Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

MnM — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 07:57:48 -0000

Plac Ebo, you clearly missed my point (and Sam's).

Brotio can only speak for himself. Whether or not what he/she says is representative of "libertarian fanatics" is irrelevant. Examine the arguments or don't. Your call. If you choose not to, please don't expect me to take you seriously.

The argument isn't that government sponsored health care doesn't "work". "Work", here, is a normative term. I have no idea what you mean by "work" or what anybody means by "work".

The argument is that because government does not respond to the appropriate incentives, resources will not be allocated efficiently. This will translate into longer waits, medicine shortages, and more generally, a health system plagued by the kind of service one finds at the DOT. Does the DOT work? In a sense, yes. However, the service is appalling because they have no incentive to meet the needs or wants of those consuming their service.

Add to this questions about privacy, Constitutional limitations, and the willingness of those in power to abuse those they have authority over, and it's little wonder that "libertarian fanatics" would oppose government sponsored health care.

It is fine with me that you object to placing your health in the hands of private industry (at least, that is what it seems to me you are doing; please correct me if I've misread you). Brotio, myself, and others would object to having our health placed in the hands of government for the reasons I've given and some that I haven't given. Brotio has not, nor has anyone else here, except perhaps the straw-man you have erected, said that government sponsored health care does not work. What they have said is that it is worse than the alternative.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Plac Ebo — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:19:27 -0000

Brotio, laissez-faire health care is going to be a tough sell if you cannot provide any modern day examples. I know it's fun to bitch and moan about every injustice. But, it's not very constructive when your solution will never be an option in the world we live.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Plac Ebo — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:10:44 -0000

MnM, have you spent much time reading this board? Read Brotio's post that follows yours. Tell me that his post isn't representative of the majority of libertarian fanatics that inhabit Cafe Hayek.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Plac Ebo — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 03:58:17 -0000

Sam, most of us in the center realize that the profit motive is not the answer to every problem, and instead makes many problems worse. Maybe this will help:

The profit motive is ...

... mostly good for making widgets.

... mixed results for providing health care.

... mostly bad for beginning wars.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

brotio — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:21:02 -0000

I'll venture that the DC bureaucrat is not being influenced by the profit motive.

EXACTLY.

Neither is the union, job-for-life-no-matter-how-bad-I-fuck-up asswipe at the post office. When is the last time you saw one of them leave their break two minutes early because customers were lined up out the door? Even Wal-Mart cashiers have more gumption.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

brotio — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:12:40 -0000

Plac Ebo, nowhere in this thread were any examples given that convince me that totalitarian medicine works better than even the cluster fuck schizophrenia that is US health care as it stands today.

We have too much government in health care, and it sucks. The Brits, Canucks, Frogs, and Krauts have even more government in their health care, and it sucks worse than ours. My conclusion: Government screws up health care, and practically everything else it gets its mitts on.

It boils down to the same thing with you as it does with Mierduck. I don't care if you want totalitarian medicine, but like all socialists, you're not content to burden yourself with your socialist (nightmare) dream, you insist that I tag along and bear the cost.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

MWG — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:18:43 -0000

"A hundred years ago the "laissez-faire" experiment was soundly rejected."

-Plac Ebo

Care to elaborate???

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

MnM — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:41:33 -0000

"if one is to believe the vast majority of posters on this site it should be impossible to find national health care that works anywhere under any circumstance. That is simply not the case."

Odd that we would find this straw-man even after Sam pointed out that no one here made such arguments...

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Sam Grove — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:51:12 -0000

As has been illustrated, the profit motive is apparently the root of all evil in the eyes of the left.

The problem is that this leaves us with the conclusion that all humans are motivated by evil as all humans hope to profit in some manner from their actions.

What is usually missed by almost everybody is how much of the wealth that we (and those before us)have produced is pissed away by the government in so many ways: the empire, business subsidies, foreign "aid", bureaucracy, etc.

If we, the people, had retained all the wealth that we have created, we would have very little concern about providing health care for ourselves and for those that cannot provide it for themselves, for we would be a nation full of very wealthy people.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Oil Shock — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:12:37 -0000

I'll venture that the DC bureaucrat is not being influenced by the profit motive.

Sure! They are in the business of charity. They have no ambitions of their own, they don't take any compensation for their "work".

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Plac Ebo — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:49:17 -0000

Brotio, I figured you were either being rhetorical, or venting, or tossing out straw men. To answer your question, I don't know all the motivations. I'll venture that the DC bureaucrat is not being influenced by the profit motive. Regardless, earlier in this topic examples were given of nationalized health care that works. Once again it is your turn to provide example(s) of the laissez-faire alternative.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

brotio — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:23:13 -0000

Prove that it works for health care. Provide some real-world examples that modern democratic societies would embrace.

Plac Ebo, obviously you're a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, and you ignored my question (If your boss is insufficiently interested in your health care needs, why would you suppose that some bureaucrat in DC would be more responsive?

Posted by: brotio | Feb 28, 2009 3:43:09 PM)

Why should I bother with yours?

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Plac Ebo — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:10:32 -0000

Brotio, obviously you're an unfettered free market fanatic. Prove that it works for health care. Provide some real-world examples that modern democratic societies would embrace. It's a big world. Certainly you can find an example somewhere.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

brotio — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:43:09 -0000

How could any thinking person not embrace a system where, for example, pre-existing conditions are routinely excluded; insurance doesn't follow when one switches jobs; and manipulated drug research results are all too common. - Plac Ebo

You either presume that I believe we have free-market medicine right now, or you're like Mierduck and believe that anything that isn't run by government is a free-market. Others have already explained to you why this isn't a free market.

Many of the problems with efficient delivery of health care are due to the fact that someone other than the recipient is paying for the services, and that for probably 80% of us, someone other than the recipient is in charge of paying for their insurance. We've handed control of life or death to our employer, and because GM is insufficiently concerned over the health and/or cost of maintaining the health of its 200,000 employees, we are told that the remedy to this is to hand over control of our health care decisions to an entity responsible for 300,000,000 and everything will suddenly be Shangri-la. Forgive me for having even less faith in government than I have in General Motors.

If your boss is insufficiently interested in your health care needs, why would you suppose that some bureaucrat in DC would be more responsive?

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Luk Arbuckle — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:53:55 -0000

Methinks, you have restored my faith in the Austrian economic view. I find your comments here to be respectful and insightful. I certainly need to learn more about negative income tax, as from what I skimmed online it sounds quite interesting (in theory, at least).

Are you familiar with the health care systems of Germany or France? I'm curious to know how they have managed to get parallel public and private health insurance to work, at least in the sense of wait times. Don't the low wait times of these countries suggest it is possible to have a parallel system that works? I maintain that the problem in Canada is one of monopoly.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Chris Cheney — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:36:28 -0000

They are not. We are headed towards more regulation and governmental influence in this market. So, federal governmental contract managers will have their test and they will fail, as shown in the past (on a smaller scale). The Post articles highlighting the mismanagement of federal contracts within the past five years (ie. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense) has highlighted what is to come...

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Plac Ebo — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:10:11 -0000

Methinks, once again I agree with much of what you presented. However, if I understand you correctly you see the need for centralized insurance regulations (and I agree). But, for "the free market to actually work" as you state, why are any regulations necessary?

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Chris Cheney — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:03:59 -0000

Ultimately, our current health care strengths (access and quality) will suffer if we rid incentives from this market in the name of "equality."

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Methinks — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:50:14 -0000

Plac Ebo,

Most of the problems you mention are real but, as Sam begins to address, are due to a completely idiotic insurance regulatory structure and state mandates. In other words, this is the specter of government intervention and foreshadows what is to come. Pre-existing conditions are only an issue because regulations allow moving to another state or another employer to constitute a break in coverage.

Ideally, insurance companies would be forced to compete for customers by offering a wide range of health insurance choices from only catastrophic care to soup to nuts care programs. Newborns are today covered by their parents insurance at birth and there is no reason that should change. Government would enforce contracts, as is its proper role. In this case, centrally enforcing contracts instead of allowing the states to do so would be beneficial because one can keep the same coverage as one moves around the country - which Americans are wont to do. A comment section of a blog is not the place to hash out details, but this would go a long way to solving the cost and care issue.

In wealthy societies, there is always the question of the people who are simply too poor to buy insurance for themselves. But, that issue is no different than food, clothing and housing. Personally, I support the negative income tax over the inefficiency and indignity of payments in kind.

The point is, if we allow the free market to actually work, then we can figure out where the real deficits are and we can begin a discussion about what we are willing to do to fix them. We can't thwart the market in its attempts to provide the product and then blame that market for failing to do so.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Sam Grove — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:31:04 -0000

insurance doesn't follow when one switches job

I do believe this is due to the tax code related government interventions.

The endless pressure to maximize profits often conflicts with the efficient delivery of health care.

Let me mod that for totalitarian health care:

The endless pressure to meet budget constraints often conflicts with the efficient delivery of health care.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Plac Ebo — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:17:04 -0000

Maximus, you're a societal neanderthal. A hundred years ago the "laissez-faire" experiment was soundly rejected. A prospering democracy spurns it every time. As time passes the pendulum of regulation swings, makes adjustments; but, it never returns to its origin.

Since you appear to endorse laissez-faire health care why don't you provide a real-world example that modern democratic societies would embrace.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Plac Ebo — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:50:58 -0000

Brotio, of course you can't. How could any thinking person not embrace a system where, for example, pre-existing conditions are routinely excluded; insurance doesn't follow when one switches jobs; and manipulated drug research results are all too common.

The endless pressure to maximize profits often conflicts with the efficient delivery of health care. There are too many incentives to cut the people that most need health care out of the system, and to over-treat/drug/test those that remain.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

maximus — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:37:11 -0000

"And, I'm sure that you can understand the fear that many Americans have of an unrestrained capitalistic health care system dictated solely by greed and profits"

Bullshit. That's because ignoramous' like you have been sold that propaganda by the STATE. Fact is services have been limited by government intervention. Wanna ask someone who was in medicine prior? Talk to my father.

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

brotio — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:14:12 -0000

And, I'm sure that you can understand the fear that many Americans have of an unrestrained capitalistic health care system dictated solely by greed and profits.

I can't. In every area of commerce, greed and profits create a more customer-oriented service philosophy than government provides. Why would medicine be any different?

Re: The Perils of Government-supplied Universal Health Care

Plac Ebo — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:53:12 -0000

Some Americans labour under the delusion that they will get unlimited amounts of health care for a single price if only it were nationalized. Actually, a frighteningly large number of Americans. Surely you see that. Is it wrong to disabuse people of this fantasy?

Methinks, you are a beacon. I can see little to disagree with in your last post. Expectations of unlimited health care are as realistic as a thriving libertarian society.

And, I'm sure that you can understand the fear that many Americans have of an unrestrained capitalistic health care system dictated solely by greed and profits.