In another thread, those on the left, and even Bricker (who is about to get his conservative card revoked again ) were discussing how health care is a legitimate governmental function.
I don’t mean to rehash the UHC/Obamacare debate because we have done it a million times. If one assumes that providing for healthcare for the citizenry is a legitimate governmental function, where does it stop? Does every positive good call for a government solution?
Where would you on the left say, “Hey, this is a good thing, but this is not the proper role of government and should be left to the private sector”? Anywhere?
I think you have a flawed premise. I don’t think the argument is “this is a positive good, therefore the government should provide it”. I think the argument is “the market is not capable of providing this necessity adequately, and so the government should provide it”. Or, “this is, in effect, a public utility where it is more efficient for the government to provide it.”
Going to war against non-free-market nations, to enable for-profit corporations to exploit their human and natural resources and generate export markets for their products.
So the argument is “only where the free market fails” should the government step in? If so, then I don’t believe we have even tried the free market for health care. Not health insurance, health care.
I realize this may spin into another healthcare debate, but I just want to be clear about the belief: The free market should control almost everything, but when it fails in such instances like street lighting, police protection, etc., only then should government step up. IOW, if I can prove that the free market can provide adequate health care, then by definition I win my argument against government involvement?
Huh? There is a little more regulation in healthcare than most free market products and services, but it’s been a largely free market. There aren’t many significant products that aren’t regulated in some significant way, automobiles have safety and efficiency standards, food is highly regulated for safety and quality, real estate, clothing, and many more products and services are regulated but still considered to be free markets.
Well, point one: Have you ever seen a doctor advertise his prices? Do you ever get up front pricing? If I buy tires for my car, I get upfront pricing, but not for medical checkups?
That is a free market principle that has never, at least to my knowledge, been tried.
Exactly. You would agree that pricing is an important item in the free market, but it is not done for health care. I’m not talking about going into an emergency room after having a heart attack and being forced to look at a menu of prices. I’m talking about routine care that we all need. We don’t care about price because someone else is paying. That inflates prices.
When there are essential goods and services that the free market does not allocate to all who need them, then the govt would need to get involved, if the desired outcome is that all have access to essential goods and services.
We can debate whether or not the govt’s role is to ensure that all of it’s citizens have access to those things that decrease suffering, indignities, and misfortune, but the debate as to whether or not the free market can provide those things to everyone is pretty much over at this point, IMHO, anyway.
So, the only question becomes, is it a role of the govt to provide for the safety, health, and well being of its citizens? I argue that that answer is yes, but this is more of a philosophical position than a factual one.
I can show that other countries with a federally administered healthcare system have healthier outcomes for less cost, but I have to admit that it is only my opinion that healthier populations who have more money are a “positive good”.
I also consider icecream to be a positive good, but I do not see it as essential to the prevention of death, suffering, indignities or misfortunes, so I see no reason as to why the govt should provide it for those who cannot afford it, though if you see a friend having a bad day, a bit of charity of buying them a cone can be a positive for both of you.
So your solution to the problems that have evolved in the current US free market approach to health care is to institute a “real free market” by, presumably, imposing additional regulations? And if that’s not what you’re suggesting, how do you propose to go about imposing the changes that you propose?
Most people pay for their health care through their medical insurance. And most people are very aware of how much they’re paying for their medical insurance.
If you rent an apartment, you don’t know what the landlord’s mortgage payment is on the building. If you pay for an Uber right, you don’t know how much the driver’s car payment is. If you go to a restaurant, you don’t know what the waiter’s wages are. Consumers make their decisions based on what their costs are not on what the business’s costs are. There’s no reason health care should be different.
Only for a few of my 20+ adult years have I had the type of insurance where “someone else was paying.” PPO’s and HMO’s type deal.
The majority of the time, if I had any coverage at all, it was high deductible coverage, with no co-pay provision (meaning that I had to pay full price, not a co-pay, not that there wan’t a co-pay, sorry, wasn’t sure how to not make that unambiguous).
Doctors still did not provide prices or a menu of options, and their costs, even though I was paying out of pocket for any expenses.
The only upfront pricing I have seen is urgent cares that take $100 to see a doctor, but I assume that if you are getting anything more complicated than a prescription, it’d cost more.
I think the OP may be missing a subtle point: UHC may be a public good, but like education it is primarily a national good. And it is because of the latter that the State should provide it. UHC is in the national interest. It’s good for the State to keep its worker’s productive. It’s good for the State for its children to grow up healthy. Etc.
What about in ground swimming pools? Those are good things for people to have, right? Isn’t it in the national interest to have children who are swimming, exercising, and not inside playing video games and getting obese? Should we have a federal or state program for that?
Don’t you think it’s a little more clear that medical care is going to be a greater national interest than swimming pools? Without medical care people die and create greater societal costs than just the lack of productivity by corpses. Determining the effect of a lack of swimming pools is not quite so measurable. However, there have been national programs to encourage physical fitness in children going back to at least the Kennedy administration. They don’t require the level of costs necessary for medical care. There is such a thing as priority.
There are lots of publicly owned swimming pools, so…yes?
Are you talking about goods and services that can be provided more cheaply, fairly and efficiently by the government, but that nevertheless should not be provided by the government?
The reason I’m opposed to most public provision of.goods.and sevices, and public ownership of the means of.production is that in most cases the government cannot, in fact, provide those goods more cheaply, fairly, and efficiently.
So whether I am in favor of.socialism or capitalism is an empirical question, not a philosophical one. And the empirical question of how well health insurance works in the free market has been answered conclusively. It sucks. It costs more, it is radically unfair, it is inefficient and creates immense negative externalities.
So guess why I am not in favor.of.continuing our present system?
UltraVires, do you know what a market failure is? Do you think it’s possible, even in theory, for an unregulated free market to be unable to allocate some goods or services in a manner consistent with an efficient society?
I’m asking you these questions to determine whether you have enough on the ball to be worth discussing this with. Others might take a hint as well.
Yes. Street lighting and police protection are perfect examples. The free market cannot exclude non-payers, and everyone benefits equally. Health care is the opposite.
Tell a 26 year old male that he must pay no less than a government mandated portion of the premium of an older person, pay for contraceptive care, maternal health, and yearly mammograms at no additional cost. It’s horseshit. That 26 year old must pay for that, lest he pay a tax penalty, no matter his income or personal wealth.
“Health care” is not one giant thing to deal with. Normal expenses of life, like doctor visits or contraception, are not things that should be insured against anymore than gas in your car or light bulbs in your house should be insured. The whole thought process is wrong.
) were discussing how health care is a legitimate governmental function.