A Preview Of Government Run Health Care

[Ninja]

There are two users here who are living proof of universal health care's shortcomings. If Australia had better drug coverage for the mentally ill, Diuretic and Chips would have the meds they so desperately need.

 

[red states rule]

There are two users here who are living proof of universal health care's shortcomings. If Australia had better drug coverage for mentally ill, Diuretic and Chips would have the meds they so desperately need.

In the UK they are so short of money they do not wash the bed sheets daily.
Policy is now the staff turns them over instead of washing them

 

[Bern80]

Someone's health needs are a long way from the want of a good such as a plasma tv.That's my central point, that market forces shouldn't be used to run health care for a nation. I'm not anti market forces, command economies are a bloody economic disaster. I've seen first hand command economies behind the old Iron Curtain when the Stalinist Brezhnev was in charge at the politburo). Empty shelves, rows of empty shelves. Anyway, enough of that.

Market forces mean that some people will miss out on the goods. And that's tough. We can't all own a BMW, but most of us can afford a car and that's a pretty good deal in my mind. Market forces are used in the pricing of food. But decent societies won't let the poor starve. Wisely though, they don't interfere in the free market when it comes to food pricing and instead use welfare to enable the poor to buy food. But I'll say it again, health care isn't like buying a bag of carrots. The free market mechanism should be removed.

To this point thank you for your considered responses, they're helping me work out my own ideas much better than before the conversation began.

I understand you're trying to differentiate between a need and a want as far as market forces. But the market force of demand doesn't care about wether a particular good or service is being consumed for either of those. the market force of demand as I have come to understand it really isn't 'demand' in the sense that hey I really want that tv bad. Demand is really consumption as in what is the demand for sonsumption on my supply and something can be consumed whether it is wanted or needed. That's why I beleive you can't really eliminate the market forces on the healthcare industry no matter what system you go to. Wether it costs a million dollars or its free the healtcare services are still going to be consumed at various rates. You can't eliminate those market forces by makeing it free. You still occupy a point somewhere on the supply and demand curves.

The point where it gets into my opinion is that by eliminating price I believe the only thing you accomplish is changeing who won't receive healthcare. Right now it's expensive so those that have little money aren't getting it. if you make it free it will be the people who are deemed by some greater authority to be undeserving are not as high a priority at the time.

My whole point is that we should be clear as to what we're really after. To me universal healthcare means everybody gets it when they need it. It's very possible that isn't an atainable goal no matter what system you go to. I also beleive makeing it free or significantly less expensive will only exacerbate the problem of now everyone haveing access to healthcare instead of makeing it better because when you make something less expensive consumption of it will increase. For example you have a bad cold. Under the current system most people will stick it out without going to the doctor because we've all had them and know that while we're miserable we're gonna get better. If healthcare is free then there's no reason to not go in and have doctor check you over and prescibe somethign to make you feel better sooner. So, it's flu season in January in Minnesota (where I'm from) and instead of 100 people trying to get into the doctor that week to be checked because those 100 can afford and want to feel better sooner, now you have 1000 because it's free. So again what is the point of service being free if you can't use it? The overall goal can't be the healthcare be free, cause that's pointless if you can't use the service. What people think they are accomplishing by making healthcare free is improving access to it and I just don't see how that can be the case.

The above is dependent on a major 'if' of course. That being that the supply of resoruces (docs, beds, hospitals, drugs, etc) doesn't increase with demand. Really I don't know what reasons there are to think it will.

There are benefits to the paying for healthcare system. One, there are degrees of illness. Paying for healthcare makes sure the people who really need it receive it better than a free system that must priortize a greater group of people. It keeps the people with the common cold out of the doctor's waiting rooms because those people know it's a waste to spend money on something they'll get over anyway.

 

[uscitizen]

In the UK they are so short of money they do not wash the bed sheets daily.
Policy is now the staff turns them over instead of washing them

So you change the sheets on your bed daily ?

 

[Waterrescuedude]

My only comment is you get what you pay for.

 

[Diuretic]

In the UK they are so short of money they do not wash the bed sheets daily.
Policy is now the staff turns them over instead of washing them

And that's probably an underfunding issue rather than a condemnation of the mechanism of the system.

 

[Diuretic]

I understand you're trying to differentiate between a need and a want as far as market forces. But the market force of demand doesn't care about wether a particular good or service is being consumed for either of those. the market force of demand as I have come to understand it really isn't 'demand' in the sense that hey I really want that tv bad. Demand is really consumption as in what is the demand for sonsumption on my supply and something can be consumed whether it is wanted or needed. That's why I beleive you can't really eliminate the market forces on the healthcare industry no matter what system you go to. Wether it costs a million dollars or its free the healtcare services are still going to be consumed at various rates. You can't eliminate those market forces by makeing it free. You still occupy a point somewhere on the supply and demand curves.

The point where it gets into my opinion is that by eliminating price I believe the only thing you accomplish is changeing who won't receive healthcare. Right now it's expensive so those that have little money aren't getting it. if you make it free it will be the people who are deemed by some greater authority to be undeserving are not as high a priority at the time.

My whole point is that we should be clear as to what we're really after. To me universal healthcare means everybody gets it when they need it. It's very possible that isn't an atainable goal no matter what system you go to. I also beleive makeing it free or significantly less expensive will only exacerbate the problem of now everyone haveing access to healthcare instead of makeing it better because when you make something less expensive consumption of it will increase. For example you have a bad cold. Under the current system most people will stick it out without going to the doctor because we've all had them and know that while we're miserable we're gonna get better. If healthcare is free then there's no reason to not go in and have doctor check you over and prescibe somethign to make you feel better sooner. So, it's flu season in January in Minnesota (where I'm from) and instead of 100 people trying to get into the doctor that week to be checked because those 100 can afford and want to feel better sooner, now you have 1000 because it's free. So again what is the point of service being free if you can't use it? The overall goal can't be the healthcare be free, cause that's pointless if you can't use the service. What people think they are accomplishing by making healthcare free is improving access to it and I just don't see how that can be the case.

The above is dependent on a major 'if' of course. That being that the supply of resoruces (docs, beds, hospitals, drugs, etc) doesn't increase with demand. Really I don't know what reasons there are to think it will.

There are benefits to the paying for healthcare system. One, there are degrees of illness. Paying for healthcare makes sure the people who really need it receive it better than a free system that must priortize a greater group of people. It keeps the people with the common cold out of the doctor's waiting rooms because those people know it's a waste to spend money on something they'll get over anyway.

I've got a cousin in Edina, she was here with her family a few months ago (she's American, not Australian).

Now - on point. One of the determinants concerning the demand on health services is age. When you're young you don't even know your doctor's name, the older you get the more you see the doctor. When you're young you only go to the doctor if someone drags you there when you're unwell. When you're older you go to the doctor, "just in case." Yes there will be those who rush to the doctor when they so much as sneeze but I think most people - I'm generalising - do so only when it's necessary. The sad thing about a health care system such as the US is that people don't go to the doctor when they should because they can't afford it.

 

[Bern80]

I've got a cousin in Edina, she was here with her family a few months ago (she's American, not Australian).

Now - on point. One of the determinants concerning the demand on health services is age. When you're young you don't even know your doctor's name, the older you get the more you see the doctor. When you're young you only go to the doctor if someone drags you there when you're unwell. When you're older you go to the doctor, "just in case." Yes there will be those who rush to the doctor when they so much as sneeze but I think most people - I'm generalising - do so only when it's necessary. The sad thing about a health care system such as the US is that people don't go to the doctor when they should because they can't afford it.

There are a couple of very key points here and I also think there may be a slight contradiction in what you have layed out here.

First of all let's go with your generalization for a second that most people know when they need to see a doctor and do so accordingly. If that assumption is true then universal health care has a chance of working, however enter the contradiction......

You also state a (this is important) reason people aren;t seeing the doctor in the U.S. is because they can't afford it. So in your paragraph you have identified two reasons why peopel don't see the doctor; 1) they can't afford it and/or 2) they don't need one. So what happens if we take away the barrier to #1 (we cut the cost to nothing or very little)? voila, you have increased consumption of the resource. Will that have any effect on #2? IMO, yes. Again due to market forces. The concept of supply and demand can never be eliminated from the healthcare system equation no matter what system you choose to use. Bascially three things can happen on a supply and demand curve: 1)you can have a deficit, 2) a surplus or 3) equilibrium. Various variables determine which of those three happens. Reducing teh cost to nothing changes the price variable, but it doesn't eliminate it. the fact that the healthcare cost to you(the general public) is zero is still factor of supply and demand. You see as the reason i beleibe universal healthcare is contigent on an 'if' (which is supply of the resource is unlikely to increase) so is yours. the assumption you have made is that if/when healthcare is free people will still consume the resource only when they need it. Historically market forces have shown that is highly unlikely. If something is free, more people will consume it whether they need it or not.

The whole things boils down to this and this is what I would ask you mainly to respond to, but feel free to respond to more. Eliminating the cost of healthcare to the public will increase consumption of healthcare. So where are we gonna got the supply to meet the demand? I would think at the very least we would want to know what the increased demand is going to be so we can find out if it's even manageable. Because again if it's not, what is the point of free healthcare if you don't have access to it when you need it.

Larkinn at one point made the assertion that free healthcare will help is become more prevenative. I disagree. Play out the thing that would have to happen under free healthcare. We know demand on the resource has increased. Yet by human nature people who may not 'need' something are inclined to still consumer something if it's free. Because there aren't the resources to go around someone is going to have to do the priortizing as to who really does need treatment. Okay, so we start treating only the people we deem 'need' it. Meanwhile what's happening to the people we put off because their need wasn't urgent enough? there conditions are getting worse and something that was once preventable now isn't.