I would argue that it is in fact you that needs to get your facts straight. The Australian government severely restricts immigration, this prevents doctors who are trained overseas from coming to live and work in Australia. If they didn't do this than any attempts of Australian doctors to reduce the supply of health care in Australia (and thus drive up their profits) would be futile as doctors and nurses and any other profession would have an incentive to come here because of the high profits in that industry, thus increasing the supply and therefore reducing the cost. The government restricts the market in one way and then attempts to counteract it in another way. All these shenanigans with medical colleges and universities would not be necessary or relevant.
They would have it, in a free market. It's not about "dicking people over for shits and giggles", its the fact that they have no incentive at all to behave in a way that benefits the 'customers' and have every incentive to behave in a way that is contrary to the interests to the 'customers'. Necessary evil? I have no idea what you are talking about. So....they have to satisfy their customers...or they go out of business... In the sense that imminent governmental collapse would mean that the bureaucrat stops being paid than yes, but barring that scenario the bureaucrat doesn't get any benefit from improving quality and decreasing cost. S/he benefits most from increasing the number of staff under them, increasing their pay, etc. There is no direct link between this and improving quality and decreasing costs and indeed is often the exact opposite. As compared to what? There are currently no examples of an actual free market operating on any kind of scale anywhere in the world today. You are arguing that x% of government involvement is better than y%, i'm arguing that 0% is better than either of those.
Trade associations like the American Medical Association (as an example) are to blame for a lot of the bullcrap, actually. They insist that only a certain number of professional schools (like medical school, pharmacy school) be allowed to exist in each state, with a very strictly limited number of seats in those schools. They also periodically increase educational requirements. EXAMPLE: before 2006, pharmacists needed only a BS in pharmacy (4 years) in order to practice. In 2006, a Doctor of Pharmacy degree (6 to 8 years) became the requirement. Now, we have an acute shortage of pharmacists in the USA. Day in the life of a drug store or hospital pharmacist: sit on your ass all day in a basement verifying physicians' orders at a computer and periodically standing up every couple of hours to signature the IV's, unit doses, and pre-packaged pills left out on the counters by the min-waged pharmacy techs who mixed/measured them. The trade associations try to explain away these rules as being "required to increase the quality of our healthcare in the country" but they are little more than attempts to limit the labor supply, in order to increase salaries and further the status of their profession.
well except for the insurance company people whose jobs are to limit their choices. Name or explain these incentives to dick over people? Didn't think you would. Why do you think custermer service at alot of places sucks and they are still in business? ort they are the only game in town and don't have to worry about such silly things. if your going to take the time to respond rather than push your ideology address what was said. the governmental employee as an incentive to see the economy as strong as possible because that means more tax revenues and more chances for funding. and you would be wrong. you have the same problem as norse your pathogically incapable of seeing the flaws in the free market. You know why there are no pure free markets in the world. BECAUSE PEOPLE GOT TIRED OF BEING FUCKED OVER IN THAT SYSTEM. Systems that go away do so because they failed.
1. No is forcing you to buy insurance. 2. If the government isn't distorting that particular market in a variety of ways than the insurance companies would actually have to compete with each other on price and service and coverage, people could choose the plan they wanted that fit within their budget. I don't know about you, but if I go somewhere and the service sucks then next time I go somewhere else. The aggregate of this behaviour among many people means if people think the service sucks at a particular business than they are going to loose a lot of business to their competition and will eventually go out of business if they continue. As I have attempted to explain previously, high profits are the signal for competition to arise. Even just the threat of competition can be a powerful motivator. The government *as a whole* might have an incentive to have a strong economy, but 'the government' is not a person and no one person within it has that incentive, except perhaps the person at the top. However the problem with that is that the person at the top can only stay there for a strictly limited period of time, they can't still be in that position 10 years down the line, so their incentive is to maximise short term benefits, rather than think about the long term, because by then they are no longer able to reap any benefits and it's someone else's problem. In the case of bureaucrats who may be trying to make a career of 'public service', their incentive is try to rise up through the hierarchy of the bureaucracy, to increase their power and the number staff working under them. That is how they benefit, that is what they work towards. It has nothing to do with "incentives to dick people over" and everything to do with the fact that a business has an incentive to discover what the consumer wants and act on those consumer desires. If they succeed they are rewarded with profits, if they fail they are punished with losses. This is in sharp contrast to a bureaucracy, which has no incentive to satisfy the users of the products it is overseeing the production of. Increase the departments budget doesn't correlate well with "makes users happy" whereas for a business; increase revenue correlates perfectly with create value that people want. In order to continue existing, a business has to create value, and it has to do so in a way that customers value enough to pay its costs. In order to exist, a bureaucracy has to acquire enough funding via political machinations to fund its activities. The former must satisfy customers to continue existing and grow, the latter does not and has no reason to act in a way that benefits it's 'customers'. 1. I have yet to see you make a case demonstrating any such flaws that are actually a product of the free market, rather than a result of the government. So I hope you will forgive my lack of psychic powers. 2. How can you get sick of something you've never experienced? When and where has there ever been a genuine free market operating on any kind of scale?
well except for that little thing called exorbent medical expenses god you fanatic. Its not the governments fault. its the flaws in the system of the free market causing the high prices and low quality. and yet places with crap serive remain when you say their should be none. and with those high profits comes the ability to prevent competition from arising. so because their government bueracrats their evil. according you just place them in a corporation and suddenly they become caring indviduals. the real world doesn't work like that. most people in the governmental employee recognize that their service is to the people. unlike a company for profit whose only desire is profit. maybe in the fantasy world your thinking of. maybe in a perfect world but fantasy and this isn't a perfect world. when the chance for profit arrises at diminishing service they take it. Why do you exclusively use the term bureaucracy to refer to the government? corporations that would work in the "free" market are also bureaucracies. why don't they suffer from these flaws? and first of the government bureaucracy has an incentive to satisfy the citizens. if they don't they lose their jobs when they or their appointers get elected out of office. Or it has to get money from the corporation its in. their are nongovernmental bureaucracy. and you just showed why their is the incentive to dick custermors over. to get more money. if they are in a bind you increasely ignore the cunsumer. But they do. Just because you keep saying it doesn't interestingly I have yet to see you make a honest real world case against the government and for the free market in health care. the robber baron era was the free market in action. 1. if your going to keep pushing the "free" market recognize this isn't the perfect world you imagine it in. it has real world flaws. You and all the other fundamentalist free marketers here all seem to refuse to see that. don't use that cop out oh their have never been a free market system because your perfect idealized version has never happened. it won't ever happen grow up and deal with. any system must cave to the realities of the world and human nature. their are no perfect examples. 2. quit using bureaucracy and bureaucrat to only refer to the government its the height of dishonesty because every single large corp is one too. unknowingly the entire time you have built a frame work against your position even if we accepted you views on the free market as right we still would have had to reject it because not only would it have the flaws of the "free" market but the ones of a bureaucracy as well.
Apparently I'm a fanatic if I refuse to just take your word on an issue. From my perspective you are the one behaving like a fanatic. Is it actually impossible for you to conceive that another rational person might disagree with you? Since, as you appear to have by now conceded the fact that, there is currently not a free market, why would you automatically assume features of the free market to be present when we don't have one and then claim the lack of these features in a system that is not a free market as proof that a system we aren't using is faulty? Also, the free market doesn't guarantee that every business everywhere will always have good service, it merely gives them all an incentive to provide it. That's simply not correct. I have yet to see or hear of any evidence at all that suggests that simply being the largest player in a given market gives you the ability to prevent competition from arising. In order to do that one would have to coerce your potential competition from not competing with you, something which is antithetical to a free market. Can you name even one example of an actual monopoly that has existed without any support from a government, without the use of coercive force? No tariffs, no quotas, no price controls, no licensing, etc. I would be colossally surprised if you could name even one example of this ever occurring. Firstly I never said they were evil, you are putting words in my mouth. Secondly, it has nothing to do with being caring or evil or any other adjectives you care to attach to the situation and everything to do with what the individuals incentives are. People respond to incentives. Thirdly, the very existence of attainable power attracts those who desire to those positions more frequently than those who don't so one would expect to see a greater proportion of those who are likely to abuse power in a government. I use that term primarily to refer to government bureaucracies because they are typically much larger and hard to get rid of / cut the size of because there is little downward pressure on their size. Elected officials rarely exercise direct control over the bureaucrats that work for the state, at least not to the extend of selectively hiring and firing specific people. Even if they have the power to exercise such control they rarely, if ever, have the time or inclination to do so, plus it may not be easy to get rid of people. Furthermore, the entire bureaucracy is not fired and restructured every time a new elected official takes over, that's simply not how its done. Bureaucrats who do a poor job are not kicked out with the new elected official, they may stay on indefinitely. There are indeed non-governmental bureaucracies but the owners of a particular corporation and those they appoint have a direct incentive to minimise expenses and so will typically control the size of such a bureaucracy. If a business is 'in a bind', they have every incentive not to "dick over" their customers, at least not in anything but the very immediate term, because it simply invites the competition to attract away all their customers. I'd love to hear you explain how any individual bureaucrat has a direct incentive to constantly: improve quality; increase quantity and reduce costs. The health care industry is no different from any other industry. The market is a process that allocates resources to those who are best at forecasting consumer demand. Every business is competing directly with every other business in a particular industry and indirectly with every other business in the entire economy. As this process continues over time, resources are allocated in as efficient manner as can be achieved with the information available to market participants, additionally the market continuously distributes information back and forth from consumers and producers in the form of price signals as to the correct level of production for every good and service in the entire economy. There is nothing intrinsically different between health care and anything else that makes it immune to this process or that would indicate that the market forces which so efficiently allocate resources for every other industry suddenly cease to function when they encounter this particular one. The fact that you could describe a period with vast involuntary slavery, massive subsidies for specific industries and companies and a variety of other government interventions in the market as " the free market in action" at the very least demonstrates you have no understating of what constitutes a free market. If I refuse to accept your particular view of "reality" I must be a fundamentalist and therefore I should "grow up". Right. I am trying to have an intelligent discussion here, I'm not simply declaring you to be wrong and refusing to converse further. I am not not repeatedly declaring you to be a fundamentalist or demanding that you "grow up". Is it too much to ask that you at least try to be civil so that we can actually discuss the matter at hand? If it is than I think we are done here.
Yes but i don't think your a fanatic because you disagree with me. I think your a fanatic because your refuse to believe what you believe in has flaws. ??? so pointing out a major flaw in your logic is conceding a point. I was asking you to explain how places with crappy service remain when you say their shouldn't be any. So now your arguing that what is incentives are don't matter its what happens that matters Microsoft Vapor ware. nothing of the such look at my previous example. Microsoft knows because they are the big dog with market share people will wait for any announced product of theirs. Someone starts a word processing software with a whole bunch of features word doesn't have microsoft announces new version of word people wait for it and not buy another companies it goes out of business never here about the microsoft product again. Well considering my dad worked for one for years before the government broke them up AT&T. its called implications and connations but you your self admitted that just because their is an incentive to do so doesn't mean it happens. Maybe because other incentives have greater pull or maybe because the incentive doesn't exist. Their are other avenues to power. Your anti governmental crusade with out reflecting it back at other avenues of power is begining to get tiring. So you in other words you don't want to think about how your undercutting your own arguement. well yes that is true but not for the reasons you say. the reason it is so much harder is because people kept getting fired every time some new controlled it. that's actually how it used to be done. define a poor job. You keep saying beuracrats are these lazy people with no incentive to do their jobs well show it. not really. its why the mangement parts of corporations get bloated They have every reason to jack up prices and shit when their in a bind and lower service standards. because they get rid of them when they don't. HE doesn't get rewarded for cutting jobs and lower peoples saleries. He has no incentive to use negative means of inflating his worth so he must use positive means. You could be farther from the truth. next to no ability to walk away and complete asymmetry in information is completely different to most indutries. the market relies on information being in the hands of the buyers and sellers equally you don't have that in health care. so custermors in health care can accurately determine what kinds of surgeries and medications they need? Well sorry I couldn't find a perfect example. perhaps if you could show me fairy land I could. I understand the free market. the 1880's didn't have slavery. oil, coal, rail, and steel weren't subsidized all that much espcially relative to what you claim as closer the a pure free market today it. the government was hands off than and things were shit. NO. You just have to accept some view of reality. which your not. You think the free market is perfect it isn't. No you aren't. An intelligent conversation would be one that recognizes the pro and cons of two competing systems and a debate over why the pros outweigh the cons you refuse to admit any possible flaw in the system you want. Your right your just saying I stupid because I don't think the free market is perfect I am being civil. Calling you out on your bordering on religious adoration for something that never existed and cannot ever exist isn't being uncivil. Your right we are done here because I can't have a debate with you. You wish to compare the real world version of the other economic systems to the theoritical perfect form of the free market and cannot accept the real world applications and failings of it.
EntropyAlwaysWins: "Can you name even one example of an actual monopoly that has existed without any support from a government, without the use of coercive force? No tariffs, no quotas, no price controls, no licensing, etc. I would be colossally surprised if you could name even one example of this ever occurring. ” pjdude: "Well considering my dad worked for one for years before the government broke them up AT&T." Dude, I could call you hand on MANY things you've posted but I decided to take you to task directly on this one item. Evidently, you understood NOTHING about AT&T. I was with them in various capacities for over 20 years and there was an entire DEPARTMENT that did nothing but negotiate tariffs and rates with the FCC. It was a TOTALLY government-controlled monopoly. They were TOLD what their rate-of-return could be, and every major capital expenditure was scrutinized because it figured into the base which was used to compute that return on investment. So crawl back into your little corner and spend some time learning before you continue spewing total nonsense. (And I just may decide to expose even more of your garbage later...)
No corporation of any kind, monopoly or not, has ever existed without a government supplying coercive force. No capitalistic market, "free" or otherwise, has ever existed without a government supplied legal infrastructure. Nor has any realistic attempt ever been made to establish one. Possibly the closest we've ever seen to such a fantasy market would be the loan derivatives market in the US between 2000 and 2008. There was almost no constraint on that market of any kind - geographical, legal, cultural, anything. Any properties of capitalistic business that depend only on the presence of a market-establishing and regulating government are inevitable properties of capitalistic business. Health care is among the economic goods that cannot be handled by a "free" market. It lacks the necessary property of an informed consumer capable of rejecting any one proffered deal and repeatedly choosing among alternatives. It lacks the attribute of repeat business allowing quality judgment. It lacks the attribute of distributing costs and benefits among direct producers and consumers - much of its benefit is gained by non-buyers, much of its costs borne by non-producers. And as always when there isn't, the pretension that there exists a market mechanism to control costs and oversee delivery is a very expensive delusion, providing merely opportunities for greed and theft and self-enrichment among those in control of the actual decision making mechanisms.
i love how the anti UHC group here refuse to get out of there own theory and into the real world. How many of you work in the science fields? what is science based on? having a great theory and then ignoring the evidence against it or evaluating your theory AGAINST real world empirical data? The OECD publishes MASIVE amounts of health data across its member countries, only 1 of those countries doesnt have UHC and yet the US ranks poorly on all those indicators. Lets look at a comparision (my apologies if this comes out a little screwy, im trying to translocate a table into the post) Life expectancy Australia 81.4 Canada 80.7 France 81.0 Germany 79.8 Japan 82.6 Sweden 81.0 UK 79.1 US 78.1 Infant mortality rate Australia 4.2 Canada 5.0 France 4.0 Germany 3.8 Japan 2.6 Sweden 2.5 UK 4.8 US 6.7 Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP Australia 8.7 Canada 10.1 France 11.0 Germany 10.4 Japan 8.1 Sweden 9.1 UK 8.4 US 16.0 % of government revenue spent on health Australia 17.7 Canada 16.7 France 14.2 Germany 17.6 Japan 16.8 Sweden 13.6 UK 15.8 US 18.5 (and thats even with the massive US millatry budget) % of health costs paid by government Australia 67.7 Canada 69.8 France 79.0 Germany 76.9 Japan 81.3 Sweden 81.7 UK 81.7 US 45.4 There are also per capita figures there but that would take me to long to transcribe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Comparison_to_other_countries I just found this page too: It also contains the same infomation in tabular form as well as more detailed infomation on LOTS of countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Cross-country_comparisons
In my opinion, if people want universal health care, the best route would be to provide it privately. People could file for a non-profit 501(c)(3) and operate it as a charitable, private organization. There you guy: if you want UHC, go and fund it, privately, and leave everyone else alone. Government need not get involved.
but that's the problem norse americans want it( and want it through the government getting involved) but those in power refuse to give it to us.
I think the same about NASA and national military deffense. After all why the taxpayers pay for military? Wouldn't private companies run it better with their own money? They get all the loots anyway. What about the health care system in Hawaii (see my other thread)? It has been working just fine for 4 decades!!! I know, you didn't know that.... P.S.: And what about this free school system shit? Every school from kindergarten should be private and those bastards pay for it! What kind of notion is that education should be free? After all they don't learn nothing right now, so once they pay for it, they have the incentive to learn....
Hey Asguard, don't confuse a conservative with numbers, it never works. There is simply no good answer why the richest Western society shouldn't have government provided health care when everyone else has. The simple answer is that it is against corporate interest, end of story....
heheheh. Concidering i dont think anyone on the right even READS my posts im going to go off topic a bit herePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You know maybe concervitisium is a religion or a faith because it never seems to stand up to empirical evidence and unlike a science when empirical evidence shows a scientific theory to be incorect then it is modifided to acount for the new evidence. There is amble data to show that the conservitive view point is wrong yet i have never seen it modifided or abandoned collectivally. Concidering this is a science site people HERE (especially those like Mad who proffess to be from a science based background) should be more willing to put there theories to the test. Instead we have the duck and weave routine as shown by read only's comment "The data from other countries is irrelivent because we are talking about the US". To a certain point he is correct, scientific studies can be subject to cultural bias which is why you must always be critical before automatically apliying it directly to a different culture. For instance the study in the US which found "getto ambulances" (ie the gansters droping off gun shot victoms at A&E doors with no treatment at all) have better health outcomes than EMTs. This was pointed out to me by a friend in St John to which my responce was "yes but before you aplie that to Australia you have to concider the fact that US EMTs arnt trained to anywhere near the same standed as Australian Paramedics, further more EMT is a min wage job which means that the EMTs are probably working at least one extra job on top of being an EMT which increases fatigue and there for lowers efficancy". However (to get back on topic) as Cochrane shows, the wider the cultural groups you take your evidence from the more it becomes directly universally aplicable. OECD statistics arnt from one country, they arnt the US v canada or the US v UK alone, they take data from ALL there member countries and its consistantly shown that the US ranks close to (or at) the bottom time and again. It cant be avoided by simply saying "oh but the US is a large spread out country" well you cant get much further from metro health care than the center of Australia (actually thats a lie, Alice springs actually has quite a good public hospital, its the areas further out from the actual center which have distance problemsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), or whatever other excuses the right likes to come up with Lastly a side note: It always slightly annoys me when the right uses that word, conservitive in politics should really be equivilant to death because "concervitive" simply means "no change". The right is just as quick to push for change as the left is (as they should, any polly who simply wants things to stand as they are with NO change might as well be dead politically)
