Poor people had better access to medical treatment on a free market (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

opinions don't make false things true.

 

[scaredytiger]

opinions don't make false things true.

That goes for yours too.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I haven't stated an opinion, what I've stated are the facts.

 

[scaredytiger]

Nah, your comments are riddled with opinion. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.

 

[SylviaB]

Yeah, I got this, but what I was asking was why (predominately in other threads, less so in this one) you're so vehemently opposed to Obama's healthcare plan when you are neither a healthcare professional nor health economist and thus only appear to have your preconceived ideas about government intervention to go on. (I'd like to note here that I'm not saying that I'm an expert in this matter either. Just stating facts.)

Firstly, being a health care expert doesn't really mean anything. I mean, take a doctor working in a public hospital and ask him how to improve things and he'll probably say "more funding". Which, in the short term is true, and obviusly he'll be concerned more with his immediate future than the nature of the system decades down the line.

Secondly, most of what I have said I have learnt from reading the works of economists. i didn't just wake up one day and think "oh I think we should have a free market"

I kept both these assumptions for the sake of the argument, but mentioned in parenthesis that this kind of market doesn't exist, nor can it ever exist, simply because of the exhorbitant costs associated with most advanced medical equipment and the low supply and long lag-time on the training of new doctors.

-Obviously on a free market, things would be cheaper.

- Doctors: Free market obviously doesn't work over night, but given enough time, the number of doctors would increase. We manage with the current number of doctors, and so we'll manage until the new doctors start graduating.

Also, on medical experts, I think on a free market without state licensing requirements, we'd see far more sub-doctor specialisation.
That is, we'll have people who specialise in very specific things without becoming doctors. For example, there would be people who may only set broken bones. because it would be cheaper and wouldn't take as long to become a sub-doctor medical expert and you don't have to be nearly as smart as a doctor to do it, then a decent number of people would pursue these these careers, and this would free up doctors. Obviously I mean there would be a whole heap of these different specialisations, and their services combined would greatly increase the supply of medical treatment.

Even in a perfectly competitive market, there will still always be a minimum price based upon the minimum possible attainable costs for the firm.
There is absolutely no garuantee that everyone is going to be able to afford this price.(and in fact, looking at current insurance plans it seems rather unlikely)

insurance would work on a free market. The fact that it doesn't now is completely because of statist regulations.

As for not being able to afford insurance: I still don't agree with you. If there is enough people who fall into this category for it to be a problem worth talking about, then together they represent a lot of profit to be made.
What I could see is collective bargaining societies, similar to friendly societies, emerging. If an insurance policy costs $1000 a year, a group of 5000 might get together and say to the insurance agency that if they are willing to offer the society a price of $800 per policy, then all members in the society will take out a policy with their company.

If all members of the society were to individually take up the policy (outside of the society), then the company would make $1,000,000 more, sure, but given that the society could very easily just choose a different company that does offer them a discount, then the company is highly incentivised to offer a discount. 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing

In reference to the idea of the lodges, your article states that in 1920 over one-quarter of adults were in a lodge. But what of the other 3 quarters? Given relative poverty rates at the time, it is unlikely that all of them could afford a more comprehensive coverage. And what of the non-adults? What of the elderly? This is a time before FDR introduced the aged pension, so the elderly would have been without both an income and hence a lodge memerbship. And what of children? Or the unemployed?

- Poverty is far less. If the current levels of wealth were around back then, far more people would have been able to afford lodge membership. heck, if they were as wealthy as we are today, most people wouldn't have needed lodge membership.

-Non adults: children will obviously be covered by parents. Charity would provide for those without parents etc
-the elderly: given the rise of wealth and hence superannuation, the elderly will be able to afford healthcare far more than they could have back then.

basically, being able to not afford lodge member ship would be far, far less of an issue on a free market today.

One-quarter of Americans were covered by a comeptitive, low-cost system.

Given the low cost, it seems absurd to suggest that three quarters of people couldn't afford lodge membership, considering that most people in lodges were poor people themselves. A lot of people wouldn't have needed lodge membership, others didn't want to be.

See above for why minimum prices that are achievable may not always still be attainable. Again, you seem to have forgotten the people who can't afford any coverage at all.

For the completely broke, charity will assist them.

In america last year over $300 billion was donated to charities. This is obviously a huge sum, however:

-Americans currently pay collectively $2,674,007,818,000 in federal taxes alone.
-The unfree nature of the market leads to a messed up structure of production and leads to the average person earning less
-The federal reserve just creates money out of thin air i.e. money would have greater value on a free makret
-in a stateless society, people will obviously see a far greater need for charity given there are no state welfare programs

hence, this amount would be far greater in a stateless society.

Say you have a completely broke, completely unskilled person.

he could go to an organisation like the slavation army. The charity would provide him with health insurance (charities are another opportunity for collective brgaining too btw), and vouchers for other essential services. In order to qualify for these vouchers he must agree to working so many hors a week. Now, since there would be no minimum wage, they could easily set him up with a job somewhere, albeit tidying shelves at some store for $5 an hour. This would provide him with some income on top of his charity benefits, and it would also allow him to get experience and help him secure a better job in the future.

you can obviously see why this is better than just "oh you're poor? oh we're teh government have some free money now you're not poor yay!"

What I'm saying is that just because a free-market (not that medical services can ever be completely free) lowers costs, doesn't mean that these costs are magically low enough for everyone to afford. There are still basic costs associated with healthcare and hence the insurance industry based upon it, and for such a vital-to-life service, this is unnacceptable and demands some form of intervention for humanitarian needs.

If people honestly care enough about the poor receiving healthcare (which it seems they would given the total apparent lack of opposition to our public health system, for example), then there would be enough donations and enough volunteers to pick what the market is unable to provide for

 

[SylviaB]

the Australian health care system isn't "good", in the sense that it could be much better

I dont just mean there are problems with it, I mean that if we had a free market things actually would be better.

 

[PH011]

Just curiously, is there any country today with completely "free market" healthcare? And how well are they going?

 

[SylviaB]

Just curiously, is there any country today with completely "free market" healthcare? And how well are they going?

nope. America is closest, and the value of it (the free market) is reflected in their superlative quality of healthcare. however, government regulations restrict supply and hence, prices rise and people can't afford it.

i mean there are probably some poor countries where there are no governmental health policies, but these countries are too poor and corrupt for their to be public health care even if they wanted to introduce it.

 

[evatt]

Just curiously, is there any country today with completely "free market" healthcare? And how well are they going?

No, because the fool doesn't realise that for all his talk of a benign, absolutist free market, it has little or no practical application.

 

[SylviaB]

No, because the fool doesn't realise that for all his talk of a benign, absolutist free market, it has little or no practical application.

ugh


there are no free markets because it is not in politicians' (or their CEO buddies') best interests for their to be free markets

and these politicians have managed to convince people that they need government, and have regulated the market so it cant work, and then they blame the market for this failure, which gives them more power and control

 

[evatt]

nope. America is closest, and the value of it (the free market) is reflected in their superlative quality of healthcare.

I would say quality, would be inclusive of accessibility.

 

[SylviaB]

I would say quality, would be inclusive of accessibility.

i mean the quality of treatment.

 

[evatt]

Give me a succinct summary as to how the free market can address issues of accessibility amongst the poor

 

[SylviaB]

Give me a succinct summary as to how the free market can address issues of accessibility amongst the poor

try: the first fucking post in this thread

 

[PH011]

With state-based healthcare, no matter how poor you are, you will still get access to healthcare. Even if the life saving surgery costs thousands, you will still receive it.
Then, how can these people, the poorest of the poor, be better off with a free market? The actual cost of providing the healthcare may be cheaper, but it would still be too much for some.
What happens when a homeless man arrives at a hospital with a stab wound? "Sorry mate, you can't pay us so we'll just leave you to die on the side of the road"

 

[SylviaB]

With state-based healthcare, no matter how poor you are, you will still get access to healthcare. Even if the life saving surgery costs thousands, you will still receive it.

except, you know, you have to wait months or even years.

Then, how can these people, the poorest of the poor, be better off with a free market? The actual cost of providing the healthcare may be cheaper, but it would still be too much for some.

Did you read the first post?

basically in today's society (on a free market) a bunch of poor people could get together and collectively bargain with an insurance agency

What happens when a homeless man arrives at a hospital with a stab wound? "Sorry mate, you can't pay us so we'll just leave you to die on the side of the road"

a hospital will always treat someone in an immediate life death situation

and it would be unlikely a homeless person would be without some kind of support (see my second response to moll to know why)

 

[SylviaB]

everyone watch

[youtube]aEXFUbSbg1I[/youtube]
[youtube]BpsEAVbCkMM[/youtube]
[youtube]refrYKq9tZQ[/youtube]
[youtube]QzhiG0dcwN8[/youtube]
[youtube]Xsp_Jh5EIT0[/youtube]
[youtube]E_KCLm9cekU[/youtube]

 

[ibbi00]

except, you know, you have to wait months or even years.

Months maybe, depending on the type of case. Where the f*** did you get 'years' from?

 

[SylviaB]

3.2% of patients waiting for elective surgery have to wait at least 365 days

 

[ibbi00]

3.2% of patients waiting for elective surgery have to wait at least 365 days

That's for plastic surgery dude... Doesn't exactly entail life threatening situations.
EDIT: for elective surgery however, the figure stands at 3.0%.