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.
Kenneth: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?).
Sorry if someone already touched on this. I am not an economist, so smash my ideas if I am wrong. You say we don't need so many drugs for the same illness. More money would be saved if we focused on producing limited number of drugs for every disease. Who is to say you don't need many drugs for the same illness? Ultimately in a free market, you may have several drugs developed and competiting. That will drive down cost, but it would also allow for variations in the drugs themselves. Maybe one drug addresses the disease while causing a side effect with certain people, and the other doesn't. It's by allowing the market to decide what is produced, that we get the myriad of options and choices as consumers. Under a government run market, government would limit those choices. If you happen to be someone that has that side effect, oh well. You are out of luck.
Second, you say "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" This is a bad thing? Maybe we should only provide the bare minimum in a car to get you from point A to point B. Why have heating, cushioned seats, or windows for that matter. I'm sure the absurdity is coming through, so why would health care be any different. Why wouldn't manufacturers build in comfort? It's a competitive advantage. It amazes me that this would be a negative to socialists. This is what quality of life is about. Being able to improve upon things. It's because of socialism and the state, that they cannot have comfort and a better quality of life.
As someone else said, they have been able to milk off the US's innovation. If we throw our innovation away by trying to be like them, everyone will suffer.
Lastly, these comforts and too many drugs is not why everything is so expensive. The reason that everything is so expensive is mainly government involvement way back to WWII when the put wage controls in place and caused companies to start providing insurance to get around it. Add to that medicare/medicaid, HMO legislation, mandatory coverage, and on and on. Only in the sectors where government is constantly meddling do you see prices ever increasing. In areas like computers, where they have not been heavily involved (not for long), you notice competition is fierce, prices go down, technology improves, and people are better off.
Ok. So by what criterion can you say that Europe is collapsing? We have so far established that not all of them are in debt crisis and that budget surpluses are irrelevant to the topic.
Kenneth:Ok. So by what criterion can you say that Europe is collapsing? We have so far established that not all of them are in debt crisis and that budget surpluses are irrelevant to the topic.
The EU is an economically integrated zone, tied by a common central bank, using the same media of exchange, and shares a labor market (free labor mobility). This means that the economies of Europe are more connected than they otherwise should be, and this puts pressure on those nations who don't face economic disaster (they must decide whether to bailout the troubled economies or not). If they decide not to bailout the troubled European economies, then there are adverse economic ramifications (mass labor migrations, FDI collapses, ect). If, however, they decide to bail them out (troubled European economies), then the Euro faces downward pressure, and may collapse (attacked by currency speculators). Now Greece and Ireland don't have much power in the EU, and they can't force the European community to bail them out; but Spain, Portugal, Italy, England, and France, who are also in trouble, hold a lot of power in the European parliament. They will most definitely bail themselves out, and drag the relatively stable German economy (and the Euro) with them.
Either way, your point is moot. Welfare states rely on heavy deficits, which puts pressure on their debt, leading to fiscal crises; which is why the welfare states of Europe are about to collapse (Welfare states in the U.S are on the verge of collapse as well--NY, CA, MI, NJ). The fact that not all European nations are on the brink of collapse, at this very moment, is entirely immaterial. Welfare programs are not free--in fact, they are more expensive than they should be (market's allocate resources more efficiently then government decrees).
Governments are inefficient (spend more per unit relative to the market), and inefficiency, subsidized by inflation and ruinous taxation, leads to economic catastrophe. You have no argument.
"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 think Esuric is right, and while I'm not nearly as economically well versed as he is, it's pretty obvious that major european governments are approaching insolvency, much like the US government is. It's really just a matter of time if you ask me.