Healthcare is not a right!?

[mike92104]

Police and Fire Depts. are not free, but at least they are (for the most part) local organizations. The healthcare bill is just a huge debacle, and I can’t support having the government in control of it where it will be hugely politicized every election year.

[patb]

Health care isn’t a right, but it isn’t a private good.

In order to be a private good it must be a market good, and I can easily argue that health care isn’t a market good

now wether it’s a public good or a club good,
it has the character that the public is best served by

Are we well served with private ambulances? or Fire Department ambulances?

[patb]

Health care isn’t a right, but it isn’t a private good.

In order to be a private good it must be a market good, and I can easily argue that health care isn’t a market good

now wether it’s a public good or a club good,
it has the character that the public is best served by

Are we well served with private ambulances? or Fire Department ambulances?

[patb]

Health care isn’t a right, but it isn’t a private good.

In order to be a private good it must be a market good, and I can easily argue that health care isn’t a market good

now wether it’s a public good or a club good,
it has the character that the public is best served by

Are we well served with private ambulances? or Fire Department ambulances?

[patb]

Health care isn’t a right, but it isn’t a private good.

In order to be a private good it must be a market good, and I can easily argue that health care isn’t a market good

now wether it’s a public good or a club good,
it has the character that the public is best served by

Are we well served with private ambulances? or Fire Department ambulances?

[patb]

Health care isn’t a right, but it isn’t a private good.

In order to be a private good it must be a market good, and I can easily argue that health care isn’t a market good

now wether it’s a public good or a club good,
it has the character that the public is best served by

Are we well served with private ambulances? or Fire Department ambulances?

[davelj]

[quote=sjglaze3]I see basic healthcare as a right, in much the same way that I see the fire service, lifeguards, the police, the law courts, primary school eduction and even the military as a right. [/quote]

Define “basic health care.” Does “basic” include a bone marrow transplant with a 10% chance of long-term success? Does basic include a $250K brain surgery that will likely extend life for one year?

The health care situation is a real conundrum. Under the private insurance regime that we have in the US, health care costs will continue to escalate at a high rate as long as (1) technology (and procedures and cures) advances, and (2) there is no one willing or able to compel folks to make difficult choices.

Likewise, under a Canadian-style universal system, basic health care is quite good and very inexpensive. The problem, of course, is that “complicated” procedures and cures get rationed much more so than in the US. So, as long as you don’t have a really difficult health problem – which applies to probably 75% of the population – then the universal system is a great deal. But if you do wind up with a complicated problem and you haven’t supplemented your health care with private insurance, you’re in for tough times.

The problem is that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too – universal coverage, everything covered, and inexpensive. That, my friends, is impossible. There’s no free lunch.

I consider myself a Libertarian Realist, which is that I believe that in the vast majority of cases the market does a good job of allocating resources. However, not in all cases. Our health care system is rife with perverse incentives that cause costs to escalate far beyond anything rational. So, I would support some very basic version of universal care so that everyone in the country got some basic level of care. This would be plenty for the vast majority of the folks out there. And it would be much cheaper than the current system. Then, anyone who wanted to supplement the government plan with private insurance to cover potential complications could, of course, do so. But, to use an example, the poor child without supplemental insurance that comes down with leukemia doesn’t get a bone marrow transplant under “my” system. S/he’s shit out of luck. That’s for folks with the resources to pay. File under: Life’s not fair.

[davelj]

[quote=sjglaze3]I see basic healthcare as a right, in much the same way that I see the fire service, lifeguards, the police, the law courts, primary school eduction and even the military as a right. [/quote]

Define “basic health care.” Does “basic” include a bone marrow transplant with a 10% chance of long-term success? Does basic include a $250K brain surgery that will likely extend life for one year?

The health care situation is a real conundrum. Under the private insurance regime that we have in the US, health care costs will continue to escalate at a high rate as long as (1) technology (and procedures and cures) advances, and (2) there is no one willing or able to compel folks to make difficult choices.

Likewise, under a Canadian-style universal system, basic health care is quite good and very inexpensive. The problem, of course, is that “complicated” procedures and cures get rationed much more so than in the US. So, as long as you don’t have a really difficult health problem – which applies to probably 75% of the population – then the universal system is a great deal. But if you do wind up with a complicated problem and you haven’t supplemented your health care with private insurance, you’re in for tough times.

The problem is that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too – universal coverage, everything covered, and inexpensive. That, my friends, is impossible. There’s no free lunch.

I consider myself a Libertarian Realist, which is that I believe that in the vast majority of cases the market does a good job of allocating resources. However, not in all cases. Our health care system is rife with perverse incentives that cause costs to escalate far beyond anything rational. So, I would support some very basic version of universal care so that everyone in the country got some basic level of care. This would be plenty for the vast majority of the folks out there. And it would be much cheaper than the current system. Then, anyone who wanted to supplement the government plan with private insurance to cover potential complications could, of course, do so. But, to use an example, the poor child without supplemental insurance that comes down with leukemia doesn’t get a bone marrow transplant under “my” system. S/he’s shit out of luck. That’s for folks with the resources to pay. File under: Life’s not fair.

[davelj]

[quote=sjglaze3]I see basic healthcare as a right, in much the same way that I see the fire service, lifeguards, the police, the law courts, primary school eduction and even the military as a right. [/quote]

Define “basic health care.” Does “basic” include a bone marrow transplant with a 10% chance of long-term success? Does basic include a $250K brain surgery that will likely extend life for one year?

The health care situation is a real conundrum. Under the private insurance regime that we have in the US, health care costs will continue to escalate at a high rate as long as (1) technology (and procedures and cures) advances, and (2) there is no one willing or able to compel folks to make difficult choices.

Likewise, under a Canadian-style universal system, basic health care is quite good and very inexpensive. The problem, of course, is that “complicated” procedures and cures get rationed much more so than in the US. So, as long as you don’t have a really difficult health problem – which applies to probably 75% of the population – then the universal system is a great deal. But if you do wind up with a complicated problem and you haven’t supplemented your health care with private insurance, you’re in for tough times.

The problem is that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too – universal coverage, everything covered, and inexpensive. That, my friends, is impossible. There’s no free lunch.

I consider myself a Libertarian Realist, which is that I believe that in the vast majority of cases the market does a good job of allocating resources. However, not in all cases. Our health care system is rife with perverse incentives that cause costs to escalate far beyond anything rational. So, I would support some very basic version of universal care so that everyone in the country got some basic level of care. This would be plenty for the vast majority of the folks out there. And it would be much cheaper than the current system. Then, anyone who wanted to supplement the government plan with private insurance to cover potential complications could, of course, do so. But, to use an example, the poor child without supplemental insurance that comes down with leukemia doesn’t get a bone marrow transplant under “my” system. S/he’s shit out of luck. That’s for folks with the resources to pay. File under: Life’s not fair.

[davelj]

[quote=sjglaze3]I see basic healthcare as a right, in much the same way that I see the fire service, lifeguards, the police, the law courts, primary school eduction and even the military as a right. [/quote]

Define “basic health care.” Does “basic” include a bone marrow transplant with a 10% chance of long-term success? Does basic include a $250K brain surgery that will likely extend life for one year?

The health care situation is a real conundrum. Under the private insurance regime that we have in the US, health care costs will continue to escalate at a high rate as long as (1) technology (and procedures and cures) advances, and (2) there is no one willing or able to compel folks to make difficult choices.

Likewise, under a Canadian-style universal system, basic health care is quite good and very inexpensive. The problem, of course, is that “complicated” procedures and cures get rationed much more so than in the US. So, as long as you don’t have a really difficult health problem – which applies to probably 75% of the population – then the universal system is a great deal. But if you do wind up with a complicated problem and you haven’t supplemented your health care with private insurance, you’re in for tough times.

The problem is that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too – universal coverage, everything covered, and inexpensive. That, my friends, is impossible. There’s no free lunch.

I consider myself a Libertarian Realist, which is that I believe that in the vast majority of cases the market does a good job of allocating resources. However, not in all cases. Our health care system is rife with perverse incentives that cause costs to escalate far beyond anything rational. So, I would support some very basic version of universal care so that everyone in the country got some basic level of care. This would be plenty for the vast majority of the folks out there. And it would be much cheaper than the current system. Then, anyone who wanted to supplement the government plan with private insurance to cover potential complications could, of course, do so. But, to use an example, the poor child without supplemental insurance that comes down with leukemia doesn’t get a bone marrow transplant under “my” system. S/he’s shit out of luck. That’s for folks with the resources to pay. File under: Life’s not fair.

[davelj]

[quote=sjglaze3]I see basic healthcare as a right, in much the same way that I see the fire service, lifeguards, the police, the law courts, primary school eduction and even the military as a right. [/quote]

Define “basic health care.” Does “basic” include a bone marrow transplant with a 10% chance of long-term success? Does basic include a $250K brain surgery that will likely extend life for one year?

The health care situation is a real conundrum. Under the private insurance regime that we have in the US, health care costs will continue to escalate at a high rate as long as (1) technology (and procedures and cures) advances, and (2) there is no one willing or able to compel folks to make difficult choices.

Likewise, under a Canadian-style universal system, basic health care is quite good and very inexpensive. The problem, of course, is that “complicated” procedures and cures get rationed much more so than in the US. So, as long as you don’t have a really difficult health problem – which applies to probably 75% of the population – then the universal system is a great deal. But if you do wind up with a complicated problem and you haven’t supplemented your health care with private insurance, you’re in for tough times.

The problem is that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too – universal coverage, everything covered, and inexpensive. That, my friends, is impossible. There’s no free lunch.

I consider myself a Libertarian Realist, which is that I believe that in the vast majority of cases the market does a good job of allocating resources. However, not in all cases. Our health care system is rife with perverse incentives that cause costs to escalate far beyond anything rational. So, I would support some very basic version of universal care so that everyone in the country got some basic level of care. This would be plenty for the vast majority of the folks out there. And it would be much cheaper than the current system. Then, anyone who wanted to supplement the government plan with private insurance to cover potential complications could, of course, do so. But, to use an example, the poor child without supplemental insurance that comes down with leukemia doesn’t get a bone marrow transplant under “my” system. S/he’s shit out of luck. That’s for folks with the resources to pay. File under: Life’s not fair.

[mike92104]

I wonder if we should go the opposite route. Basic health care is the individuals responsibility. No insurance, just straight out of pocket. That way everybody has to consider the cost of everything. If you should get some awful disease that couldn’t be directly linked to poor lifestyle choices, and couldn’t afford the treatment, the the govt plan could cover you.

[mike92104]

I wonder if we should go the opposite route. Basic health care is the individuals responsibility. No insurance, just straight out of pocket. That way everybody has to consider the cost of everything. If you should get some awful disease that couldn’t be directly linked to poor lifestyle choices, and couldn’t afford the treatment, the the govt plan could cover you.

[mike92104]

I wonder if we should go the opposite route. Basic health care is the individuals responsibility. No insurance, just straight out of pocket. That way everybody has to consider the cost of everything. If you should get some awful disease that couldn’t be directly linked to poor lifestyle choices, and couldn’t afford the treatment, the the govt plan could cover you.

[mike92104]

I wonder if we should go the opposite route. Basic health care is the individuals responsibility. No insurance, just straight out of pocket. That way everybody has to consider the cost of everything. If you should get some awful disease that couldn’t be directly linked to poor lifestyle choices, and couldn’t afford the treatment, the the govt plan could cover you.

[Author]

Posts