Hospitals ripping you off

[jsherloc]

if you truly feel that we (the government) would be making you a "loser" by contributing some of your money to a public healthcare system, and you believe that the people you potentially helped out in their time of medical need would then become "winners" in this SPECIFIC scenario, there is no need to justify anything. you have concisely explained where you stand on the matter.

it is quite clear that you MUST look at everything through the profit/loss lens...including your own and your families' livelyhoods and the livelyhood of your fellow Americans. i respect your right to feel that way, but as I mentioned, I think you are going to be on the "wrong side" of history regarding this SPECIFIC matter. only time will tell though.

 

[guerilla]

Depends on whether we are talking in terms of abstract economic value or humanitarian value.

Economics is value free. All human values are psychological. I think I have posted both of these things already.

When we bring reality into the picture it changes things too.

Reality has never left my arguments. All of my arguments are grounded in the very real consequences of different ideologies and policies.

A win-lose situation might be tolerable it if someone loses a hundred bucks while someone else gains 20 years of life.

We can't know, so it is impossible to make objective value claims like that.

Likewise, despite markets guaranteeing win-win scenarios, these scenarios are entirely contingent on external variables. Both sides need to have the required goods or services to make the transaction, for example.

Markets don't guarantee win-win.

Everything is dependent on the external variable of scarcity.

The bottom line is that economic variables interact with human variables. And at some point we have to assess human variables in economic terms and economic variables in human terms. This might not be accounted for by theory, but it sure as hell happens in reality.

Economics is the science covering the consequences of human action. There is no interaction of variables.

All human action is fundamentally economic, even if it is being a bleeding heart communist.

A lot of what you wrote doesn't make very much sense to me.

 

[Djshorty89]

For anyone saying that the free market should govern everything, I'm wondering what your view is on funding the military? I would imagine that according to this viewpoint we shouldn't be forced into giving our money to defend the country.

After taking a step back and analyzing my view, I'd have to agree. I don't think we should be forced into anything whatsoever (saving someone's life, building a school, helping the military)

 

[guerilla]

I'll try to explain this in a short way (pun NOT intended).

1. Economics is value free.Economics can tell us about the consequences (effects) of human action.

2. Should/shouldn't are value statements. They have nothing to do with economics, other than economics helps explain what happens are you do a SHOULD or you don't do a SHOULDN'T.

3. Ultimately, the decision to do one action over another is determined by the individual, and typically individuals choose ends they THINK will help them reach their goals. If they are misinformed, they might drink Drano to quench thirst, or fuck for virginity.

So, to answer djshorty, should anyone be forced to pay for anything? If we know that people believe in the need for an army, they will fund it. No one has to tax you to buy clothes, or install a flushing toilet, or purchase groceries. You fund these NECESSARY things voluntarily.

If we introduce a moral element to the discussion, who has the right to demand someone's property? Our material wealth is the product of our time, which is how we measure the length of our life. Taxing someone is indirectly taking a portion of their lifetime from them.

If someone voluntarily gives to help the sick (awesome), that's a moral outcome, they did it of their free will. It's a donation.

But forcing people to pay for things they don't want by threatening violence, that's extortion, plain and simple.

Anyway, I gotta go back to work. Time to make the donuts.

 

[DanWesson]

If I am correct, which I may not be, please discuss what you see as working here in the US so that we can begin to understand you instead of being "ignorantly" frustrated by each others' ideas. That is all I ask. My frustration arises from a failure to suggest ANYTHING else in this thread, while at the same time suggesting with absolute certainty that the system cannot be improved from a socialized angle. What do you guys KNOW that the other developed nations don't? I'm genuinely curious.

I am not proposing a specific solution, and neither have you...at least not one that wasn't taken straight from the NYT or Krugman.

A simple review of economics should force you to question (if you were honestly interested in learning) how an increase in access and by extension an increase in consumption in a world of limited supply is supposed to reverse a problem of out-of-control costs. Increasing demand without increased supply will naturally cause prices to rise. What effect do you think price controls will have in this situation? This is a question where emotion will not suffice. You must inevitably come to a logical conclusion that there will be trade-offs unless you choose to ignore the facts as they are.

That is why you are frustrated with "no solutions being presented" because there are forces in play that can bring things into balance if allowed to work.

I believe that health insurance should work much like auto and home owners insurance in that it is utilized to cover unexpected and catastrophic costs; not a sinus cocktail shot or other such insignificant things that Americans expect. What do you think would happen to the price of tires or spark plugs if you used insurance to pay for them, and you never saw an itemized bill of charges? They most certainly would not get cheaper once your mechanic realizes he can make more money billing the insurer twice as much. Go through too many tires in the course of a year? Your insurer will be looking to drop you...those cold, heartless bastards!

Hopefully you find this response satisfactory. I won't indulge another round as I'm out of this thread now.

 

[jsherloc]

Sorry guerilla, you are wrong on a few accounts there. Economics first and foremost is and will always be a SOCIAL SCIENCE. Social sciences do in fact take into consideration external variables, especially that all important "human/emotional" element mentioned in this discussion earlier. THEY HAVE TO...without humans the science of economics doesn't exist. without emotion and values we don't exist as a human being in the most basic sense.

economics looks at the production/distribution of goods and services in our world, of course there are many branches that cover different perspectives macro, micro,political, etc. we are discussing life and health and death related things within this thread. to me, this surpasses the studies of commerce with goods and services and you cannot frame human wellbeing and human lives within the economical definition of "true and false", as that only really refers to whether or not the systems work within the other various systems and models being studied, correct? we are not talking about systems, we are talking about people's lives. i am saying that life health and death issues cannot be answered by ignoring emotion and value and just letting things ride on in the free market in this SPECIFIC scenario.

i like to think that there is more to human life than just producing, distributing, and consuming goods and services. without values, why even live? i mean really, just let the free market/SOME economic studies ride on because they are always right regarding even the most basic of human matters? that is what you are suggesting? and while we can learn from these studies ABSOTELY WE NEED THEM, however this does not mean that they should dictate our own livelihood in my own opinion.

i guess if wanting healthcare reform is PURELY psychological in your opinion, than so be it. Why is it a bad idea then? I still have yet to hear that in this thread. it is a bad idea because it deals with human values and external variables, and ignores certain principles of economics?

 

[jsherloc]

I am not proposing a specific solution, and neither have you...at least not one that wasn't taken straight from the NYT or Krugman.

A simple review of economics should force you to question (if you were honestly interested in learning) how an increase in access and by extension an increase in consumption in a world of limited supply is supposed to reverse a problem of out-of-control costs. Increasing demand without increased supply will naturally cause prices to rise. What effect do you think price controls will have in this situation? This is a question where emotion will not suffice. You must inevitably come to a logical conclusion that there will be trade-offs unless you choose to ignore the facts as they are.

I considered all that you mentioned there. I am pretty confident suggesting that the powers that be, (the ones that are interested in actively reforming healthcare in this country) have also considered these DEEP issues you mentioned above as well. I choose to believe that they (healthcare reformers) are correct in their belief that we can and will effectively and efficiently socialize healthcare in this country. based upon their own beliefs derived from world experiences and real-time societal studies in other developed nations. I don't have an issue believing we can do this here in this country. will it be hard? you bet. i wholeheartedly do not mind that some of my hard-earned money would be going to people in MEDICAL need... bottom-line. You apparently do, BUT ONLY because the government is asking you to. I know all you guys generously donate 70% of your disposable incomes to charities and things like that, so I mean why should the government basically then step in and rob you at gun point to assist those in medical need out, right?

That is why you are frustrated with "no solutions being presented" because there are forces in play that can bring things into balance if allowed to work.

right, just like the banking thing in this country? Nah, I'll take my chances with the people at the top and the knowledge that they have acquired, and not side with the libertarian armchair politicos. But when the day comes that you guys are actually making the important decisions at the top, ya know after the collapse of the very fabric of america after healthcare reform and what not, you can then come back and tell me that we shouldn't have ever socialized medicine. i will give you that full right....believe me, because I'd be wrong. you guys cannot admit that YOU could be wrong. I can....interesting.

I believe that health insurance should work much like auto and home owners insurance in that it is utilized to cover unexpected and catastrophic costs; not a sinus cocktail shot or other such insignificant things that Americans expect. What do you think would happen to the price of tires or spark plugs if you used insurance to pay for them, and you never saw an itemized bill of charges? They most certainly would not get cheaper once your mechanic realizes he can make more money billing the insurer twice as much. Go through too many tires in the course of a year? Your insurer will be looking to drop you...those cold, heartless bastards!

Hopefully you find this response satisfactory. I won't indulge another round as I'm out of this thread now.

Thank you, that is satisfactory. Again, I like to believe that we as a country can come up with a socialized solution for this one single specific itty bitty issue of life health and death, especially when considering where all of our resources currently go.

 

[Moxie]

especially when considering where all of our resources currently go.

If you are referring to government spending, then about a trillion dollars a year of government money already gets spent on health care.

 

[jsherloc]

^^^ i guess i don't argue that point? it should be the most important asset in a society in my opinion, therefore we should be spending THE MAJORITY of what we have(can have) on this issue absolutely. what else should a society dedicate the majority of its spending to in your opinion? aside from national defense of course. unfortunately our military revolves around international defense at this point, so this isn't really helping the whole "limited resources" thing in my opinion, but that is an entirely different debate. the real debate here is that the healthcare system itself and the SPENDING on this system is currently not benefiting the people it was designed to assist...plain and simple. insurance companies are raking in the loot, etc and the people that need basic care are getting screwed. this is reality...i live in the same world as all of you. if you are not seeing this type of shit happen in your community, then you should send me an invite to your pad in Beverly hills i guess.

our healthcare system(and its supporting entities) is completely incapable of helping the people "without" at this point and it is effectively ruining lives on all levels every single day. the people in this country that need help should not have to make these dumbass decisions in the year 2011. i like to think we have evolved a bit past the point of "economics" in regards to human lives.

regardless of what some may have suggested in this thread, i believe it is indeed VERY POSSIBLE to prioritize other human lives, outside of your own. I see it a tad differently though. You are not putting people vs people in this scenario or putting one before the other. IMO it really is about prioritizing THE VALUE of human life ....so its not pitting individuals/individual human lives against each other or the system vs the people like it is currently.

i believe the burden of proof is on the other team to prove to us exactly WHY we should not at least ATTEMPT some form of socialized medicine in this country. just saying "it won't work"..isn't working. and I believe the american public is looking for a solution sooner rather than later. i'm placing my bets on "sooner".

To me, if you are for healthcare reform, you are putting the highest value on ALL of the people in this country that could use help, you are saying "i value ALL their lives" first and foremost and will help my country do what it takes to make sure our citizens get the help they need in what is supposed to be the greatest country on earth. To me, that is is the essence of what makes us human, and the essence of what makes me...well...ME. others inability to prioritize the COLLECTIVE VALUE of human lives/their countries' citizens makes them...them I guess. and this is why we can't have nice things.....