They dismiss the idea that free market health care is better than socialized health care because health care in Canada, UK, France and Scandinavian countries are serviceable. It's irrelevant that free market health care is better as long as health care in those countries proves that socialized care is at least serviceable and even great in some Scandinavian countries.
So is it correct to say:
Socialized health care can work very well but it needs massive amounts of government spending the funding of which is taken from the rest of the economy. So you get good health care at the expense of low productivity and jobs being lost from other sectors of the economy.
Socialized health care works in Europe because of the industrial base left off from the previous capitalist economy. Lack of economic calculation results in continuous capital consumption(always operating at a loss) so socialist health care will need ever more government spending(taken from rest of economy) to sustain its quality.
Also how do you convince them of the subjective theory of value when it comes to health care. I myself tend to think that health care is pretty straight forward in that we don't need so many drugs for the same illness as is the case in capitalist economy. More money would be saved if we focused on producing a limited number of drugs for every disease. We only need medical equipment that satisfies the bare minimum of curing the patient unlike in a capitalist economy where medical equipment costs much because it provides for unnecessary comfort. Seriously, until now I cannot reconcile subjective theory of value with objective needs. Cannot man identify objective needs like bare minimum of providing somebody with health care(maybe it is purely subjective with education, but health care?).
I am however, convinced that centrally planned health care will be very inefficient(long lines) but remains serviceable as long as government spends more and more like I explained in the second paragraph.
Please explain.
Last time I checked, the US did not have a free market health care system. Patents, medical and operational licensing, subsidies, immigration restrictions and other interventions are just a few of the ways government interferes with health care in the United States, and that's just at a Federal level. It may very well be a system that is fully socialist is more efficient than a Frankensteinian system comprised partly of voluntary enterprise and partly of government dictats, as Kevin Carson has said.
The U.S. does not have a free market in health care.
Kenneth:Socialized health care can work very well but it needs massive amounts of government spending the funding of which is taken from the rest of the economy.
Meaningless. The latter part of your comment negates the former.
Kenneth:They dismiss the idea that free market health care is better than socialized health care because health care in Canada, UK, France and Scandinavian countries are serviceable.
Those nations are about to collapse, and ride off of American innovation (and are generally worse than our system--which is why the Canadian prime minister came to the U.S. for heart surgery).
Kenneth:Also how do you convince them of the subjective theory of value when it comes to health care.
Subjective theory of value is universal.
Kenneth:I myself tend to think that health care is pretty straight forward in that we don't need so many drugs for the same illness as is the case in capitalist economy. More money would be saved if we focused on producing a limited number of drugs for every disease.
Tell that to those who are alive today because of medical and pharmaceutical innovations.
Kenneth:Seriously, until now I cannot reconcile subjective theory of value with objective needs.
You don't understand subjective value.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I am going to sound foolish here, but let's try to say "medical care" rather than "health care".
Caring for your health is done by you only; it's when your own efforts fail or when your efforts can't do anything about it that you go for medical care.
I am just asking for this little semantic distinction, because it is common to point out the failings of American hospitals and medicine by pointing to the poor health in American society; which is merely a result of overwork, exhaustion, and more time spent on work than taking care of one's health, and not so because of failings in American hospitals.
The latter does not negate the former since our goal is not the overall vigor of the economy but only the health care sector.
What is your proof that those nations are about to collapse. Their economies might be worse than under free markets but their running budget surpluses. That allegation is unfounded.
Oops.. I did not mean limited NUMBER but limited kinds of drugs.
What is subjective value and what are its limits?
The only reason Canada has serviceable health care is because it manages to be relatively free market oriented in other areas. This means:
A) More taxes are generated because citizens are more productive. The average Canadian/Brit generates far more tax income than the average Cuban or Chinese citizen.
B) The government has fewer overall liabilities, which allows it to pump relatively more funding into health care.
It's not that Canadian health care is really any better or efficient than Soviet health care ever was, just that the few remaining vestiges of the free market help mask the symptoms.
An analogy would be, if an otherwise extremely healthy person eats McDonald's once a day and then suggests that because he isn't on his deathbed, the McDonald's is actually good for him.
I almost feel guilty typing that, however, as it seems to give the impression that socialist health care is at least tolerable; It's not. That includes America's fascistic health care system as well.
Kenneth: What is subjective value and what are its limits?
Objective need: I need food to live.
Subjective value: I want to live. In order to satisfy living, I need food. If I didn't want to live, I wouldn't need food.
"Need" implies causation, or that the thing is necessary to realize something else. "Want" is how much someone values something. We know that gravity is necessary for black holes to form and operate, no matter what value we peg to gravity or black holes. It remains true and is a necessary condition. Now If we "want" black holes, we might value gravity because of it's necessity in the creation of black holes.
There are no limits to subjective value. Things only have value when they are evaluated. Without evaluators, there is no value. (For a theist, they might argue that God can give things objective value. I don't see how an atheist can sensibly argue against subjective value theory.)
When looking through the scope of economics or political science, all value is subjective and it goes back to the evaluator. We are only given the illusion of objective value through market pricing. (The following is an oversimplification of catallactics:) Market prices are just an aggregate of all exchanges in the market and the prices that arise from all the subjective evaluations that lead to prices.
Seph: The only reason Canada has serviceable health care...
The only reason Canada has serviceable health care...
I'll call it serviceable when it catches up to the quality of private industry veterinary practices. If pets are being treated better than people, something is terribly, terribly wrong.
Kenneth:It's irrelevant that free market health care is better as long as health care in those countries proves that socialized care is at least serviceable and even great in some Scandinavian countries.
What is "at least serviceable"? How do they objectively quantify or measure this assumed requirement of "at least serviceable"?
You must emphasize the absurdity of ignoring quantity, quality, and availability of care. The problem at hand is always scarcity and how to alleviate it. The argument of free market vs. government planned system is, therefore, very relevant. If not, have the government print out 300 Million plastic cards that say "Health Care" on them, and when people are denied medical care, simply tell them that their free health plan does not cover it.
Kenneth:The latter does not negate the former since our goal is not the overall vigor of the economy but only the health care sector.
Hey, I'm really efficient when it comes to producing cars. Just give me $6,000,000,000,000 and I'll make you the best car you've ever seen!
Kenneth:What is your proof that those nations are about to collapse.
Open a news paper, or google "debt crises."
Kenneth:Cannot man identify objective needs like bare minimum of providing somebody with health care(maybe it is purely subjective with education, but health care?).
Providing the bare minimum of health is also subjective because you have to ask where, who, when, with what your going to act. Would you give health care to your enemy over your mom? Or would you treat the person with celiac disease before the person with colon cancer? What stage is the disease, how bad are the patients feeling? Do they need medical care now or later? etc.
The profound level of questions that are brought up means that health, like everything else, can only be allocated by subjective value.
I think the easiest way to explain it in terms of economics is to simply compare it to any other industry. You wouldn't want a "universal plan" for shoes, grain, or carpet cleaning. Most reasonable people would grant that those things would hamper those industries.
What makes health care any different? The laws of physics don't change depending on circumstance, and neither do the laws of economics.
Kenneth: They dismiss the idea that free market health care is better than socialized health care because health care in Canada, UK, France and Scandinavian countries are serviceable. ...........
They dismiss the idea that free market health care is better than socialized health care because health care in Canada, UK, France and Scandinavian countries are serviceable. ...........
This just in:
the free market in health care exists as we speak, and has always existed.
Much [most?] of it lies completely outside the present regulations, licensing requirements and cost controls that are the dominant features of " the systems" system.
Most of this free market in health care services exists in black/grey markets and cannot be seen unless one investigates, looks closely and learns to " read between the lines" , as it were.
Hint: hardly anyone who is a serious part of it risks calling themselves " a doctor" or "an M.D." or uses similar associated , attention-getting terms.
Even better, the more "the system" tries to control its own health care system-- the bigger the grey/black free- market system outside becomes.
No need to waste your time in unwinnable debates with control freaks [unless you are a masochist] - why not spend it seeking out the services you seek for yourself and your friends- outside of "the systems" system?
The free market system in health care [and for everything else] is out there already , but don't expect it to stand up and wave a flag to get your attention- you are going to have to seek it out yourself.
Enjoy your search!
P.S. if you [or anyone else here] needs suggestions/help on how to find free-market health care providers, private message me.
Regards, onebornfree
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Serviceable is too generoous. Health care is Canada is only "serviceable" if you happen to not need any unusual diagnosis or treatment that requires months to years in the queue and if you happen to be in a large enough voting special interest group that your treatment is actually covered. In the last election the party leaders were arguing in the leaders debate over who used illegal private clinics the least. There is a company in Sweden that specializes in flying people to Thailand to skip the queue.
Kenneth: Socialized health care can work very well but it needs massive amounts of government spending the funding of which is taken from the rest of the economy. So you get good health care at the expense of low productivity and jobs being lost from other sectors of the economy.
Socialized health care tends to work very poorly in the short-run, because there is no incentive—what would otherwise be known as competition—to provide high quality service. The government can offer more money for an immediate increase in quality, only to find that quality will again dip below par because the workers are not at risk of losing anything. The debate was never between the quality of private or socialized health insurance, because everybody agrees that the former is better, just between the expense of the two. As has been said in this thread already, the main weakness in the left's argument is the assumption that current prices reflect those of a free-market. The fact that the number of uninsured would drop by 11% if clients were allowed to seek insurance over state boundaries illustrates just how severe the lack of real competition between insurance companies is.
Socialized health care works in Europe because of the industrial base left off from the previous capitalist economy. Lack of economic calculation results in continuous capital consumption(always operating at a loss) so socialist health care will need ever more government spending(taken from rest of economy) to sustain its quality
This is largely true, although socialized health care in Europe is not that good. I have usually had private insurance in Madrid, and when I didn't I was not—for some strange reason—covered by the "universal" insurance system.
Also how do you convince them of the subjective theory of value when it comes to health care.
I'm not really sure this is necessary to bring up. The only major argument that comes to mind is the fact that the government currently dictates what insurance companies have to cover. The threat of any particular disease to any individual is subjective, and in a free-market that individual would choose coverage based on subjective evaluation.
Every Canadian politician says that Canada has the best health system in the world. It is more like the opposite. Not only does the government run the hospitals and directly pay GP's. Any substitutional private activity is illegal.