Death Panels in California -- Why do the Free Marketers Ignore This?

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I'll take "It doesn't suit their political agenda" for $1000

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I'll take "It doesn't suit their political agenda" for $1000

I thought "DEATH PANELS!!!" were made up by the evulll anti-UHC baby killers?

 

[PokerGuy]

My goodness, the stupidity in this thread is amazing. Fern's post makes a lot of sense. Rationing will always have to exist, otherwise the system will quickly implode under it's own cost weight.

The difference is, some of us don't feel comfortable with a giant government having yet more control over everything, and being the only alternative. At least with private companies you have some avenues for redress. With the government running the mess, you'll have no options.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
My goodness, the stupidity in this thread is amazing. Fern's post makes a lot of sense. Rationing will always have to exist, otherwise the system will quickly implode under it's own cost weight.

The difference is, some of us don't feel comfortable with a giant government having yet more control over everything, and being the only alternative. At least with private companies you have some avenues for redress. With the government running the mess, you'll have no options.

What redress do I have with an insurance company? Me vs. their army of lawyers?

Again, it all boils down to money. If you can afford the lawyers to fight an insurance company, then you can afford decent insurance.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
My goodness, the stupidity in this thread is amazing. Fern's post makes a lot of sense. Rationing will always have to exist, otherwise the system will quickly implode under it's own cost weight.

The difference is, some of us don't feel comfortable with a giant government having yet more control over everything, and being the only alternative. At least with private companies you have some avenues for redress. With the government running the mess, you'll have no options.

What redress do I have with an insurance company? Me vs. their army of lawyers?

Again, it all boils down to money. If you can afford the lawyers to fight an insurance company, then you can afford decent insurance.

Actually, depending on the case, you might not need money at all, and in certain types of cases the AG for a state will go after a company. If it's a government-run disaster, you have no recource. Period.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Why can't everyone realize that every system will have to "ration." Free markets are the best system for allocating limited resources.

that isn't true.

hypothetical, spend a million to give a 90 year old rich guy a heart transplant or spend that million to give thousands of poor kids polio vaccines; which choice has the greater probability of improving the lives of the most people ?

absolutist free marketers might say that if it's the rich guy's million dollars that we should have a system that rewards his wealth at the expense of the poor kids.

However, the rich guy's million dollars, however he got it, is only worth a million dollars because he is part of a larger society, including government, that either permitted him to benefit from his ideas or labor, or protected his assets from devaluation. He couldn't do either of those things himself.

So there are certain things, everyone would say national defense, I would say health care too, that need to be rationed to some extent based on need, not by wealth, so that the society itself can be succesful and therefore the individuals in that society can succeed.

Your hypothetical really depends on the who the rich guy is and who the thousands of kids are. We don't know that and that's why I would let the market decide. We can centralize economic decision-making or leave it to the market. I think history shows that a regulated market does the best job of allocating resources.

when you qualify "free market" with "regulated" I can pretty much agree with you. But I would include as part of the regulation a level playing field for all participants, which in the case of health care I would describe as access to services that maintains a reasonable level of health. And that everyone is de facto a participant in the market, everyone has a potential need for healthcare.

The status quo in health care doesn't implement this level playing field in a rational way, instead it relies primarily on expensive emergency room care and allows catastrophic outcomes that are damaging to the system, not just the player who made the bad decision.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

I beleive free markets are great for many human interactions/endeavors. As far as corruption, the private sector is as corrupt and wasteful as government, if not more so, since there are more ways to conceal corruption and waste in the private sector.

As far as my hypothetical being realistic, there is a great deal of historical evidence that government is an effective way to deal with large scale healthcare issues lke vaccines.

I dont know what corrution has to do with your argument. Corruption on govt level is backed by force. On the private level they go to jail or their company runs out of money and folds.

I am sure there are examples of govt utilizing forced vaccinations for the greater good. There are also examples of vaccination programs that were worse than the disease.(1976 swine flu outbreak).

That said I dont think what you just said has much to do with how both public and private will have to ration. Nor how free markets can address this rationing vs a politician.

my discussion of corruption is a response to a post about political cronyism that someone brought up.

 

[Sclamoz]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
My goodness, the stupidity in this thread is amazing. Fern's post makes a lot of sense. Rationing will always have to exist, otherwise the system will quickly implode under it's own cost weight.

Of course. Then why don't those opposed to the plan being put forth say "The Government will have to ration the care it provides to save money!" instead of implying that Obama wants to kill the old & sick with death panels?

The difference is, some of us don't feel comfortable with a giant government having yet more control over everything, and being the only alternative. At least with private companies you have some avenues for redress. With the government running the mess, you'll have no options.

Why are you any more comfortable with only insurance companies to turn to? Do you honestly feel they have your best interests at heart more than the Government does?

Right Now:
1. Private insurance for the majority of Americans.

What the Democrats want:
1. Private insurance for the majority of Americans.
2. Government coverage for those who don't have private insurance available to them.

People like myself aren't for this idea because we trust the government, but because it gives actual options in times of need.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Why can't everyone realize that every system will have to "ration." Free markets are the best system for allocating limited resources.

How do you figure?

Have you taken a look at the federal budget lately?

Companies are eventually forced to "live" within their means. On the other hand, it is in a politicians best interests (at least short term) to do the exact opposite.

In reality, every other country pays less for more.

That is ncie and cliche and all. But many countries pay less for less. Dental coverage in UK is abysmal. Their system as a whole is a disaster as admitted by their politicians who call it a national embarassment. Yet they pay less. Well of course it costs less when you cover less or flat dont do the job at all.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
My goodness, the stupidity in this thread is amazing. Fern's post makes a lot of sense. Rationing will always have to exist, otherwise the system will quickly implode under it's own cost weight.

The difference is, some of us don't feel comfortable with a giant government having yet more control over everything, and being the only alternative. At least with private companies you have some avenues for redress. With the government running the mess, you'll have no options.

What redress do I have with an insurance company? Me vs. their army of lawyers?

Again, it all boils down to money. If you can afford the lawyers to fight an insurance company, then you can afford decent insurance.

Typically trial lawyers will work for a % of the winnings. There are thousands of them across the country that generate ~260 billion in settlements every year in the United States. All it takes is opening a phone book and finding one who will handle your case. Provided it is a viable case with merit.

I am sure there is at least one out there looking for a nice payout from a big insurance company.