Even if it has some regulations(preferably not). Generally when I argue with people who like the new healthcare reform and UHC, the one point I can't ever get around is that in those systems the price is able to remain relatively low compared the one in the US( I know ours isn't a free system) is because everyone is forced to pay into it so theres a larger pool which in turn causes it to be relatively cheaper compared to other systems. I don't understand everything about it entirely, but I do think doing things such as people paying for their own checks up instead of relying on on insurance and negotiating prices with their physician could help keep prices down for insurance, but the goal would be to make it an attrative option to get insurance instead of it being forced.
I'm looking for something more detailed than saying "get government out of it" because your average person wouldn't buy that and I typically wouldn't be convinced. If there are other alternatives I would love to hear them.
I'm actually not opposed to government-funded health care, but at the same time, the government is the main reason why health care is so expensive.
Government enforces the legal cartel of doctors, which limits the supply of health care providers.
Consider the fact that only doctors are allowed write give prescriptions, despite the fact that pharmacists have the skills to diagnose and write prescriptions. In many countries, you can go straight to the pharmacist for a prescription, which cuts out a middleman and lowers prices.
In many states, mid-wives are banned, so that only doctors can deliver babies, even if midwives are vigorously trained in how to deliver babies - again creating a government enforced cartel which raises prices.
The FDA makes it a crime to claim that foods, herbs, or excercies can 'treat any disease,' despite reams of peer-reviewed science proving they can, which has the effect of limiting health care to often expensive pharmaceuticals.
The AMA gets to decide who is a doctor - they give accredidation to universities. As basically a guild, their interest is in ther being as few doctors as possible, which is part of the reason med-school takes so long.
So imagine there were alternatives to being AMA certified - that students could start med-school straight out of high school - that Americans could go straight to pharmacists to get presecriptions, could go to midwives for natal care, could go to nutritionists for diagnoses and treatment - that doctors were forced to compete on the free market.
What do you think would happen to the price of doctors bills? What do you think would happen to the cost of health care?
"the way insurance is supposed to work."
This is a good post about why having a system of insurance for day-to-day health care doesn't make sense in the first place.
"You just gobble up every bit a baloney someone feeds you?"
Caley, don't antagonize newbies.
I'm refering to the socialist calculation problem as the reason you can't make international comparisons based on spending.
"I've read Mises and his calculation theory, but I don't think thats the way to go in trying to debunk socialized healthcare system. IMO"
Lack of economic calculation does not plague only socialist states. It plagues any segment of society in which resources need to be allocated, and in which there are either no product prices or no factor prices. If health care were socialized, the world over, there would be no market prices for health services. Without any future market prices for various health services to anticipate, neither hospitals, nor the government, would have anything from which to subtract the present prices of factors of production. Therefore, they have no recourse to economic calculation, which means that states of, and shifts in, consumer wants, as expressed by their actions, have no way of influencing the shape of production.
Should Option 1 be pursued? Which means: should quantity A of doctor type 1, B of doctor type 2, and C of doctor type 3 be hired? And quantity D of medical machine 1, and E of medical machine 2, and F of medical machine 3 be purchased? (And repeat this for millions more factors of production).
Or should option 2 be pursued? Which means, quantity C of doctor type 1 be hired, quantity C of doctor type 2 be hired, and quantity D of doctor type 3. And quantity F of medical machine 1, and E of m.m. 2, and D of m.m. 3. (And repeat this for millions more factors of production).
Or option 3, or 4, or options 5 through a billion?
Which arrangement would best suit consumer wants? Without market prices for health care services, there is no way of knowing. The result? Massive shortages of some services, and massive gluts of others.
I've read Mises and his calculation theory, but I don't think thats the way to go in trying to debunk socialized healthcare system. IMO
It is with regards to its alleged efficiency.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Thanks Grayson for that I enjoyed reading that. My heart jumped with joy the other day when I read the Conservative-Dem coalition in the UK is going to try and decentralize the healthcare system.