Britain To Charge For Their Shitty Healthcare - Who's For 'Free' Healthcare Now?

[guerilla]

However, I still refute that leaving something like healthcare to the free market will result in the best outcomes, when the late 20th century experiments with capitalist (specifically Thatcher-ist) ideology driven markets have basically proven that this dosen't work.

Thatcher was not a capitalist. She was a corporatist.

To de-regulate the health care industry would actually make it much less efficient.

That is just an assertion. How did you deduce this?

FYI, the ultimate regulator is profit and loss. If you fail, you go broke.

In your argument about licensing of doctors, that's not creating a barrier to entry. That's ensuring as little malpractice as possible.

How so? When you have a monopoly licensing agency how do you know their anti-malpractice guidelines are the best? They have no competition. How do you know if they should have more guidelines or less? Who are they accountable to? With a monopoly, they are accountable to no one. M I RITE?

All licensure is state granted monopoly.

This is a more complex discussion about the price system, and why we need it to rationally allocate resources (including medical labor and capital resources).

If people did not require a license to practice medicine, if education requirements were lowered, health care outcomes would be substantially worse, even though there would be plenty more competition on the market, and there would likely be a greater strain on the quality services offered, due to the maltreatment delivered elsewhere.

Again, an assertion. Spell out how you deduced this. Do we have worse outcomes in other industries where there is too much competition? Do we have worse outcomes in other deregulated industries? If so, where and why?

Are the quality of computers lower? What about massage therapy? Has food and drink actually lost quality over time? Naturopathy is much less regulated. Any proof that health care market has less quality over time?

 

[guerilla]

No need to go over the old arguments again, but I doubt you'll find many people in countries with state healthcare that would prefer it to be privatised.

BigGovHealth's videos on Vimeo

The fact that people buy private insurance ON TOP OF state care, tells us something about the ability of the market to deliver more than the state.

State health care, simply is

1) Redistribution of resources
2) Lowering of service and expectations
3) More government control over individuals and their life decisions.

These are some great videos from Stephan Molyneux. Recommended material

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0tKl0J-S4"]YouTube - True News 46: Health Care Part 1[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD2UUH4E2Xs"]YouTube - True News 47: Health Care Part 2[/ame]


Anyway, I need to get back to work. I don't want to get sucked into these debates.

 

[BlueYonder]

Not to be a bitch, but this issue brings to mind a recent lunching incident I had with a friend who's at least 75 lbs. overweight now, and recently got the dreaded "diabetic" diagnosis.

I treated her to whatever she wanted, so she proceeded to order 4 courses of fatty, salty, carb-heavy foods, and two desserts. She ate every crumb, saying "delicious, delicious!" as she packed it in.

When I brought up the diabetes topic, she didn't seem to be concerned being that she's under a doctor's care and it's okay to eat what she likes.

The catch is her husband works for the IRS and they have gold plated, socialized health care that we all pitch in to pay for. So the privileged can expect immaculate care at public expense and party hearty at the table without worrying they're going to be uninsurable. For some reason I couldn't articulate why this made me angry, as a person who worries and does without. Maybe I'm just jealous.

The very poor get it for free, the very rich have it all and the bureaucrats and their families suck up services at public expense. The rest of us say a hail Mary in the hope they won't get sick or hurt.

Did you know that insurance companies have VIP files for members of congress and congressional staff, to be sure they get consistently gold plated treatement (it keeps them feeling complacent).

This is far beyond inequitable; it's a moral outrage and hurts our economy. We are becoming unable to compete with countries that guarantee their citizens at least a modicum of care should disaster strike. The system of employee coverage is disintegrating and may be gone within a decade. We can't go on this way.

Get over yourselves. Change is coming soon to a state near you.

 

[HarveyJ]

guerrilla: You're making assertions in the opposite direction as well though.
Government has stepped in and created licensing procedures due to a history of the medical practice not being able to on its own. Admittedly, this is all before our time, during the turn of the last century, so both anecdotal and documented evidence is hard to come by, on top of the fact many people thought they were performing with best-practice in mind.

But let's make it easier.
Would you trust someone that didn't have a practitioners license to operate on you? Or even prescribe something? I certainly wouldn't.
If the licenses suddenly came from a multitude of sources, I would actually become a lot less trusting of the majority of these licenses, under the assumption that many of them would be as reliable as the "Caribbean universities" out there, because markets generally race to the bottom to provide the cheapest alternative, rarely the best.

I'd go on with anecdotal evidence, because after doing some research I can't actually find any empirical evidence regarding this in either direction, but you place no value in such anecdotal evidence.

 

[guerilla]

guerrilla: You're making assertions in the opposite direction as well though.
Government has stepped in and created licensing procedures due to a history of the medical practice not being able to on its own. Admittedly, this is all before our time, during the turn of the last century, so both anecdotal and documented evidence is hard to come by, on top of the fact many people thought they were performing with best-practice in mind.

I already sourced that several times for this forum. It is also covered in one of the two side by side videos above.

http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-...care-whos-free-healthcare-now.html#post652298

http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/47248-obesity-tax-2.html#post425285

http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-...sel-destroys-obama-healthcare.html#post597617

http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-...rance-plans-feel-free-spam-me.html#post576689

Now look mate, I can only provide these sources so many times. I assumed in one of the 4 times I have used this source on this forum, you read the source at least once.

But let's make it easier.
Would you trust someone that didn't have a practitioners license to operate on you? Or even prescribe something? I certainly wouldn't.

That is a strawman argument though. I'm not saying that professionals and experts should not be licensed. I am saying that there is absolutely no basis for the idea that licensing has to be a monopoly.

If the licenses suddenly came from a multitude of sources, I would actually become a lot less trusting of the majority of these licenses, under the assumption that many of them would be as reliable as the "Caribbean universities" out there, because markets generally race to the bottom to provide the cheapest alternative, rarely the best.

Again, you're making an unbacked assertion. Where is the evidence that competition delivers lower quality? And if you claim to prove that, are you making an argument for monopolies?

I'd go on with anecdotal evidence, because after doing some research I can't actually find any empirical evidence regarding this in either direction, but you place no value in such anecdotal evidence.

I am a fan of deductive logic (a priorism). It doesn't rely on subjectivity the way anecdotal observation does.