Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Listening]

Can we get back to the question of whether or not health care is right.

 

[dblack]

Can we get back to the question of whether or not health care is right.

I can only assume it's already been brought up in this very long thread, but trying to claim a service that someone else provides a political 'right' is incoherent. Essentially the question boils down to: do you have the 'right' to force someone else to provide health care for you? If we accept such a conception of a right (the right to force others to your will) we'll undermine the entire concept of political rights and create government that becomes the bully, rather than protects us from the bully.

 

[Wiseacre]

Where Sacdog's argument goes off the rails is his misunderstanding of how competition in a free market works. The beauty of the free market for ANY product or service is competition; if you've got a sick kid you're not stuck with one provider, and you are not forced to pay any price. On the contrary, you can shop around for varuous providers and make a choice. CHOICE. That is why he is dead wrong about free market systems.

Choice is a fair criticism let me address it. I see two issues in rebuttal:

1) patents: many medical treatments are protected by patents and while you may have choice (to stretch a point to make a point) you aren't going to chose the treatment with 40% of success over the new treatment with 90% chance. Generally in a case like this the whole market moves. It isn't like we are buying cars here

2) knowledge: Choice requires knowledge to make choices. The medical market is famously opaque and outcomes data is hard to come by. Do you know which of your local hospitals have had the highest rate of Mersa? Part of ObamaCare is to improve knowlege so people can make choices. In addition, choice required time to research your options which you often may not have in a critical care situation. Who plans to have a heart attack and tells the ER doc, assuming they can speak, I want that brand of stents.

If you have a free and open market then it's hard to believe the 40% treatment could exist for very long. Nobody will choose it, unless it's super cheap. Kinda depends on the circumstances, an older person like me might take the 40% chance to save my wife or my kids a lot of money. But here's the deal: if you promote competition, then you should have more providers offering the 90% solution at the lowest price they can to get your business. That's the real value of the free market.

Knowledge should be available no matter what economic model you choose, free market or gov't run or anything else. I'd say we should improve that anyway. Nothing wrong with creating a real time database that doctors can tap into from anywhere and get your medical records if you give them a security ocde or something to protect your privacy.

Let me say this, the free market option is not close to perfect, but I don't think anything else is either. No matter what, we've got a shortage of providers and some people are going to go without adequate care.

 

[Listening]

Let me say this, the free market option is not close to perfect, but I don't think anything else is either. No matter what, we've got a shortage of providers and some people are going to go without adequate care.

Why do all providers have to be regulated by the AMA ?

What gives them the right to control supply ?

I'd gladly go to a practical doctor who is working off of experience only for something like a cold. He can look at my throat and in my ears just as easily as my doctor can.

And, I suspect he can give me a good prescription too.

I'll take my chances. So, for those of you who have to have a board certified, grade A, college educated doctor....you can pay for it. Because he isn't going to work as cheap as my practical doctor will.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to express my desire to see all you NRA types take out the blood sucking leaches we call litigation attorneys. If I am on your jury...you will walk.

 

[Wiseacre]

Let me say this, the free market option is not close to perfect, but I don't think anything else is either. No matter what, we've got a shortage of providers and some people are going to go without adequate care.

Why do all providers have to be regulated by the AMA ?

What gives them the right to control supply ?

I'd gladly go to a practical doctor who is working off of experience only for something like a cold. He can look at my throat and in my ears just as easily as my doctor can.

And, I suspect he can give me a good prescription too.

I'll take my chances. So, for those of you who have to have a board certified, grade A, college educated doctor....you can pay for it. Because he isn't going to work as cheap as my practical doctor will.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to express my desire to see all you NRA types take out the blood sucking leaches we call litigation attorneys. If I am on your jury...you will walk.

Not sure what you mean by a "practical doctor". But I ain't letting some a-hole kid that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground treating my wife or kids. He/she damn well better be board certified, grade A, college educated, cuz if he isn't and somebody gets fucked up, we're gonna have a problem.

 

[dblack]

Not sure what you mean by a "practical doctor". But I ain't letting some a-hole kid that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground treating my wife or kids. He/she damn well better be board certified, grade A, college educated, cuz if he isn't and somebody gets fucked up, we're gonna have a problem.

Under no circumstances should you be forced to go to a doctor you don't trust. But should other people be allowed to go to that doctor? That's really the question, isn't it?

 

[Wiseacre]

Not sure what you mean by a "practical doctor". But I ain't letting some a-hole kid that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground treating my wife or kids. He/she damn well better be board certified, grade A, college educated, cuz if he isn't and somebody gets fucked up, we're gonna have a problem.

Under no circumstances should you be forced to go to a doctor you don't trust. But should other people be allowed to go to that doctor? That's really the question, isn't it?

If they trust that doctor, why not?

The AMA is supposed to regulate itself, but does a poor job of it. Much as I detest big gov't, we might need some gov't oversight here. Misconduct, malpractices, anything unethical or unprofessional oughta be tracked and repeat offenders should lose their license. So if there's a good reason not to trust the doctor then everyone should know why.

 

[Sactowndog]

Can we get back to the question of whether or not health care is right.

I can only assume it's already been brought up in this very long thread, but trying to claim a service that someone else provides a political 'right' is incoherent. Essentially the question boils down to: do you have the 'right' to force someone else to provide health care for you? If we accept such a conception of a right (the right to force others to your will) we'll undermine the entire concept of political rights and create government that becomes the bully, rather than protects us from the bully.

Yeah 40 some odd pages pretty much flattent that cat....

Here is the summary... not a right, it is a service and one we can't afford at current rates....

 

[Sactowndog]

If you have a free and open market then it's hard to believe the 40% treatment could exist for very long. Nobody will choose it, unless it's super cheap. Kinda depends on the circumstances, an older person like me might take the 40% chance to save my wife or my kids a lot of money. But here's the deal: if you promote competition, then you should have more providers offering the 90% solution at the lowest price they can to get your business. That's the real value of the free market.

not if it is patented..... to your point no one will buy the 40% and the 90% is patented so choice doesn't really exist.

Knowledge should be available no matter what economic model you choose, free market or gov't run or anything else. I'd say we should improve that anyway. Nothing wrong with creating a real time database that doctors can tap into from anywhere and get your medical records if you give them a security ocde or something to protect your privacy.

Wrong direction on knowlege. You would need a database on outcomes which shows which doctors are excellent and which have been less than competent. Hard to find the data just like it is hard to find incidents of Mersa in the local hospital. Give it a shot and see what you find.

 

[Sactowndog]

Let me say this, the free market option is not close to perfect, but I don't think anything else is either. No matter what, we've got a shortage of providers and some people are going to go without adequate care.

Why do all providers have to be regulated by the AMA ?

What gives them the right to control supply ?

I'd gladly go to a practical doctor who is working off of experience only for something like a cold. He can look at my throat and in my ears just as easily as my doctor can.

And, I suspect he can give me a good prescription too.

I'll take my chances. So, for those of you who have to have a board certified, grade A, college educated doctor....you can pay for it. Because he isn't going to work as cheap as my practical doctor will.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to express my desire to see all you NRA types take out the blood sucking leaches we call litigation attorneys. If I am on your jury...you will walk.

Not sure what you mean by a "practical doctor". But I ain't letting some a-hole kid that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground treating my wife or kids. He/she damn well better be board certified, grade A, college educated, cuz if he isn't and somebody gets fucked up, we're gonna have a problem.

This is the same guy who said is kid is worth 250K. I think that speaks volumes.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hypothetical question:

If the United States were forced to adopt the health care system of any other nation, which would YOU choose?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where Sacdog's argument goes off the rails is his misunderstanding of how competition in a free market works. The beauty of the free market for ANY product or service is competition; if you've got a sick kid you're not stuck with one provider, and you are not forced to pay any price. On the contrary, you can shop around for varuous providers and make a choice. CHOICE. That is why he is dead wrong about free market systems.

Choice is a fair criticism let me address it. I see two issues in rebuttal:

1) patents: many medical treatments are protected by patents and while you may have choice (to stretch a point to make a point) you aren't going to chose the treatment with 40% of success over the new treatment with 90% chance. Generally in a case like this the whole market moves. It isn't like we are buying cars here.

Oh? So there are no other essential items in the world about which people choose to spend more money to get a vastly better product?

2) knowledge: Choice requires knowledge to make choices. The medical market is famously opaque and outcomes data is hard to come by. Do you know which of your local hospitals have had the highest rate of Mersa? Part of ObamaCare is to improve knowlege so people can make choices. In addition, choice required time to research your options which you often may not have in a critical care situation. Who plans to have a heart attack and tells the ER doc, assuming they can speak, I want that brand of stents.

And there are no other products in the world about which consumers are less-than-fully-informed? Do you know which slaughterhouse your meat even came from, let alone which one has the highest rate of food poisoning? How about the supermarket you buy the meat from?

And most people choose their medical provider long before they're in a "critical care situation".

And "that brand of stents"? Really? You really think the issue here is that most people aren't doctors themselves, and that ANYTHING is going to change that? Or are you just trying to say that BECAUSE most people aren't doctors, that means that healthcare isn't a market?

You choose your doctor and your hospital, and you trust them to give you the best advice from their expert medical opinion . . . the same way you do any service you ever have to buy from a professional because you don't have the expertise to do it yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Also, many people in a situation of life-threatening illness DO decide to just quit trying to fight it off, due to the law of diminishing returns. Like any economic decision, people in those situations DO calculate the costs - and not just the financial ones, but those too - against the likelihood of success, and many of them opt instead to simply enjoy what time they have left.

When you get right down to it, ALL decisions in life are economics. Even medical ones.

In some cases yes where they make the decision personnally that can be the case. Certainly this is done more so when a person is elderly.

So ALL decisions are economic... Okay do you have kids? If all decisions are economic tell what you childs life is worth? If your statement is true you should be able to name a price.

Don't give me that nitpicky "It's not true if you can't produce a specific number" horseshit. First of all, economics isn't just about money, and if you HAD taken all these economic courses that you keep telling everyone ELSE they should have had, you'd know that. Second of all, I don't waste time trying to quantify imponderables in hypothetical situations. I leave that sort of fool's game to the fools. Knock yourself out.

If my child had a life-threatening illness, I would be making the EXACT same sorts of judgement there as I would if I were the one with the illness: How likely is this treatment to truly help? How miserable is it going to make him? Is it worth spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and tying up what are probably the last days of his life with pain and hospitals for only a 20% chance, or would it be better to let him spend that time happy and pain-free and maybe going to Disneyworld?

If you don't think parents make those tough calculations the same as people who are themselves deathly ill, you know even less about parenting than you do about economics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can we get back to the question of whether or not health care is right.

I can only assume it's already been brought up in this very long thread, but trying to claim a service that someone else provides a political 'right' is incoherent. Essentially the question boils down to: do you have the 'right' to force someone else to provide health care for you? If we accept such a conception of a right (the right to force others to your will) we'll undermine the entire concept of political rights and create government that becomes the bully, rather than protects us from the bully.

Yeah, it's been brought up, and these greedy chickenshit liberals refuse to address it. They just keep babbling about how "It's for the children!" I have very little patience with poltroons who use children as human shields to protect themselves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can we get back to the question of whether or not health care is right.

I can only assume it's already been brought up in this very long thread, but trying to claim a service that someone else provides a political 'right' is incoherent. Essentially the question boils down to: do you have the 'right' to force someone else to provide health care for you? If we accept such a conception of a right (the right to force others to your will) we'll undermine the entire concept of political rights and create government that becomes the bully, rather than protects us from the bully.

Yeah 40 some odd pages pretty much flattent that cat....

Here is the summary... not a right, it is a service and one we can't afford at current rates....

First of all, who's "we", Sparkles? Second of all, what is it about more of the same thing that CAUSED the high prices that's supposed to FIX them?

 

[Listening]

Not sure what you mean by a "practical doctor". But I ain't letting some a-hole kid that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground treating my wife or kids. He/she damn well better be board certified, grade A, college educated, cuz if he isn't and somebody gets fucked up, we're gonna have a problem.

And that is your right. And you will pay for it too.

What I mean is someone I trust who maybe hasn't been through all the red tape (which I find more and more useless as I come more and more to understand just what it exists for).

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you have a free and open market then it's hard to believe the 40% treatment could exist for very long. Nobody will choose it, unless it's super cheap. Kinda depends on the circumstances, an older person like me might take the 40% chance to save my wife or my kids a lot of money. But here's the deal: if you promote competition, then you should have more providers offering the 90% solution at the lowest price they can to get your business. That's the real value of the free market.

not if it is patented..... to your point no one will buy the 40% and the 90% is patented so choice doesn't really exist.

Knowledge should be available no matter what economic model you choose, free market or gov't run or anything else. I'd say we should improve that anyway. Nothing wrong with creating a real time database that doctors can tap into from anywhere and get your medical records if you give them a security ocde or something to protect your privacy.

Wrong direction on knowlege. You would need a database on outcomes which shows which doctors are excellent and which have been less than competent. Hard to find the data just like it is hard to find incidents of Mersa in the local hospital. Give it a shot and see what you find.

'Cause nothing else in the world comes with patents on it.

As to knowledge, the Internet is a wonderful thing.

And frankly, neither of these things has anything to do with your assertion that health care is not a market, just like every other product and service out there. Sorry, but customer ignorance doesn't negate the existence of the marketplace, nor does legal protection of intellectual property rights.

 

[Listening]

If they trust that doctor, why not?

The AMA is supposed to regulate itself, but does a poor job of it. Much as I detest big gov't, we might need some gov't oversight here. Misconduct, malpractices, anything unethical or unprofessional oughta be tracked and repeat offenders should lose their license. So if there's a good reason not to trust the doctor then everyone should know why.

And once again, we come back to the idea that the market will regulate itself.

All this business about board certification has only been with us for short while compared to human history.

What constitutes unethical or unprofessional is something that each of us gets to sort out for ourselves. And I'd just as soon do it after the fact (yes, after the fact....because that is how a market works).

I really don't care how much you want to have all this....great.

Why do I have to live under the same cloud ?

 

[Listening]

Why do all providers have to be regulated by the AMA ?

What gives them the right to control supply ?

I'd gladly go to a practical doctor who is working off of experience only for something like a cold. He can look at my throat and in my ears just as easily as my doctor can.

And, I suspect he can give me a good prescription too.

I'll take my chances. So, for those of you who have to have a board certified, grade A, college educated doctor....you can pay for it. Because he isn't going to work as cheap as my practical doctor will.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to express my desire to see all you NRA types take out the blood sucking leaches we call litigation attorneys. If I am on your jury...you will walk.

Not sure what you mean by a "practical doctor". But I ain't letting some a-hole kid that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground treating my wife or kids. He/she damn well better be board certified, grade A, college educated, cuz if he isn't and somebody gets fucked up, we're gonna have a problem.

This is the same guy who said is kid is worth 250K. I think that speaks volumes.

What you "think" does not matter.

Now what was the question ?

 

[Listening]

Hypothetical question:

If the United States were forced to adopt the health care system of any other nation, which would YOU choose?

Somolia.