Socialized Medicine - Who has it - What do you think?

North, I have been avoiding you and will probably continue to do so, however you're posting counter-arguments that are either false or misleading.

I'm not saying you're doing it intentionally, but again, the understanding of free markets is very poor in general, as well as on this forum.

Comprise the "polity" is a distraction. The very first thing we must get out in the open, is that I have no interest in the "polity" per se. I have an interest in individual liberty. Wherever the polity intersects with individual liberty creating a negative situation, I object.

Now there is some inciteful rhetoric here. Anarchist-capitalist, manichean, unbridled capitalism etc. I appreciate you're making an emotional argument (because I believe it is based on an irrational premise) but it would be in everyone's best interest, yourself included to move the conversation beyond name calling.

Anarchist-capitalist, whatever. You can attach any name, what is important is understanding free markets.

Manichean, perhaps. But again, if the answer to 2+2 is clearly 4, and all others numbers are wrong, is mathematics inherently manichean? I'm concerned with making sound arguments, and having discussions not based on personality conflicts, but growth and understanding of ideas.

Unbridled capitalism, yes. I am for this. Within a free market. Unbridled capitalism under government is corporatism, monopoly, cronyism, nepotism, extortion, theft, corruption and violence. In a free market, a capitalist has to accommodate his customers. In this regard, he is bridled, as his success is tied not only to his pricing, but his service and quality as well. Again, it's a failure of understanding when it comes to free markets and people use capitalism as an epithet.

Capitalism, quite simply is the accumulation of savings, and the private ownership of those savings.

You may be referring to mercantilism or corporatism, which are subsets of capitalism, but do not comprise all capitalistic activity. And neither can survive in a free market.

It is getting redundant pointing out the lack of economic knowledge when we have these debates. Suffice it to say, that corporations could not exist in a free market, and hence corporate money making cannot be tied to profit under a free market system. Profit, like capitalism, is used as an epithet by (pardon me) ignorant liberals, who do not understand classic liberalism.

I grow apples, and eat 5 per week. Growing 6 apples, means I accomplished a 1 apple profit. Under capitalism, I own the 6th apple and can use it as I please. Save it, trade it, eat it, gift it. Under socialism, the 6th apple belongs to the "group". I have no more or less say over how it is used or allocated, than anyone else.

And likewise, corporations are legal entities created by the state. In the wild, corporations could not exist, as they would not have the ability to exist as legal entities separate from their ownership in structure and accountability.

Well, the problem here, is that under a free market system, maybe we go back to a time when we did not have insurance companies for medical care. You see, rethinking the system, and honestly exploring all opportunities for change and improvement, as Kaethy has pleaded for, requires a certain flexibility of the mind, not being locked into existing paradigms, and then saying, yeah, but you can't reform this flawed system, because it is the only system we have.

If doctors and patients could deal direct, then the insurance companies, most of which operate under government mandate for health insurance, would have to compete with, and offer some advantage over a direct doctor/patient relationship, or they would simply go broke. But because insurance companies are regulated and mandated by government, you get less competition, less choices, and poor service. This is pretty consistent, where ever the government creates regulatory monopolies or oligopolies.

Now bear in mind also, that because the market is not free, it is regulated, the regulators are constantly being lobbied by the regulated. Specifically, because it is more profitable to lobby Congress, than to compete in a free market. So in this regard, the Marxists who abhor private profits have a case, that the insurance companies exist and work in an unfair manner. However, its the very Marxist system, that allows it to occur in the first place.

Ok, normally I don't like to tackle anecdotal situations presented in hostility, because one in my position, rarely gets enough background to counter the argument or offer an idea towards a solution.

But I'll take this one on, as it is fairly simple.

This is simply a case of a company not living up to it's obligations. There is no way to counter it absolutely, anymore than there is a way to counter the inevitability of death. We're back to the system is flawed, and you can't fix it and keep the flawed system paradigm.

In a free market scenario, your friend may have had more companies to choose from, certainly more ethical ones, as the market would punish companies that do not treat their clients well. And of course, he would have the recourse of going to court, as this was clearly a violation of contract. In that regard, he may too have seen quicker legal action, because the courts under a free market economy would likely not be filled with prosecuting marijuana users and traffickers, or doctors for malpractice (that would have been insured against, see "negative outcome insurance").

At the end of the day, it comes down to a very simple choice. The free market, vs. government has many times shown that it is more efficient in the allocation of resources (more for less), and what could be better than a system where the consumer is king, they set the price, their needs are accommodated, and resources are not wasted?

Nationalizing health care is a horrible answer. It says, the system isn't working (which btw, is a government system to begin with), so we need less freedom, and more government. On something as sensitive as health and life, why would you leave the decisions on care up to the most amoral, corrupt and self-serving, uninformed morons in the country, who have already shown their previous solutions are total failures?

Geezus, this might be the best conversation I have had with you yet. Of course, I'm doing most of the (meaningful) talking... lol

 

It's a gorgeous day this morning, heading out to birding with the fam, but a quick response in order: pretty funny for a guy who routinely refers to all others but those who share his religiously anarchist philosophy as "fascists," "statists," "socialists," "nanny-staters,"....∞, and who most recently bumped a 5-month old dead thread in a personal snit, vociferously demanding attention and dialogue in the process, and abandoned the conversation to scurry away under cover of "uh, I, uh, need to run something by the mods, first, before, uh...starting a new thread...", well, let's just say that for the moment I'm not quite impressed on the issue of name calling and meaningful dialogue.

The rest will have to wait, as the day outside is eminently more important than discussion with an ideologue inside.

 

I agree. I have many failings personally, but that is not relevant to the quality of my argument.

It is an Ad Hominem.

I'd rather we didn't change the subject to me, and instead stay on health care and free market solutions. I think everyone has something to gain from this discussion.

I anxiously await your responses to all the parts of my post not addressed by your last post on name calling. Have a nice day!

 

no, marx still f'ed russia

 

I note you originally attempted at least something affecting a conciliatory tone, then edited your post after the fact of my leaving for the day to imply it is myself that is engaging in personal attacks.

Game playing, Guerilla; customarily so. The snide "high-school libertarian" reference wasn't missed, nor the plethora of non-starter comments along the lines of:

And so forth. Now, I call you an anarcho-capitalist, for reasons I have shown across many threads. For months you have called me a socialist, by the same logic ("your stand on issues supports such a conclusion"), though I disagree with your conclusions. You continue to label one characterization as an attack, and the other as the truth. Game playing.

Furthermore, I assure you that by and large the folks who disagree with you on this forum are equal to the task of understanding your arguments; they simply reject them. To resort to this kind of tactic is more of the same, and as always, equally useless.

Not a great day for detailed responses - a family day, at least for my family. I'd appreciate it, if you mean it, that we stick to substance, quit editing after the fact, and stand tall on arguments made.

You also have another thread over which you raised a significant stink, and abandoned once your points were ably contested. Forget me; I'd appreciate it if in the interim you stand tall and address those efforts by Iul, Earl, Lightless.

 

Oh my, somehow this thread slipped by me for the past 60 some days?

I wish I could read all the responses but when I hear too much BS I feel like my head is going to blow off of my shoulders. Too many people just do not understand this system works. Allow me to explain in very simply: Good intentions don't add up. Arguing that a government takeover of healthcare would be good for everyone is just as wise as the history of communism, looks great on paper.. but uh, kinda doesn't work?

What most of you don't understand is that government is not the friggin solution, IT'S THE PROBLEM. They create the demand, in return you're forced to come up with a method of supply, and in your short-witted efforts all you think to do is scurry closer to government. It is the ungodly alliance with government , scientists and pharmaceutical companies that is at the forefront of America's declining health. They are actually causing it. Because of this, there is hardly any opposing views because they have the money and power to shut you up like a clan member in Compton.

The only solution to America's growing health problems is to open up free markets and let the natural healers like myself do their job. I know this field pretty well by now (by no means a master) and I can assure you that you won't find people enthusiastic about what they're doing in the medical community. That's because they have a limited understanding of how things work and they are left in the dark and the reason for this is because they were taught all the wrong things by the ungodly alliance between the scientists, scholars, government and drug companies!!!!


Let me simplify things so everyone can understand. These are my unofficial laws of how shit works. Competition always benefits the consumer. Free market = competition = benefiting the consumer. Socialized medicine = no competition = no innovations.

Also.. Competition is the engine of innovations. Where there is competition there will be innovations. Therefore, free markets = competition = innovations for health care.

The more you narrow down and restrict the less you will have. So when for whatever reason, you think that the government, out of all possibilities, is somehow going to come in, and innovate health, and make everybody better so that there is no longer demand.. it's clear to me that you haven't thought hard enough about how this system works. And usually, it's a bystander, it's always a bystander who has never been down that road and says everyone should get mandatory health coverage, as if letting the free market work is some horror to be avoided. Look at these natural health communities sprouting up everywhere, nearly all of them have had terrible health problems and they CHOSE to go that route, and they swear by their practitioners and their lifestyle because they have the freedom to do it.

And when you talk to these people, who have been through hell, why do you think they always talk so low of government take over and the mindless medical mafia? Is it because they've finally realized what the truth is and can't stomach the lies they were previously told?

 

In the spirit of good debate, I believe it is incumbent on each of us to back up our POV. So I would appreciate it if you could address free market health care please.

Also, I welcome everyone reading to challenge, refute, complain and argue my post. I'm very proud of it, and if it can be made better through debate, then please let us debate.

No problem I will stop editing, and anxiously wait your response on free market health care.

That will be addressed next week. I spoke to a mod, but at the time, Rob had his contact by PM and EMAIL turned off on his profile, so I couldn't ask him for support for my endeavor.

I can't forget you. You've prompted me to make my best defense of free market health care thus far, I am anxious to continue the debate as soon as you have time.

Thanks a lot and have a great day with your family.

 

Has free market health been implemented anywhere? How do we KNOW it will work? Because some people say it will? How did the government assist or enable Aetna in not covering both twins in my earlier posts?

 

You're exactly right about that. In my personal views of health, separate from politics, health is not to be a business. But what exactly is it then when government has taken it over? The doctors who work in it, are they somehow in a non-existent industry?

No, that's about as ridiculous and off the wall as saying you don't choose your boyfriend or girlfriend based on looks, would you date a cripple? It's a lie.

 

To my knowledge, only watered down distortions of it. I would advise you to read up on health care I believe around the early 1900s before bloated government told you that the sun is bad for you.

 

I was the recipient of some excellent natural care 5 years ago, that I can honestly say, I believe it saved my life. After exploiting conventional medicine, with no progress or improvement, 1/2 of an hour with a naturopath and about $100 in tonics and compounds later, I was a new man. Within 3 weeks, I felt better than I had since I was a kid.

What terrifies me is government control of natural medicine, particularly since it is an industry the drug companies do not support, and thus lose lobbying power in Washington. Not to mention, that by nature, natural medicine practitioners are decentralized and do not perform their work at the corporate levels.

Nate, this is such a wonderful post, and shows your understanding of free markets, and that restricting choices is not only immoral, it's counterproductive.

Fortunately, we have a growing number of people who realize that capitalism and free markets aren't bad. They are how progress occurs, and they satisfy what is natural in every human.

The part I bolded you obviously made very simple, and yet such simple, rational, logical ideas have been replaced with Marxist class warfare, and progressive liberal jealousy. Hopefully we can roll that back by educating and discussing these ideas.

Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've been quoting FSK more and more on this forum lately, ever since I added him to my daily feeds.

This is an excellent post about corporatism, medicine and government protection of the drug company.

Eli Lilly, Zyprexa, and Diabetes
http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2008/05/eli-lilly-zyprexa-and-diabetes.html

Excerpt

FSK is an agorist. I'm not where he is ideologically, but he makes a lot of excellent financial analysis and arguments for the free market.

 

Not truly free market health care. But close, prior to the AMA which was formed in the early part of the 20th century IIRC.

Well, we know all sorts of systems "work". It's how well they work that is the issue. Right now, the system is working, it's just working for the government and corporations, not for the citizens and health care recipients.

The questions to ask are,

"is more competition good for the customer"?

"do we need more choices, or less choices?"

"do we need strictly enforced contract law, or government regulation?"

"who should hold the power, the consumer or the provider?"

I can't, nor can anyone else (honestly) promise you a system will absolutely work, particularly with prior knowledge.

Because it is rational. Because it is moral. And because in what few brief experiments it has had, the results have been as predicted.

This is one of those anecdotes that requires alot of background for a non-expert like me to offer solutions to.

One question I have. If the contract included twins, they would have had to cover both. Did it? Why wouldn't people get insurance for twins?

At the end of the day, consumers will have to be smarter. Because if you trust government to make you smarter (like all of those people who got mortgages when they shouldn't have been allowed credit), you just shift who is ripping you off from the provider to your elected official.

 

Thanks G and glad to hear your experience. Some naturopaths I really don't like and disagree with their approach, I sometimes think they give us a bad name, but I have also encountered some good ones who I really like, and this is why competition is the Darwinist arena for ideas and thus innovations. Only the strongest ideas survive.

I'm disappointed with even some of the nutritional companies and others who may go for the long-term supplementation route, better than conventional medicine sure, but I think I can do better. That's why I'm going into this field, to innovate it and make it practical for the average person who doesn't even have money! Yes, believe it or not, but a day will come if the bureaucrats don't get me, that the common man can use only his mind to improve his health instantly, with no charge at all. I know most of it already, and that day is coming.

That's free-markets at work, that's the heart of innovation.

 

You don't buy health insurance for unborn babies. You buy insurance for women, when they give birth, the babies births are covered as part of the mothers policy. After a specified period of time, usually 30 days I believe, you have to up the policy to a family plan, if you didn't already have it. The Mom said to me "Was I supposed to choose just one?" But she didn't have to, we are all paying for what Aetna should have paid, the babies got Medicaid.

The people who got mortgages they couldn't afford were able to get them AFTER government regulations were relaxed.

 

Ok, well it sounds like she would have a case for violation of contract.

What some people may think, is that a free market means no law. On the contrary, contract law is an important component of a free market.

I wouldn't be surprised however if Aetna purposely had their contract worded to avoid paying for twins. This is a case where the marketplace should punish the provider, with your friend leaving Aetna and giving out negative referrals which hurts it's business.

Actually, this is only partially true. The government requires banks to make loans to lower income and marginal credit individuals as well. I believe it is part of their (sic) effort to help the disadvantaged. So as housing prices rose, the banks would normally see scarcity of supply coupled with less people who could take on these mortgages due to credit facility.

Now because they have to make risky loans, marginal borrowers were also chasing the very expensive, very scarce housing, which only blew the bubble up further.

I have forgotten the names of the specific programs, but at your request, I am willing to dig them up.

The problem with government intervention is, it usually backfires, and always leads to more intervention.

 

I want to make sure I am understanding some of your points here....

Are you stating that one of the positives for a free market would be that I could truly "vote with my wallet"?

Basically, you are stating that in a free market we would have more of a choice on what doctor we can see. If a doctor is uneducated/uncaring, I can "vote with my wallet" and freely go choose to see ANY doctor I wish, unlike now where I still have to find one within my healthcare "network". This would create large profits for physicians that actually are good at what they do, and in turn, create more competition to provide good healthcare.

Am I on the right track here?

This is the way it should be working (I think), but due to insurance restrictions, I don't think it does.

When I was still in college, my dad covered me on his health insurance. I was under an enormous amount of stress, and I didn't know it at the time, I started having massive panic attacks. Heart racing at 150+ beats a minute, sweating, couldn't breathe, literally thought I was dying or something was SERIOUSLY wrong with me. Doctor after doctor ran tests on my heart, blood tests, one even gave me heart medication that could have killed my pefectly normal heart, all because nobody really wanted to listen to me. Even had a world-renowned heart doctor refuse to see me because he thought I was some college kid wanting to get a free FMLA ride out of work and school! Finally, after 6 months I found a physician that actually LISTENED and realized I was just having panic attacks. She worked with me to find the best "treatment plan" that would work FOR ME. She was the only doctor I have been to that would actually ask me questions and listen to the answers about anything and now I can't see her anymore. Why? Because she is not covered on my insurance. I should be able to see who provides me with the best care, not who some corrupt corporation tells me who I can see.....

 

FG, excellent post. Yes, you get it perfectly. You vote with your wallet. You reward the best doctors, with the most business. Bad doctors go broke.

This is how capitalism is supposed to work. There is an economic incentive to treat people well, to solve your patients problems, lest they wander to another practitioner...

The current system is deliberately constructed to limit your choices, charge you the maximum, with no emphasis on good service and few options to improve your lot.

That is what is so fallacious about socialism, and socialized medicine. The emphasis is covering everyone, not on covering everyone well.

 

dude, you don't need private insurance for that. You can do that with a single payer system too. And you also cut out a lot of costs like, the 15 billion USD profits insurance companies have, or the hundreds of thousand of employees they have, or the rent they pay for their offices, or the money they spend on advertising.

 

You missed the entire point.

 

Briefly, Firegirl, in your above situation: as I said earlier with respect to the conceptual scenarios Guerilla posed, you aren't restricted by the insurance companies from choosing your own doctor. If you want to pay out of pocket expenses, you are free to travel the globe to find the doctor that suits your needs. For you, it appears your father was able and willing to pay for the care you needed, and for that I am very happy. Many fall into situations where such a thing isn't feasible, and they find themselves in dire straights accordingly. In the above example that I provided (my acquaintance suffering from a rare disorder requiring imminent experimental care), he would have died if he had to pay out of pocket, or do a "six-month" hunt.

It comes down to this:

One believes as Guerilla does, we are entirely a nation of individuals pursuing pure self-interest, and where that interest is met by something that falls afoul of it - say, paying taxes in a nation that does things one doesn't entirely hold to in all of its actions, 100% - one leaves the system, or desires its end. This is what I have called elsewhere what the German sociologists would call pure gesellschaft. Think atoms bouncing off each other, with zero connection to one another.

or

One believes we are more connected than this. That each day, we do things that involve a compromise of our personal beliefs with the needs of the community, what Guerilla eschews as "society." Rejecting taxes, for instance, one has no right to walk on public sidewalks made with tax dollars; use crosswalks, etc. To acknowledge each of us must move somewhere along the continuum of pure self interest and the sublimation of that interest into a purely common good; in other words, to acknowledge that we live in a community - neighborhood, city, county, State, nation, globe, at various times, variously significant to us - is to acknowledge we exist at least to some extent in what the Germans like to call gemeinschaft, "community." Think atoms bouncing off each other, at various times pooling resources to do useful things (like exchanging energy), various times drawing away from each other.

This is the heart of the discussion on another thread, not yet fully realized, and it is appropos here. I understand from Guerilla that he wishes to start another thread on this subject, and is awaiting mod approval since Rob was unavailable all last week. I will look forward to seeing that thread.