PDA

View Full Version : Why Should Government Be Involved in Medicine at All?



Chris
06-14-2012, 06:42 PM
Good question.

Why Should Government Be Involved in Medicine at All? (http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/14/why-should-government-be-involved-in-med)
...I have the solution! said Obama. Bigger government will give us more choices and make health care cheaper and better. He proceeded to give us that. Bigger government, that is. The cheaper/better/more choices part -- not so much.

Costs have risen. More choices? No, we have fewer choices. Many people lost coverage when companies left the market.

Because ObamaCare requires insurance companies to cover every child regardless of pre-existing conditions, WellPoint, Humana and Cigna got out of the child-only business. Principal Financial stopped offering health insurance altogether -- 1 million customers no longer have the choice to keep their insurance.

This is to be expected when governments control health care. Since state funding makes medical services seem free, demand increases. Governments deal with that by rationing....

When someone else pays for your health care, that someone else also decides when to pull the plug. The reason can be found in Econ 101. Medical care doesn't grow on trees. It must be produced by human and physical capital, and those resources are limited. Politicians can't repeal supply and demand....

The solution?
If we want affordable and cutting-edge health care, there's only one approach that will work: open competition. That means eliminating both bureaucratic obstacles and corporate privileges. Only free markets can give us innovation at the lowest possible cost.

Of course, that also means consumers should spend their own money on health care, limiting insurance to catastrophic expenses. Americans don't want to hear it. But that's the truth.

Goldie Locks
06-14-2012, 08:49 PM
Plus he took 500M from Medicare to fund Ubamacare. When you require young people to obtain health insurance they don't want or need, they will go to the doctor for any little thing and that is why costs will skyrocket, plus funding the illegals.

RollingWave
06-15-2012, 12:11 AM
Everything is relative here, would you agree that.. if a large portion of your population is dying from very preventable disaease that it's a good thing? is having a person disabled from rather treatable stuff good for the economy? I'm pretty sure the answer is quite obviously no in either case. But there is that and there is a uber complex and bueracratic health care system which cost a shite load often on much more dubious causes. There's middle ground somewhere, where that is of course is different in different people's eye.

And of course, given the nature of medicine in general, there's gotta be some regulation on it's production and safety limits.

Chris
06-15-2012, 05:51 AM
Plus he took 500M from Medicare to fund Ubamacare. When you require young people to obtain health insurance they don't want or need, they will go to the doctor for any little thing and that is why costs will skyrocket, plus funding the illegals.

Exactly, just creates more demand, pushing prices up, resulting in more rationing by bureaucrats.

Chris
06-15-2012, 05:53 AM
Everything is relative here, would you agree that.. if a large portion of your population is dying from very preventable disaease that it's a good thing? is having a person disabled from rather treatable stuff good for the economy? I'm pretty sure the answer is quite obviously no in either case. But there is that and there is a uber complex and bueracratic health care system which cost a shite load often on much more dubious causes. There's middle ground somewhere, where that is of course is different in different people's eye.

And of course, given the nature of medicine in general, there's gotta be some regulation on it's production and safety limits.

To me the compromise is government should protect our lives to some degree, but not provide health care.

MMC
06-15-2012, 08:01 AM
AT least not with the Fed! :wink:

Peter1469
06-15-2012, 02:55 PM
The free market isn't going to create a health care system where anyone can afford a bypass operation.

Chris
06-15-2012, 06:19 PM
Why not? That seems to be the way it works, first produce costly innovations only the rich can afford, but over time innovate enough inefficiencies, including, in time, economies of scale, to the point anyone can afford it.

Peter1469
06-15-2012, 07:48 PM
In the 50s a small town doc could make money (some) doing house calls. No current doc, with $250K in student loan debt is going to do open heart surgery for a couple of chickens.

Chris
06-15-2012, 08:35 PM
The US is among the top 1% wealthiest. No need to barter chickens. Purchase insurance.

Peter1469
06-16-2012, 06:26 AM
Yes, insurance is part of the mix. The way insurance currently distorts the market moves it away from the free in free market.

MMC
06-16-2012, 09:26 AM
Getting insurance companies out of the solution would be a start.

Peter1469
06-16-2012, 09:37 AM
Getting insurance companies out of the solution would be a start.

As Chris pointed out, we can't get insurance companies out of medicine in America. Health care, even in a perfect market, it simply too expensive for life saving care. But because large insurance companies distort the free market, we can and should regulate them to ensure they don't have undue influence over the industry.

MMC
06-16-2012, 10:43 AM
My point is the insurance companies should have to deal with the states. Not running to Washington to be backed by the FED.

Chris
06-16-2012, 11:16 AM
Yes, insurance is part of the mix. The way insurance currently distorts the market moves it away from the free in free market.

Insurance distorts the market?

Chris
06-16-2012, 11:17 AM
As Chris pointed out, we can't get insurance companies out of medicine in America. Health care, even in a perfect market, it simply too expensive for life saving care. But because large insurance companies distort the free market, we can and should regulate them to ensure they don't have undue influence over the industry.

Why would we even want to get them out?

Peter1469
06-16-2012, 12:19 PM
Insurance distorts the market?

No. Insurance companies distort the market though their manipulation of Congress and state governments. That is why our pre-Obamacare system was so inefficient.

Peter1469
06-16-2012, 12:20 PM
Why would we even want to get them out?

We don't. But we also don't want them to write laws to enrich themselves and drive up costs to little benefit of patients.

Chris
06-16-2012, 12:32 PM
OK, so it's not insurance per se but the collusion with government. That i agree with.

Chris
06-16-2012, 12:35 PM
No. Insurance companies distort the market though their manipulation of Congress and state governments. That is why our pre-Obamacare system was so inefficient.

But we all, some less, some more, influence, and should, Congress, through voting, through media, through parties, through money, etc.

Regulating special interest access to government should be regulated. Nowadays It’s Not a Welfare State, It’s a Special Interest State (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/3831-It%E2%80%99s-Not-a-Welfare-State-It%E2%80%99s-a-Special-Interest-State).

JohnAdams
06-16-2012, 12:58 PM
Government should not be involved in Medicine, unless asked to on an individual case by case basis by the majority of the people through the appropriate legislative process.:smiley_ROFLMAO:

The intent of the FDA people was to rid us of snake oil salesmen, NOT tell us we can or cannot avail ourselves of something, even if it is dangerous or perhaps not in our best interests to do so.

Nor was it ever supposed to tell us we must engage in commerce with another private entity or citizen, as Obammycare does.

And that is the fundamental difference the leftists of today don't understand.

Chris
06-16-2012, 01:33 PM
Well said.

Deadwood
06-16-2012, 02:14 PM
It always comes back to the same thing, who among us is willing to watch another human being suffer and die from a preventable disease because the patient could not afford the treatment. The Denzel Washington film "John Q" raises that issue, with typical Hollywood uberdrama with a child as patient.

And. for me, that raises a question about a society that could easily do that....

So I say we have a societal and/or moral obligation to that patient. But, why does it have to be government? There are alternatives.

And here's a question.....how come we only ever hear of lawyers doing "pro-bono" work? We never hear about dentists or obstetricians or anyone like that doing it?