NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I had a thought about the healthcare system in america and who should pay for it. It kinda hurt to think it. Especially since I'm a bit inebriated, stark raving naked, and ready for bed.

But here's a question I asked myself; Why on earth would anyone NOT want decent healthcare coverage plans for all?

It seems some people don't think we ought to have to pay for someone else's medical bills. Perhaps that's true. Perhaps not. But it's a moot point. Do you know why?

We're going to anyway!

Guess what happens when some poor person needs open heart surgery? Guess what? He gets it! Why? Because he needs it, and that's what doctors and hospitals do! They have to! Guess what happens when a poor person gets cancer? He gets treated! Chemotherapy, etc. Why? Becuase he needs it! Doctors and Hospitals have to! Whether he has insurance is irrelevant if his or her life is in danger. As it should be!

Well, guess where the money comes from when someone doesnt pay? Do you think hospitals eat that cost? Nope. It gets charged to everyone else. THEIR healthcare pays for it. :)

So, we are already paying the medical costs. Now let me ask you this: Would you rather pay your share of a universal program where everyone can get low cost physicals and breast exams and prostate exams and anti-smoking medication? Or would you rather pay for their cancer treatments and open heart surgeries?

You have a choice: Pay a lot, or pay a little. Take your pick.

Guess what happens when some poor person needs open heart surgery? Guess what? He gets it! Why? Because he needs it, and that's what doctors and hospitals do! They have to! Guess what happens when a poor person gets cancer? He gets treated! Chemotherapy, etc. Why? Becuase he needs it! Doctors and Hospitals have to! Whether he has insurance is irrelevant if his or her life is in danger. As it should be!

If it only worked that way in real life.

Okay, I had a thought about the healthcare system in america and who should pay for it. It kinda hurt to think it. Especially since I'm a bit inebriated, stark raving naked, and ready for bed.

But here's a question I asked myself; Why on earth would anyone NOT want decent healthcare coverage plans for all?

It seems some people don't think we ought to have to pay for someone else's medical bills. Perhaps that's true. Perhaps not. But it's a moot point. Do you know why?

We're going to anyway!

Guess what happens when some poor person needs open heart surgery? Guess what? He gets it! Why? Because he needs it, and that's what doctors and hospitals do! They have to! Guess what happens when a poor person gets cancer? He gets treated! Chemotherapy, etc. Why? Becuase he needs it! Doctors and Hospitals have to! Whether he has insurance is irrelevant if his or her life is in danger. As it should be!

Well, guess where the money comes from when someone doesnt pay? Do you think hospitals eat that cost? Nope. It gets charged to everyone else. THEIR healthcare pays for it. :)

So, we are already paying the medical costs. Now let me ask you this: Would you rather pay your share of a universal program where everyone can get low cost physicals and breast exams and prostate exams and anti-smoking medication? Or would you rather pay for their cancer treatments and open heart surgeries?

You have a choice: Pay a lot, or pay a little. Take your pick.

Look, we agree on 2 points. 1) Preventative medicine is best. Its better to pay for yearly physicals than open heart surgery. 2) Whether there is govt universal healthcare or not, we all end up paying for everybody's healthcare(well, in civilized countries anyway). In third world countries they just die.

Here is the problem. I dont want govt to be in charge of this. The govt is horribly innefficient. The govt healthcare program experience a tremendous amount of fraud/inefficiency and blatant theft/corruption. Competition keeps things in line. Like you said, either way we are paying for it, it is just that in a purely govt system, we wind up paying more for the same level of service(aggregate).

It is just like with the larger charities. It seams that the larger the charitable organization, the more money gets sucked up in bureaocracy instead of winding up in the hands of people who need it. Furthermore, unlike charities, the administrators of govt programs have next to no accountability.

Everyone should be able to have access to the best medicine that is available. I dont believe that a universal GOVERNMENT healthcare solution is the way to go about it though. You(society) winds up either paying more OR getting less services.

Look, we agree on 2 points. 1) Preventative medicine is best. Its better to pay for yearly physicals than open heart surgery. 2) Whether there is govt universal healthcare or not, we all end up paying for everybody's healthcare(well, in civilized countries anyway). In third world countries they just die.

Here is the problem. I dont want govt to be in charge of this. The govt is horribly innefficient. The govt healthcare program experience a tremendous amount of fraud/inefficiency and blatant theft/corruption. Competition keeps things in line. Like you said, either way we are paying for it, it is just that in a purely govt system, we wind up paying more for the same level of service(aggregate).

It is just like with the larger charities. It seams that the larger the charitable organization, the more money gets sucked up in bureaocracy instead of winding up in the hands of people who need it. Furthermore, unlike charities, the administrators of govt programs have next to no accountability.

Everyone should be able to have access to the best medicine that is available. I dont believe that a universal GOVERNMENT healthcare solution is the way to go about it though. You(society) winds up either paying more OR getting less services.

The only and I repeat ONLY advantage that government controlled universal healthcare has is that it wouldn't be trying to turn a profit. Hell, the government could barely turn a profit if it TRIED! In every way that matters, a private company or companies would have a much more efficient and streamlined system. The problem is that all they care about is the almighty buck. Thus requiring strict governmental regulation...and you'reback to square one. I'm afriad that until we go back to paying country doctors with baskets of fried chicken, we're pretty much stuck with inefficiency.

The only and I repeat ONLY advantage that government controlled universal healthcare has is that it wouldn't be trying to turn a profit. Hell, the government could barely turn a profit if it TRIED! In every way that matters, a private company or companies would have a much more efficient and streamlined system. The problem is that all they care about is the almighty buck. Thus requiring strict governmental regulation...and you'reback to square one. I'm afriad that until we go back to paying country doctors with baskets of fried chicken, we're pretty much stuck with inefficiency.

Its true that govt isnt concerned about profit(a plus sorta). However, except in monopoly situations, private industry creates this profit by building a better mousetrap. E.G. Profit is created by innovation. Finding a way to provide the same product(healthcare) at lower costs OR finding ways to provide a much better product at the same cost. Or some level inbetween.

There is no incentive in govt to take risks and do better. To a govt employee it makes more sense to make sure they dont do anything wrong. They dont get rewarded for a good idea, they only get penalized(rarely) for a bad idea.

Private industry works the other way. People get rewarded for good ideas. They get rich, or at least promoted. Bad ideas can destroy a career, but good ideas can make one. Govt only penalizes bad ideas, it doesnt reward good ones. Govts simply do not innovate. The risks are too high and the rewards to low.

QUOTE=Isanyonehome]Its true that govt isnt concerned about profit(a plus sorta). However, except in monopoly situations, private industry creates this profit by building a better mousetrap. E.G. Profit is created by innovation. Finding a way to provide the same product(healthcare) at lower costs OR finding ways to provide a much better product at the same cost. Or some level inbetween.

There is no incentive in govt to take risks and do better. To a govt employee it makes more sense to make sure they dont do anything wrong. They dont get rewarded for a good idea, they only get penalized(rarely) for a bad idea.

Private industry works the other way. People get rewarded for good ideas. They get rich, or at least promoted. Bad ideas can destroy a career, but good ideas can make one. Govt only penalizes bad ideas, it doesnt reward good ones. Govts simply do not innovate. The risks are too high and the rewards to low.[/QUOTE]

The problem with this is precisely that healthcare tends to monopolistic positions. Hospitals are a huge capital investment, which keeps out competition. Modern procedures and staff training likewise. Plus you have the information inbalance between supplier and user. If your medical advisor recommends an expensive treatment, who are you (without a medical degree) to disagree - especially if it's presented as a life-saver?

It's not in the interests of ANY monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic suppliers to be efficient (or take risks - and risk for a private company is a cost). Hence the well-known inefficiencies of large government. But you also have equivalencies in private monopolies. Sure they want to keep costs down, but they also want to maximise their profit, whether by straight rip-off or by not providing more marginally profitable services (see also banks' coverage of poor communities). They will also start introducing unnecessary procedures as a way of expanding their market (snake oil anyone? And see also large IT suppliers' use of bureaucracy as a means of generating profit).

And you have the problem of the requirement of 100% coverage. Private companies aren't going to provide that without effective (read costly) regulation - LG's point.