|
The Right To Everything (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Wait, I don't understand your point - are you saying that it is a good thing that you can get plastic surgeries under the public system? |
I find it absurd that the government uses tax dollars to pay for these procedures for people.
| quote: | | Either way, I should warn you that it only happens in extreme cases (i.e. you were involved in a nasty accident and you need to have your nose reconstructed, or something like that). |
Give me an example for an "extreme case" where someone would need a sex change.
| quote: | | As for the quality of care being bad, it depends quite a lot on the region, and it has to do with the economy more than with anything else (keep in mind that we're one of the greatest world economies, but we're still working on social equality). The US being the country it is, that's hardly a problem. |
It's pretty much common knowledge that the Brazilian system is dangerously underfunded. The system was designed to help with more immediate procedures and lately, more long term care patients are milking the system. You guys are now having to worry about the elderly who were under private care systems who now can't afford to stay on the plan and are moving over to the public system. Not enough tax dollars can pay for your current program. So while you may think that it is working just fine today, which it really isn't, it's probably going to get much worse in the future. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
I find it absurd that the government uses tax dollars to pay for these procedures for people.
Give me an example for an "extreme case" where someone would need a sex change. |
You mean like, hermaphrodites?
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
It's pretty much common knowledge that the Brazilian system is dangerously underfunded. The system was designed to help with more immediate procedures and lately, more long term care patients are milking the system. You guys are now having to worry about the elderly who were under private care systems who now can't afford to stay on the plan and are moving over to the public system. Not enough tax dollars can pay for your current program. So while you may think that it is working just fine today, which it really isn't, it's probably going to get much worse in the future. |
Well, we are still struggling with social issues... you're right when you say our system is overloaded, as the elderly become a great part of our population (among other things). But, that's far from being our only problem.
We still need to cope with social inequality, poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, among other things. However, and rather surprisingly, Brazil's been doing a good job tackling these issues since the early 90's, after a previous economic boom that failed to address these issues. That's why we're far from having the perfect health care system - if this is an argument against universal health care, you should keep in mind that the countries we live in are so different it renders the comparison absurd.
Anyway, if you want my honest opinion, health care in Brazil will worsen if, and only if, our economy breaks down. Otherwise, it will keep improving, as it's happened during the last couple of decades. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
You mean like, hermaphrodites? |
No, I mean when a person of a specific sex going to the surgeon to have a procedure that would have them look like the other.
| quote: | Well, we are still struggling with social issues... you're right when you say our system is overloaded, as the elderly become a great part of our population (among other things). But, that's far from being our only problem.
We still need to cope with social inequality, poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, among other things. However, and rather surprisingly, Brazil's been doing a good job tackling these issues since the early 90's, after a previous economic boom that failed to address these issues. That's why we're far from having the perfect health care system - if this is an argument against universal health care, you should keep in mind that the countries we live in are so different it renders the comparison absurd.
Anyway, if you want my honest opinion, health care in Brazil will worsen if, and only if, our economy breaks down. Otherwise, it will keep improving, as it's happened during the last couple of decades. |
I appreciate your insight on the issue. My girlfriend is from Sao Paulo. We had a little discussion about it last night and I wasn't surprised to find out, though, that the private system is still much better then the public, according to what I read and what she told me. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Yes, but happens. It's one thing to have safety nets and social programs that give some supplemental assistance when the chips are down, but it's entirely another to institute obligatory multi-trillion dollar spending programs and mandates in a supposedly "free" country that results in rationing of services. |
Something called a limited supply for an unlimited demand. All products and services are rationed by price. Healthcare isn't just any service and should therefore, be available to all, just as roads and highways are.. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
The first and only argument should have been the one occ just pointed to - efficiency. What people can't seem to get their head around is that the cost won't really increase - it just shifts. The Franken video above includes the example of the Mayo Clinic that I think is very illuminating. Shifting the administration of health care institutions and insurance companies can reduce costs for the consumer that offsets any increase in public cost. |
That seems unlikely. I believe that the administration is seriously underestimating the costs of expanding coverage to those who are presently uninsured.
Extending coverage to those presently uninsured will cost more than the current market value of insurance for them because it will increase demand and, since supply is inelastic, therefore the cost of medical services. The only alternative is to regulate the costs of medical services directly, but that will not solve our health care problems; rather, it will only cause supply to further contract, and instead of people having no access to health care because they cannot afford insurance, we will have large numbers of people who have no access to the health care they need because of inadequate supply.
Moreover, since the plan (effectively) requires people to have insurance, it removes incentives to reduce one's own consumption of health care services. Once a person is insured, the marginal cost of treatment is only their deductible or copayment, and therefore a rational person will be more inclined to seek unnecessary treatments which they would eschew if they had to pay the full cost of the treatment, even if they could afford it. Those currently uninsured have medical conditions for which treatment is required and for which they are unable to pay. That is certainly a problem that would be fixed by the plan, but those same people also have medical conditions for which treatment is optional. Once insured, there will be little incentive for them not to seek treatment for those conditions as well, even though they would not do so if they had to pay the cost themselves, since the marginal cost for such treatment will be low. The result is a tragedy of the commons, where the health care market would operate efficiently to everyone's benefit if such treatments were not purchased, but since each individual can shift the cost of her own treatment to everyone else those benefits are unlikely to be realized. The aggregate demand and cost of health care will increase accordingly, and much of it will be waste. |
|
|
| The17sss |
/\/\/\
what he said. I can't, for the life of me, understand any person who honestly believes the government when they say the cost of their programs will have no cost... or pay for themselves... or be deficit netural. The same people who believed that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the War On Poverty, and scores of other government run social programs will ever be of little or no cost are drinking the kool-aid with this too. We are supposed to believe that because a bunch of elites have Ivey league educations, even with zero real world business experience they can run industries better and more efficiently than the people who specialize in doing that kind of work? lol |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
That seems unlikely. I believe that the administration is seriously underestimating the costs of expanding coverage to those who are presently uninsured. |
Do you think the added cost of the insured paying for the uninsured would be equal to or greater than the cost of insuring everyone?
| quote: | | Extending coverage to those presently uninsured will cost more than the current market value of insurance for them because it will increase demand and, since supply is inelastic, therefore the cost of medical services. The only alternative is to regulate the costs of medical services directly, but that will not solve our health care problems; rather, it will only cause supply to further contract, and instead of people having no access to health care because they cannot afford insurance, we will have large numbers of people who have no access to the health care they need because of inadequate supply. |
I think there are ways to mitigate that such prioritizing treatment. The government could give tax breaks and subsidies to healthcare providers to incentivize them to keep costs low. Is there any reason why an MRI scan should cost $2000 but in the UK cost £300? How does Japan have universal health coverage and maintain a very high clinics/hospitalbeds per capita? It wasn't voodoo magic. They have high supply and universal coverage. I think it's possible here too but we have to work out how they did it. Supply probably will contract somewhat as we see in the wait times for certain treatments, but nonetheless, serious illnesses do get immediate treatment.
| quote: | | Moreover, since the plan (effectively) requires people to have insurance, it removes incentives to reduce one's own consumption of health care services. Once a person is insured, the marginal cost of treatment is only their deductible or copayment, and therefore a rational person will be more inclined to seek unnecessary treatments which they would eschew if they had to pay the full cost of the treatment, even if they could afford it. Those currently uninsured have medical conditions for which treatment is required and for which they are unable to pay. That is certainly a problem that would be fixed by the plan, but those same people also have medical conditions for which treatment is optional. Once insured, there will be little incentive for them not to seek treatment for those conditions as well, even though they would not do so if they had to pay the cost themselves, since the marginal cost for such treatment will be low. The result is a tragedy of the commons, where the health care market would operate efficiently to everyone's benefit if such treatments were not purchased, but since each individual can shift the cost of her own treatment to everyone else those benefits are unlikely to be realized. The aggregate demand and cost of health care will increase accordingly, and much of it will be waste. |
Do you think prioritizing treatments would curtail this demand increase you'r talking about? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
/\/\/\
what he said. I can't, for the life of me, understand any person who honestly believes the government when they say the cost of their programs will have no cost... or pay for themselves... or be deficit netural. The same people who believed that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the War On Poverty, and scores of other government run social programs will ever be of little or no cost are drinking the kool-aid with this too. We are supposed to believe that because a bunch of elites have Ivey league educations, even with zero real world business experience they can run industries better and more efficiently than the people who specialize in doing that kind of work? lol |
Private insurance companies specialize in rationing coverage so they can return profits to shareholders. Why should companies who only purpose is to return profits to shareholders be providing health insurance? We need companies whose purpose is to return profits back to policy holders in the form of increased coverage or lower costs. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| The health insurance industry is basically an oligopoly. I'm not saying the companies are colluding but oligopolys tend to inadvertantly collude because each decision of one firm influence, and are influenced by, the decisions of other firms. I find this to be a primary reason why you won't be finding price wars in the health insurance industry. No 25% off sales or buy 1 get 1 free deals. They know demand is inelastic so they can charge higher prices and get little demand response. This is what happens when a few for-profit corporations are in charge of insuring people's health. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
We are supposed to believe that because a bunch of elites have Ivey league educations, even with zero real world business experience they can run industries better and more efficiently than the people who specialize in doing that kind of work? lol |
what i don't understand is why you have these opinions when there are examples all around the world that show govt doing exactly that (ie occrider's post).
a health system based entirely on profit will never be able to keep its costs down. i am amazed that there are still people that think capitalism and the private sector are the answers for everything, all the time.
great job they've done so far. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
what i don't understand is why you have these opinions when there are examples all around the world that show govt doing exactly that (ie occrider's post).
a health system based entirely on profit will never be able to keep its costs down. i am amazed that there are still people that think capitalism and the private sector are the answers for everything, all the time.
great job they've done so far. |
PKC, the government is the reason why the capitalists can't do a great job. It's not the capitalist's fault! |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
/\/\/\
what he said. I can't, for the life of me, understand any person who honestly believes the government when they say the cost of their programs will have no cost... or pay for themselves... or be deficit netural. The same people who believed that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the War On Poverty, and scores of other government run social programs will ever be of little or no cost are drinking the kool-aid with this too. We are supposed to believe that because a bunch of elites have Ivey league educations, even with zero real world business experience they can run industries better and more efficiently than the people who specialize in doing that kind of work? lol |
Damn Ivey League educations really dont count for jack these days do they? |
|
|
|
|
