Issues of LII-ness aside,
The Conservative Nanny State
This economist argues that the American health care system would be out competed by a public system (if they ran side by side) in terms of overall cost, administrative efficiency and quality.
Issues of LII-ness aside,
The Conservative Nanny State
This economist argues that the American health care system would be out competed by a public system (if they ran side by side) in terms of overall cost, administrative efficiency and quality.
If healthcare should be state-administrated, then food production and distribution should be administered the same. If you disagree, please tell me why.
(Welcome to the SoVieT uNiON)
The end is nigh
I disagree. I find it naive to only consider this issue from the perspective of those receiving health care.
An ideal world consists of everyone getting everything they want. We do not live in such a world. Rather, we live in varying degrees of scarcity. To exist, people exchange what they have for something they would desire more. When something is more desired and less available, (that is, health care) those possessing it (doctors) are able to exchange it for more than a less desired and more available good. (say, novelty bobble heads) However, I don't believe I need to explain the Law of Demand and the rest of Econ 101. While it would be nice to eliminate scarcity, it isn't possible through means of redistribution of supply; only an increase. And naturally, Law of Supply dictates this increase because of the increase in the demand and subsequent profitability of the good.
"Free" (and I do like to keep the "no free lunches" principle in mind) health care creates a system where the Law of Supply does not function to increase the supply of a good, thus creating shortages. (as the most popular modern example of this, see the Soviet Union) Such a system does not improve standards of health care.
While I agree that, all other factors aside, everyone having high-quality health care is preferable to not having such, my knowledge of economics compels me to see that a command economy on health care would fail to accomplish this goal and I consequently cannot support it. No one disagrees that health care is desirable. Artificially raising the standard of it, however, is not possible. A right to human dignity does not compel man to attempt to force onto others what he knows is impossible.
Reality is a given. "Should" does not get such an absolute status.
My view is similar to that of MatthewZ. Health care should be a top priority on a personal level (if you value your health) but not everyone's a doctor. If a child is born into shit conditions and can't afford health care, it is the fault of the parents, who knowingly had a child they should have waited for. Free healthcare would give people less incentive to not have kids, as they know the state will ensure their offspring's survival. That means everyone is paying for everyone to have more kids.
Cancer happens. Horrible physical ailments happen. Free healthcare can only prolong lives of pain at the expense of the livelihoods of others.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I don't see the problem with supplying health care. As I see it, it is a necessary measure to ensure the health and vitality of the populace. The citizenry, especially the young, are the primary breeding stock for future soldiers and administrators.
In return, the common person should expect to pledge his life to defend his country and its values, to expand its borders if necessary and to follow the will of the government unquestioningly. Obedience must be cultivated as national virtue.
Hierarchical subordination to a cadre of technocrats should be absolute, as the state is the highest and most articulate expression of human achievement and should only be governed by an experienced and capable elite.
About half the US people (more or less varying by research) want a public healthcare.
Very few people from the countries with single-payer system want a completely state-independent, pay for yourself, one - even though there are constant complaints about the system (because of imperfections), most people would go out the street to protest if someone tried to destroy it.
This suggests the difference isn't type related at all.
No, seriously, in my opinion views on such matters are more often a result of personal experience and maturity than anything else. I mean, there might be a type-related tendency, but it's more about how you think that what you think, or why you think that.
Removed at User Request
He's got to be! Nobody could say those things in seriousness.Originally Posted by Dynamicism
Lol.
uhm, no. You'll be the first to feel the wrath of the New Order.
You make some good points here. Still, is it fair for the child to suffer just because of somebody else's stupidity? The child did not choose their parents.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
It's not fair. Someone has been wronged. The question is, who should be blamed and who should fix it? In my opinion, since the parents are blameworthy, they should sacrifice their enjoyment in life, in an attempt to provide at least a decent life for their own child. There are plenty of things someone could do detriment to their happiness to make another happy. If the parents wish not to do this, they are sacrificing the livelihoods of their flesh and blood, and the child lies forfeit regardless of what we try to do to save it.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I think having a healthcare program administered by the government would make the market freer. As long as it's voluntary admission and private options still exist so that they're in direct competition.
Every single Westernized country that has a public healthcare system pays much less than the United States for it. Much less. So the evidence seems to suggest that a centralized distribution scheme is more efficient.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote