It's all gone wrong for healthcare

[Pontius]

I would probably deal with it myself.

right.

 

[maxiep]

Right, there are two children, one born into wealth and one born into poverty. Why should the wealthy one be able to have better healthcare than the poor one? What has the poor child done to deserve worse healthcare?

At which point do you stop with that line of thinking? All children get healthcare, but some get better healthcare than others. Just like some kids get better food, better housing, a better education, nicer clothes, more material goods, etc. I think a minimal standard of healthcare is a better alternative, and the US has that in spades.

Further, say one operating theatre can be used for all sorts of surgery, ranging from cosmetic to life-saving. Why should a slot be able to be purchased so that miss moneybags can get a slightly reshaped nose or something to that effect, thus preventing a poorer person from undergoing lifesaving surgery? There are some things that shouldn't be determined by who has the most money.

You live in the UK where rationed care is the norm. Here in the US that's not the case. Precisely because we have a free market healthcare system, we have more operating rooms, MRI machines, CAT machines, etc. Like any fixed asset, they seek to operate 24/7. Rich and poor people use them. However, our costs aren't covered only by government. We also have private insurance, charities, non-profits, etc. Healthcare providers do procedures pro-bono all the time.

I go on the school of thought that a lot of doctors don't become doctors on the basis that they want to earn as much money as possible. For example, then there would be hardly any doctors in the UK, as prospective doctors could choose another degree and then end up a highly paid banker. I believe that people are capable of acting upon other factors than money. Some people are willing to serve humanity for "lower than market price", and many doctors fall into this category.

Certainly some fall into this camp, and I encourage it. However, the desire for a better life is oftentimes the strongest incentive. As a physician, you can do good and do well at the same time. I want the best and the brightest going into medicine instead of law, which is a social externality. More competition invariably offers superior physicians.

I know plenty of physicians in Europe who love medicine. Compared to the ones I know in the US, they're more noble, but also less skilled. I care about results, not intentions.

I don't see why competition should encourage medical innovation. There are enough very clever scientists that would strive to provide the best they can for humanity even if there wasn't a race for who could produce the vaccine fastest. In fact, if the companies pooled resources rather than worked against each other, there is an argument that innovation could take place faster, as people working together are more efficient than people working against each other.

Compare innovation in the United States vs. the Soviet Union. The free market system will almost always result in a more optimal result. If you have 1,000,000 people working out of their garage vs. one well-funded government program, I'll take the innovation from the people working on their own. There was a scientist who once said, "If the government were solely responsible for polio research, we'd have the worlds finest iron lung instead of a vaccine". That scientist was Jonas Salk.

On the topic of the government being in control of my life and death; to an extent I'm okay with that. It's a very, very tricky situation, don't get me wrong, and I haven't been in a situation like that in my life. However, it's not exactly in the government's hand; individual doctors who are trained in that field make the call. I'm sure I would rather die than have my life prolonged by a month or two or extreme pain at a massive cost to the government.

From stories over here in the UK, there are very rarely problems surrounding "pulling the plug" and often they are essentially parents wanting to prolong an essentially brain-dead baby's life at extreme cost to the taxpayer. The baby would have no quality of life whatsoever, and it is just prolonging the inevitable by a matter of weeks or months.

As an American, the above paragraphs are terrifying. The United States is different from Europe in the fact that individual freedom is paramount. You're fine with bureaucrats telling you what kind of healthcare you can receive. In this country, we're free to choose for ourselves. No one stands between us and our physician.

This is a really awkward situation, but I often think that an objective jury, for example, could make a better decision than the family of the person who is almost dead.

And my response is that it's no one else's business than the family's.

On the subject of freedom, I'm OK with having that limited by the government's role, at least to some extent. We vote for the government, and in general they act in the way we want them to. It is in their interest to act in the way we want them to, so that they can stay in power; so in theory a balance should be met.

The latest poll I've seen shows 34% of the American people want this bill. That's not the government representing the will of the people.

 

[maxiep]

If you die from lack of healthcare you can't work, so there is nothing to work for, surely. I would have thought you would at least need to provide some form of equality of opportunity (i.e. good schooling, healthcare etc) for that to be a valid argument. Otherwise the haves stay the haves and the have nots stay the have nots.

In socialized countries, movement between classes is much lower than it is in the US. Here, people have the ability to build and lose foetunes. We tax success much less than does Western Europe, which keeps people in the station into which they were born.

 

[Buzz Killington]

As I've stated, if people want some universal healthcare, I would be fine with it provided that there is a universal tax rate. A cascading system gives me little sympathy for lack of good healthcare, schools and facilities for lower income neighborhoods since they are getting that all essentially funded by other people and not themselves. If everyone paid their "fair share" instead of it being a system where a small population takes care of the rest, then it would be an easier pill to swallow.