Hey now… My move was very non-violent.
1 Like
The only way socialized medicine works is rationed care.
Intellectually, I understand where you’re coming from. Government encroachment on the choices of an individual, in this case a hypothetical doctor.
However, my argument is that medical professionals should not be subjected to free market conditions. The same way your “lifestyle choices” by being the victim of let’s say a burglary forces a law enforcement officer to do so something about your 911 call.
Isn’t that similar?
This is a much more reasonable starting point for policy discussions than “negotiate price prior to service” stories.
My response was not only adequate, but pointing out they are histrionic garbage that muddies the waters in policy debate is beyond a reasonable assessment.
I don’t ever remember saying I had a problem with regulation in the HC system.
Distinct and important difference between an oath, which is voluntary and self imposed, and legal regulations that may or may not be in the best interests of the people who have to live under them.
Your inability to understand what I type doesn’t mean I’m unable to respond.
It’s not. No one has a right for those people to do something.
Once you call a service a right, you start down the path of “we must force people to become XXX as a career, otherwise person Y won’t have access because they live in East Horse Shoe Nevada.”
Actually ED did in his historic hypotheticals. As in the doctor won’t try until you pay, which just isn’t reality in America. And we’re discussing American Health care.
I mean, you could have just said this… Which doesn’t muddy the waters of policy debate.
Apparently histrionic garbage hypotheticals are an apt substitute for rational discussion since I left last though, so no worries, those don’t fit on bumpers.
I know that’s how you feel ED. He was advocating for the European model. Which in most instances is single payer with no “fee for service” bolted into it.
At one point in Canada it was de facto illegal to have private healthcare due to all the regulations.
The hypothetical demonstrates the cause for discussion. Nothing got muddied - you’re just overreacting.
Most people can handle a hypothetical as an explanation to the problem being discussed. Or should I offer a “trigger warning” when raising a hypothetical to illustrate a point?
2 Likes
Thank you. Jesus H Christ, thank you. Rational people do post here, lol.
In a perfect world? Sure, that would be a wonderful thing.
But we don’t live in a perfect world, and people just don’t have the ability to “control” a market without having negative consequences. Markets have negative consequences naturally too. Our best hope is to make sure the negative consequences as a result of regulation are, on whole, better than the negative consequences that would occur naturally.
In the long run, the market always wins.
Beyond interference with care, you have issues with price ceilings and “negotiations”. Now from one perspective, these are good, helpful and bring costs down in real dollars for everyone. However, from a different perspective, what happens to Doctor’s (and more importantly) nurses* and admin salaries? What happens to research? If people can’t get an ROI why would they invest in some spectacularly expensive new imaging machine that will allow real time surgery from 3,000 miles away? I have 3 different clients, one in networks, one in robotics and one in medical that once developed will allow a surgeon in Boston to perform real time surgery on someone in Africa.
I’m not speaking in hyperbole when I say there are hundreds of billions of dollars invested. Are price ceilings going to allow them to make enough ROI to continue to invest? If we subsidize health care now (to a greater degree than we do) through taxation, does that limit our ability to advance? Do we now have to subsidize this research too?
I don’t want anyone to go bankrupt because their child get leukemia. And I’m absolutely not opposed to regulation within the industry, but there are a lot of issues beyond just “what about poor people who need an operation” and most of us would just like to make sure our ducks are in a row before we commit to something so extremely expensive.
I so badly want to be a smartass and give a ridiculous hypothetical about this and then strut around like a pigeon claiming my intellectual superiority when people point out it’s obnoxious.
End of the day, there are very real concerns with more and more government involvement in healthcare. Yes, us moron libertarians do have some valid points even. Shocking, I know…
*edit: I’m trying to say nurses salaries are more important, not necessarily the admin here.
1 Like
The fact we’re still talking about the hypotheticals, and you can’t resist pointless swipes at libertarians pretty much proves my point.
1 Like
Let’s use a real world example from our past: a black person shows up at a hospital and is told they need to go to the “black” hospital. Should the government have encroached on that hospital’s and its doctors’ choices when it comes to whom they provide their services?
No one forces anyone to become a doctor. If one knows that being a doctor includes not having the right to choose who they provide care for, because as a society we decided that it makes our country a better place to live for everyone, then there should be no complaints.
They’re not pointless - point being, if you want to have a policy discussion about health care and free markets and problems associated with it, there’s a better approach than a drive-by saying “freedom, bruh” and then smugly declaring that any government intervention in the market is beyond the pale of reasonable options to fix some things.
Make sense?
1 Like
This is the perfect example. When you make something a “public good” then you remove all responsibility for individual outcomes.
If I’m getting threatened and I call the police I can’t sue them if they don’t get there in time to save me (people have tried that in the US btw). They aren’t responsible for my personal safety.
If my house burns down because dispatch sent the fire department to the wrong place I can’t seek recompense from the chief.
If a doctor botches my surgery he/she is liable. Medical care is far too individualized to be a public good. The service providers need to be accountable to their customers. Not to a government review board or disciplinary panel.
There are times when you can sue the police or fire dept however. Just because they are for the “public good” does not make them immune to civil and/or criminal action.
3 Likes
The question was how doctors would behave in a free market. Doctors used to exist in a free-er market. At that time being a doctor paid less than owning a small general goods store.
You don’t read too many stories about them refusing to treat people or abusing their patients like the hyperbolic “$10M sick kid” example.
Good luck getting a house call now btw.
Right, for malfeasance or breaking laws. They are not as accountable to me the citizen as much as if I’d hired private mercs or a dedicated fire department.
I’d like to hire a doctor that gets paid by me and is focused on getting me fixed up. Not insurance reimbursement rates or NHS quotas.
You’d still be able to do that in all but a single payer system, right?
I’m sorry. I just hate it when I hear “I like free markets, but not here.”
Market forces are always at work. All the government does is distort them and make things worse.
Do you support the govt’s intervention in utilities? Not trying to compare util & HC, just asking.
Yet, we had segregated hospitals.
Not really. With the way insurance works now doctors are beholden to the third party that actually cuts the check. Even if they think “treatment A” is what’s best for the patient. If the insurance co says “treatment B” or “no treatment” that’s what you get.
So if your treatment is going to cost 100K you are just going to write a check?