good enough for my great-great-great-grandfather, it's good enough for me!
Ah, that's what it's all about, you're trolling.
FalconIf I have to pay $250 a month for medical/dental/vision to an insurance carrier that is more concerned with their profit margin than my health I would rather put that money into universal care.
I'll reverse your position. Between having to pay $250 a month in a universal health care plan to support someone who sits around all day smoking 3 packs and eating at McDonald's 5 days a week and paying an insurance company who gives a $50 discount to people who eat healthy food, I'd rather pay the $200 a month.
FalconYou're describing a medical payment plan, not insurance. If you are paying into a medical plan in order to have it pay for expected medical costs down the road, you would get a much better rate of return by investing the money yourself and paying for those medical costs when they happen.
In the US just as with IRAs a Health savings account can be invested. The only difference between the savings plan and just investing the money is that the plan is tax deductible. When you need the money for medical expenses you can withdraw some but if you don't need any the money just keeps building up, only faster than a regular investment plan because you're not paying taxes on it.
Falconif at all, if routine medical services were not covered. Catastrophic events would occur much more frequently due to lack of preventative care. A person who has to pay $100 out of pocket for a test or checkup may not get one. Whether it's because they think they can beat the system or because they feel they can't afford it, insurance companies would have to pay for the expensive cleanup afterwards.
First, if I were paying out of pocket I'd shop for a doctor who has reasonable rates. Then as far as catastrophic coverage is concerned, the company providing it can require the insured to have regular exams. When the doc says additional tests are needed the issuer can say either the person has them or s/he will be denied any catastrophic coverage for not having them done.
FalconMeanwhile, you ignore all the national health care systems that do work.
Yes they do work, but just as with the US system they all have problems.
Actually, if I needed surgery and didn't have health insurance, I'd take Canada over the US any day. Waiting in queue is a hell of a lot better than going without treatment.
Living in the US without insurance, not only did I not have to be put on a waiting list but I was also medivaced in a helicopter to the hospital. Though there was a hospital a couple of miles away I was taken to one that had the expertize to work with my injury a lot further away.
That doesn't make sense. Remember, you said government intervention was keeping prices high, and that eliminating the tax break for employer-provided health insurance would cause prices to drop. If prices drop, that will discourage people from becoming doctors -- the opposite of what you want. Basic economics, you know?
It does make sense, it doesn't seem like it to you because you haven't thought of something, something I brought up. One high expense for health care is childbirth. Whereas childbirth in a hospital, where the doc may perform a C section, could cost thousands of dollars homebirths with a midwife can deliver the baby for less than a $1000 saving thousands of dollars. Yet midwives are illegal in some states while others require a midwife to be a licensed nurse. A person doesn't have to be a doctor to practice health care, in a free market midwives would be allowed to practice, even as a nurse but not necessarily. And whereas a doctor will be in college 8 years or more, a person can get a nursing degree and be licensed in 2 years.
FalconI don't think people should ever be forced to live against their wishes, and I think it's unfortunate that medical ethics and law that's attached to it has come to another conclusion on that topic.
Thanks. While I wished I had died I realize there's nothing they could have done. It was pretty obvious I would live once I came out of the coma and I didn't have a living will. However my mom had to go to court to have a judge declare her my legal guardian so I'm not sure having the will would have had an effect.
FalconOf course, you will say that this isn't the same as nationalizing the food industry, and you're right. The difference is that its pretty cheap to put food in your belly and some sort of roof over your head. Medical care is not. If you get pretty sick, and you are not very very wealthy, you're pretty fucked. Of course, there is insurance. This isn't a perfect system either: its still not cheap. Lots of people truly can't afford it.
Ah but competition for health care and insurance will drive those costs down. If employers were able to pay employees more without either having to pay more in tax then the competition between insurance companies to get people to sign up for health insurance will drive premiums down. As it is now employers get a tax break for offering their employees insurance, however more and more employers are dropping insurance as a benefit because costs are escalating. But, say employers spend $3000 on each employee's insurance, if the employer were able to pay the person $3000 more while neither has to pay more taxes there would be a flood of person wanting to buy health insurance on their own. To entice as many of those people as they can to buy their insurance insurance companies will lower their premiums and offer different policies. One couple with children can get a policy that only covers catastrophic expenses, in which case their premium will be low, then they can put a little away with each paycheck into a health savings account tax free to pay for normal medical expenses like annual checkups. Another person living alone may want compleat medical coverage, in which case their premium will be higher.
Plus the companies have every economic incentive to treat you as little as possible, and if you're seriously ill it is better for their balance sheet to just let you die.
Insurance companies can get away with treating you poorly because they have little if even competition. Add competition then if they want to keep you they'll need to treat you better. If they aren't willing to the company down the street will be happy to have you paying them instead. As for letting you die, it may be cheaper to let you die but if they're slapped with a lawsuit it can end up costing a lot more. Even if they win a wrongful death case in court it still costs them a lot. There's the attorney costs, court costs, and expert witness costs.
FalconI really wonder how your guys opinions would change if a misfortune occurred that incapacitated you so you couldn't make money, you got socked with a medical bill you couldn't pay.
Done that. While I was unemployed and without health insurance I was hospitalized. I spent about a month in the hospital then was transfered to a rehab house, where I lived several weeks. After that I spend almost 3 months in therapy. Up through then my medical bills came to more than $120,000. Because of my injury there was no expectation I'd ever be able to pay it back, heck while in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. Well, it's been hell for me since then even though I spent another year in therapy.
FalconForce is not the only harm worth considering in society - starvation, bankruptcy, financial ruin, these are all real too, and ruin lives in a much more concrete way than someone being asked to pay taxes.
More than most, although there are a number of others coming back from Iraq learning it too, I know all too well about having your life ruined. I know because my life has been ruined, I am a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. The docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived, my sister told me after I came out of the coma I screamed at everyone to let me die and I wish they had.
FalconAnd the fact that you can't point to a single real world example of your proposal working leads me to conclude that you haven't thought it through. Since this "basic economics" is so obvious, do you really think you're the first one to think of it?
It's kind of hard to point to a real world example of what I advocate, a free market for health care, when one does not exist. I can however point to socialized medical systems that didn't work, the former Soviet Republics. And I hope you don't need surgery in Canada: Restricted government spending along with universal health insurance has led to longer queues for surgical procedures in Canada versus the United States." And someone has to pay for research: "High US Medical Spending Spurs Innovation".
Health care is already rationed. Everything is rationed when demand exceeds supply. It's just that in a "free market", it's rationed by price: the scarce resources go to the people who are willing and/or able to pay the most for them.
And under socialized medicine it comes to whomever has the most clout or can afford to pay more.
I contend, and a majority of American citizens and doctors apparently agree, that rationing health care by price is a poor way to do it. If 100 people want to see a doctor, but the doctor only has time to see half of them, we would prefer him to see the 50 sickest people -- but a free market will inevitably lead him to see the 50 wealthiest people instead.
In a free market more people would want to be medical professionals, more doctors can see more patients. in a free market midwives could deliver babes in homes thus reducing significantly the cost of child birth. Many doctors perform C sections unnecessarily which drives up costs as well. In a free market groups could bargain for lower cost drugs. Heck Walmart has pledged, and is, offering to sell many prescription drugs for no more than $10. When I last had insurance I had 3 prescriptions, one of them cost more than $100 even with insurance. If however I had been able to join with others who needed the drug we could have bargained to buy it in bulk at a lower price.
I contend, and a majority of American citizens and doctors apparently agree, that rationing health care by price is a poor way to do it.
Oh, I agree that any one who wants health care should be able to get it but I also believe the best way to lower costs so everyone can afford it is by having a free market.
FalconThat's not surprising. Lots of people support policies that go against their own interests.
Quite the contrary, I believe it's in my own interest, along with many others', to support a free market in medical care. Though I've asked others to prove a free market isn't better, and may be worse than other choices, no one has yet.
FalconNeo-con am I? And other call me socialist. I am neither, instead I am a Classical liberal. I want liberty and small government.
Instead of 12 to 20 million "illegal aliens" crossing the US's southern border there's that many Americans trying to cross into Canada. These illegals don't want to immigrate into a country, the US, that has bad health care, they want Canada's great health care.
That's also why so much more medical research is done in Canada than in the US? Oops things seem to be reversed: "But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country."
FalconWake up US - you're in a bad situation, and the rest of the world is amazed that you can't understand this.
Yea, the US is so bad we have 12 to 20 million "illegal aliens" on the country and many more risking their lives trying to get in every day. If the US is so bad why are they doing this?
FalconAh, poor Canadians. Is that why the world is seeing such massive waves of immigrants from Canada flying the catastrophe?
AH, we have the reverse of that in the US. A lot of the posters responding to TFA want universal health care because the health system "sucks" for them. At the same tyme people are in a rage about the 12 to 20 million "illegal aliens" in the US. If the US health care system is so bad why are so many willing to risk their life to get into the US?
FalconI mean, in any western developed country, it's hard to justify a system where somebody might die 'cause they can't afford chemotherapy or something, and that the status quo isn't really acceptable.
So, people should be made to work more so they can pay for someone else's chemotherapy?
Falcon