A topic to discuss....need input....

[Redneck]

What happens when most or all of the people on this health care system start to use up more services than they pay into the system?

Are any of these pro government provided health care systems advocates gonna answer my question?

 

[Blackguard_]

Are any of these pro government provided health care systems advocates gonna answer my question?

<Devil's Advocate mode> Deficet spending? Price controls? "That will never happen, stick to reality, not hypotheticals"?

Deficet spending, most likely. That don't bother to have the money to pay for many of the government programs they have now, why twould they suddenly be worried about balancing the health-care budget?

 

[Redneck]

<Devil's Advocate mode> Deficet spending? Price controls? "That will never happen, stick to reality, not hypotheticals"?

Then why are we discussing some type of socialistic ideal that has not happened yet?

 

[-Truth-]

What happens when most or all of the people on this health care system start to use up more services than they pay into the system?

From the New England Journal of Medicine.
[font=arial, helvetica]The proportion of health care expenditures consumed by administration in the United States was 60 percent higher than in Canada and 97 percent higher than in Britain.[/font]

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/324/18/1253

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

Meaning we are getting ripped off by our health care system.

 

[Blackguard_]

Yes I was confused where you were coming from. I was thinking of the writings of philosophers such as Daniel Guerin, Peter Kropotkin, and William Godwin. So you are coming from a much more "Libertarian" stance.

yes. Libertarianism, along with Conservatism, Consitutionalism, and other limited government theories having the philosophical defect of not knowing exactly where to draw the line between what a government can and can't rightfully do.

Yes I do understand the philosophy; we were just on different pages.

Ok.

Yet to me anarchy in a capitalist economy doesn't seem to fit as it can be seen as as a form of social domination through the dollar, and thus contradicts the anarchist belief of freedom (as I understand it).

This is why "free-market" is pobably a better term, as "capitalism" is more precisely a belief in the aquisition of wealth as an end unto itself and implies a cut-throat economy. "free market" and "Capitalism" are not the same, although Capitalism is based on the freee-market.

Ever hear of the distinction between Traditional and Capitalist economies? The difference is one of cultural outlook, Traditional economies based on maintaining a clientele and crafts-manship as opposed to "whatever is most profitable", which can be crafts-manship etc. if the market demands it. In other words, a capitalist will turn out shoddy goods as long as the customers don't complain, while in a Traditional economy thee quality of goods is more a matter of pride and/or how the good has traditioanly been made.

Both are free-market, but one is an economy motivated by greed and the other by crafts-manship and the need to make living, etc.

The key here is voluntarism and that the culure of a people will determine what kind society and economy it will, so if a culture is greedy the dollar will dominate society, but it is still free in that the monetary transactions etc. are voluntary and do not violate anyones rights, even if this society is driven by greed.

This I see as giving rise to large businesses picking up the role of rule maker/enforcer.

A "Total Recall" scenario? depends on what landlords are righfully allowed to do with people who live on thier land under contract and break the rules/terms of the contract. Are they only morally allowed to kick them out? or can they lock them up, whip them or whatever? I admit, I don't have a complete Anarchist philosophy and this and the judicial system are the two things I have not worked out yet although if it works out a certain way I kill both birds with one stone.

If they break the landowner they are renting froms rules, the landowner has the right to kick them out, forcibly if necessary as they are trespassing if they refuse.

But if the landlord can subject these people to his own land's judicical system, then he becomes a Social Contract government that has a legimate claim to the land. But this only applies to people on rented land and not land they own, who would be sovereign governments themselves then.

So it's possibly a justification of Feudalism.

Here is where it get kind of scary. (To me)
You have private armies and militias being hired on to whoever is offering the highest price. This then opens the potential of an individual creating his own personal dictatorship, as long as he has the funds to do so.

First of all, agressive private warfare violates anarchic principles, only defensive private wars being just, just as how it is only just to kill in self-defense. So hiring an army and then using it for conquest would be quite un-anarchic, unless you can argue using the "Landowner as soverign Social Contract King" argument combined with some some sort of State right to invade other countries for conquest. and the defense against this being militias and private armies on the other side and a country with no gun-control, the same things that will fight foreign invasion could also be used to fight internal people and groups like this.

 

[Milla]

meh. there's arguments for both sides. I believe healthcare should be free. However, countries that do have national health care have some issues with it. From what I have heard, the health care works well for stuff that you need, i.e. emergency care and anything else that is life threatening. But it's a pain when it comes to more elective medical care. In this case there should be a combined system. The government will provide you with the necessary medical care in emergency and life threatening situations, but if you need elective treatment that is where insurance should be.

Agreed. My opinion on socialized health care is much as my opinion of welfare. It ought to be enough to keep people alive and give them a chance at improvement. Beyond that, one is responsible for oneself.

 

[Redneck]

From the New England Journal of Medicine.
[font=arial, helvetica]The proportion of health care expenditures consumed by administration in the United States was 60 percent higher than in Canada and 97 percent higher than in Britain.[/font]

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/324/18/1253

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

Meaning we are getting ripped off by our health care system.

Well, in Canada:

The Fraser Institute's fourteenth annual waiting list survey found that Canada-wide waiting times for surgical and other therapeutic treatments changed very little in 2004. Total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 17.7 weeks in 2003 to 17.9 weeks in 2004. This small nationwide deterioration in access reflects waiting-time increases in 4 provinces, while concealing decreases in waiting time in Alberta, Manitoba Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland.

Link.

 

[trunks2k]

Agreed. My opinion on socialized health care is much as my opinion of welfare. It ought to be enough to keep people alive and give them a chance at improvement. Beyond that, one is responsible for oneself.

I'd like to add that the gov't should also pay for treatment of medical issues that keep you from working. Let's say you have some condition, while not life-threatening severely limits your ability be active, as such you can't work at all or can only work a bit. Treatment for this problem should be paid by the gov't, as it's better to have a person back in the workforce ASAP and if the condition is chronic and never treatable enough for the person to work normally then personal funds to treat such a problem will quickly dry up.

But let's say you have some sort of problem that while it is painful and inhibts you a bit, like let's say a case of near-sightedness. This condition doesn't impede your ability to work. As such if you want let's say, laser surgery to fix the problem, you are responsible for it.

 

[trunks2k]

Well, in Canada:

Total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 17.7 weeks in 2003 to 17.9 weeks in 2004.

My question is how much is the waiting time for necessary treatment? How much of that average waiting time for the specialists is for more elective procedures?

As I've said before, an issue is that more elective care is a pain in the butt to go through in a system like Canada's. But I think New Zealand's system is like my idea. If you need immediate care, you're golden. No problem. But if you need more elective care, it can take a lot longer to get it. But if you have health insurance, that elective care comes about much faster.

 

[Milla]

Well, in Canada:


Link.

Delayed health care seems, to me, preferable to no health care.

 

[seebs]

Should the United States empliment a national health care system that would give equal medical rights/benefits to every U.S. citizen? Why or why not. please explain.

That depends, I think.

If it prohibits people from spending additional money to get additional benefits, then I would have to say "no". I believe it is ideal for a system to allow rich people to fund the development of new treatments before they're cost-effective for the rest of us.