Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 75

Thread: Medicine

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    126
    Thanked: 31

    Default Medicine

    With the election of Obama in the United States there is a lot of talk about medicine and how to best fund it. Some have suggested the Invisible Hand fund it. We'll call them Bad Guys. Some have suggested the State fund it. We'll call them Ugly Guys. The Bad Guys say the Ugly Guys' suggestion is a bad idea because the Ugly Guys did it some other place and look at all the problems. The Ugly Guys say the Bad Guys' suggestion is a bad idea because the Bad Guys did it right here at home and lo, all the same problems. Whether its funded by the Invisible Hand or the State, the same problems.

    Maybe the problem isn't the funding of medicine, but the management of medicine.

    The Bad Guys and the Ugly Guys agree, the State should manage medicine. That is why the Bad Guys who, favouring the Invisible Hand, are not Good Guys. It is always scary when everybody agrees. Something is wrong.

    Discussion point: who should manage medicine?

    I believe the Invisible Hand should manage medicine. Like everything else, subject to the constant democracy of free markets, where transactions are votes, the quality of medicine would go up and the cost of medicine would go down. The Invisible Hand makes mistakes, sometimes very horrible mistakes, but no worse than those of the State, and that same democracy of free markets has a very effective system of impeachment. Criminal activities would still be the jurisdiction of the Courts, of course. I think the solution to our medical woes, which pale in comparison to those of our ancestors, lies in medical liberty. Freedom in medicine and medicine within our means. That is my cry. Right now we're being offered this choice between public or privately funded publicly managed medicine. There is a third way. Not a middle way, but a third way. The options are not just socialist nirvana and corporatist cold.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Whiggamore For This Useful Post:

    Wildtim (11-09-2008)

  3. #2
    The original Skolor and Gentileman. gugi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17,430
    Thanked: 3918
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I don't know what you mean by 'medicine'. It's usually the health care part that's being discussed. And I'm not sure I understand what do you mean by 'management'.
    Isn't the judicial system part of the state - should we exclude them from any management of the process and let the invisible hand decide the conflict whatever way it finds suitable?

  4. #3
    Senior Member Ditch Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston-Salem, NC
    Posts
    474
    Thanked: 66

    Default

    I think the general idea of what you're saying is expressed very humorously here:
    YouTube - If The Other Party Wins

  • #4
    what Dad calls me nun2sharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kansas city area USA
    Posts
    9,173
    Thanked: 1677

    Default

    Thanks Doc! Now it all makes sense, Damn glad I voted 3rd party!
    It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled. Twain

  • #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    126
    Thanked: 31

    Default

    Gugi, call it what you want. In Canada we call it health care. Medicine is the best term because it covers everything and anything that makes us healthy. And that is what we're talking about funding, that is what I'm talking about managing.

    I suppose I'm so used to the division of powers between the judicial and legislative branches of government that I don't consider the Courts part of the State, no. The Courts defend us from the State, if anything. At least they ought to. You are right, the Courts do have an important role to play in medicine, just like they do in other aspects of our society. Bringing snake oil salesmen to justice, for example.

  • #6
    Cheapskate Honer Wildtim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    A2 Michigan
    Posts
    2,371
    Thanked: 241

    Default

    I'm with you Whig.

    If it was left up to the market, I bet Doctors woould be giving free annual check-ups just to get you to choose them for your care.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to Wildtim For This Useful Post:

    jockeys (11-10-2008)

  • #7
    The original Skolor and Gentileman. gugi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17,430
    Thanked: 3918
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiggamore View Post
    Gugi, call it what you want. In Canada we call it health care. Medicine is the best term because it covers everything and anything that makes us healthy. And that is what we're talking about funding, that is what I'm talking about managing.

    I suppose I'm so used to the division of powers between the judicial and legislative branches of government that I don't consider the Courts part of the State, no. The Courts defend us from the State, if anything. At least they ought to. You are right, the Courts do have an important role to play in medicine, just like they do in other aspects of our society. Bringing snake oil salesmen to justice, for example.
    Medicine is a lot more than health care. It also includes things like education, research, development of medicines, policies and regulations to ensure that the society is not exposed to the risk of say drinking contaminated water...
    Now you may want to leave these last parts to the invisible hand, may be it will work, may be it won't, the only way to really find out is to do it, but in the political system we live in you first have to convince a fairly large number of people to go along.
    I personally would rather have a fairly large overhead in legislative and executive government whose job is to prevent diethylene glycol be part of my toothpaste, instead of my toothless relatives trying to bring the party guilty for my death to justice.

    As far as healthcare goes we've had these discussion many times. With limited resources it is always rationed and that's just a fact of life. In US I have not seen much government involvement in my healthcare, except that under NY state regulations I was required to have a coverage above certain minimum. I was also required to read a two page document when my TB test was positive, but nobody forced me to take medications.
    I have not had a choice of healthcare provider - I had for a year, before my empolyer decided that they will no longer allow people to opt out of the plan they were providing. Since it didnt matter I never looked how good or bad that plan it is, but it covers preexisting conditions, which by the reaction of some american friends when they got it, I judge to be something really special.
    I have however been astinished at the bills whenever I've seen them. They are something like:

    Service chargred: X (hundreds and in few occasions thousands of USD)
    Negotiated charge: 30%-50% of X
    Payment: Negotiated Charge - $20
    Billed to me: $20

    I personally find a bit troublesome when my insurer has power to negotiate 30%-50% of the bill, that's a lot of say that they get to have. It's not obvious to me wheter if they were replaced with a government employee, the result will be better or worse. But I am not going to take an ideological point of view and pronounce a certain way of doing things to be the only true way. I prefer to judge based on the actual results.

  • #8
    The original Skolor and Gentileman. gugi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17,430
    Thanked: 3918
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildtim View Post
    If it was left up to the market, I bet Doctors woould be giving free annual check-ups just to get you to choose them for your care.
    That's what the government funded health care in my country does - the government sets the rates that the doctors who participate in the system get to get and then everybody is free to pick their own doctor. You are also free to go to a doctor who does not participate in the government system and pay whatever rates they charge. What you don't get to do is not pay your medical tax (charged half and half to the employer and the employee). They've been having hard time enforcing this last one with small business and self-employed, though. I think at some point they just stop providing them healthcare. It's a new system that is being established now though - it was truly socialist not too long ago.

  • #9
    Senior Member Ditch Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston-Salem, NC
    Posts
    474
    Thanked: 66

    Default

    All medical bills are negotiable by law. That means your insurance...or you! Politics aside, I believe health care is a basic human right that we are all obligated to provide. Period.

  • #10
    The Razor Whisperer Philadelph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    2,197
    Thanked: 474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ditch Doc View Post
    Politics aside, I believe health care is a basic human right that we are all obligated to provide. Period.
    I don't know if you meant to say we are all obligated to PROVIDE (techically that kind of works), but I agree with what I think you are trying to say there lol.

    As for the original question, I can't pretend to have a great system all worked out in my mind, so I can't really answer with anything concrete. I do know that the healthcare system in this country is a disgrace though. We are ranked 37th in the world for healthcare and are the ONLY industrialized country that does not offer some sort of universal plan. I don't see why our great thinkers can't cooperate enough to check into the 36 countries ahead of us to see what works best.

  • Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •