Anyone else believe in universal coverage for kids?

[tomarin]

I’m also not married to government involvement in healthcare-if someone can make a better mousetrap that keeps government out I’ve got no argument.

Yes and how exactly would this happen? How would we get from here to there? That’s what I was hoping Skip or some other free-marketeer would explain to me. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the free market to automatically and magically do something so purely altruistic.

Altruism aint in its DNA. That’s what I meant by saying you can’t expect the free market to be Gordon Gecko and Mother Teresa at the same time. I think I’m being a good disciple of Chesterton in saying so!

 

[Fitswimmer]

Yes and how exactly would this happen? How would we get from here to there? That’s what I was hoping Skip or some other free-marketeer would explain to me. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the free market to automatically and magically do something so purely altruistic.

That’s my question-and where my doubts lie as well. I find it difficult to believe that the free market is the answer here, but I’m open to any credible evidence that it could be.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

Yes and how exactly would this happen? How would we get from here to there? That’s what I was hoping Skip or some other free-marketeer would explain to me. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the free market to automatically and magically do something so purely altruistic.

Altruism aint in its DNA. That’s what I meant by saying you can’t expect the free market to be Gordon Gecko and Mother Teresa at the same time. I think I’m being a good disciple of Chesterton in saying so!

I’ve explained this to you a couple of times now. It has nothing to do with altruism.

It has to do with the result when burdensome administrative fees and restrictive government regulations are lifted, and competition is introduced.

This precisely why we’re homeschooling our children.

Do yourself a favor and go to your local library and check out some of the works by Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Missus, Rose Wilder-Lane, Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith, et al, and educate yourself a little.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I’ve explained this to you a couple of times now. It has nothing to do with altruism.

It has to do with the result when burdensome administrative fees and restrictive government regulations are lifted, and competition is introduced.

This precisely why we’re homeschooling our children.

Do yourself a favor and go to your local library and check out some of the works by Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Missus, Rose Wilder-Lane, Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith, et al, and educate yourself a little.

Just because a poster disagrees with your position doesn’t mean that they need to “educate themselves a little”

You’ve shown yourself to be a passionate defender of the free market as a solution. It’s not unreasonable to think that you already knew how the free market would solve the health care problem.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

Just because a poster disagrees with your position doesn’t mean that they need to “educate themselves a little”

You’re right. And if it were simply a matter of disagreement, you’d have a point.

However, the fact that he remains ignorant about the way markets work does mean that he needs to educate himself.

He seems to be completely baffled by the most elementary things. Obviously, he’s never studied economics.

So what’s the solution? To go and educate himself now.

You’ve shown yourself to be a passionate defender of the free market as a solution. It’s not unreasonable to think that you already knew how the free market would solve the health care problem.

Well…yeah.

 

[tomarin]

Do yourself a favor and go to your local library and check out some of the works by Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Missus, Rose Wilder-Lane, Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith, et al, and educate yourself a little.

I am just educated enough to know that economics is not a science the same way that, say physics is a science. I do need to read some of the authors you suggested – but that is no guarantee I will become “converted” to their highly ideological (and possibly anti-Catholic) point of view regarding the innate rationality and humane-ness of markets.

 

[julia1234]

Evidently, all of these discussions back and forth here would continue with a government health system in place anyway. I have read many of the arguments in those countries from people claiming “we aren’t spending enough on health care, people are suffering, our system will collapse without more $$$ etc.!!” It’s a fact of life that we will always end up counting on charity to help the least fortunate among us. As we all know as Catholics, it’s been this way since the beginning. BTW, it is the FREE MARKET that inspired and supported the creation of many of these methods and drugs that save and improve lives. (By supported, I mean brought about the means for those working to help others, to eat, have a home, etc.) We are discussing taking control of things that we have no right to use at our will.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

I am just educated enough to know that economics is not a science the same way that, say physics is a science. I do need to read some of the authors you suggested – but that is no guarantee I will become “converted” to their highly ideological (and possibly anti-Catholic) point of view regarding the innate rationality and humane-ness of markets.

I’m not asking you to convert. I’m just asking you to educate yourself a little.

 

[thomfra]

I’m not asking you to convert. I’m just asking you to educate yourself a little.

From what I have read Skip. You seem to have a very simplistic view of economics, and you are most certainly not well read on the topic.

You may do well to “educate yourself” a little as well. Why don’t you read up on the history of the union movement, or the labor party in Britian. You might be suprised about what you learn.

Whilst the capitalist system is an effective, and adaptive way of producing material wealth, it is not a stable and self regulating system. **Left to its own devices it will not solve the problems of poverty or inequality. ** It most certainly is not the answer to the current problems of healthcare access in the US.

 

[cynic]

The more government regulates it, the less affordable it becomes and the less services become available. When government does not regulate it, then prices fall and services become more available.

Or companies just collude with each other and ‘compete’ at the highest price point they can. Particularly true with services that are absolutely neccessary, like healthcare, where the consumer is unlikely to want to go without.

Since electricity supply was privatised in my country (New Zealand) prices have gone up and up, and up. People need it, but are a limited number of suppliers… just like there are a limited number of insurance companies.

 

[julia1234]

It needed to be privatized because it was getting too expensive for government to continue raising taxes. That’s the inefficiency thing coming into play also. That is the reason governments ‘give back’ control to private companies - because it isn’t working. The price increases that follow are nothing compared to what would have been seen. Believe me, if the government could have kept control, they would. At least they wise enough to give it up before things got to our of control.

 

[tomarin]

I’m not asking you to convert. I’m just asking you to educate yourself a little.

You’re asking me (whether you realize it or not) to accept that economics is a morally autonomous realm in which traditional morality has no authority to interfere or advise. That’s what the neoliberal tradition of economics teaches.

I’m happy to educate myself further because I think it’s an interesting question. But you should also be aware that not everyone (including learned economists) thinks that Adam Smith is right and if he is right, it poses philosophical problems for orthodox Christians.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

From what I have read Skip. You seem to have a very simplistic view of economics, and you are most certainly not well read on the topic.

Well, Rutgers University seemed to think I know enough about it to have awarded me a degree in economics.

Whilst the capitalist system is an effective, and adaptive way of producing material wealth, it is not a stable and self regulating system. **Left to its own devices it will not solve the problems of poverty or inequality. ** It most certainly is not the answer to the current problems of healthcare access in the US.

Actually, it is the answer because we know that where free markets are allowed to work, more services are available to a greater number of people at a lower price.

When healthcare was a free market, consumer based industry, we didn’t have these problems. Now that the government regulates every area of it, it’s not working.

 

[Skip_Wiley]

Or companies just collude with each other and ‘compete’ at the highest price point they can. Particularly true with services that are absolutely neccessary, like healthcare, where the consumer is unlikely to want to go without.

That isn’t the way it works. Where free markets are allowed to work, there will always be somebody offering services at a lower price.

Since electricity supply was privatised in my country (New Zealand) prices have gone up and up, and up. People need it, but are a limited number of suppliers… just like there are a limited number of insurance companies.

And we have had just the opposite experience here in this country.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

I am constantly amazed at the support some people will give to private health insurance companies. They will put their interests befoe the poor, the needy, the sick and even children.

Perhaps for them the Sermon on the Mount must have read “blessed are the insured for they are the children of the paid up” :whacky:

 

[Fitswimmer]

I am constantly amazed at the support some people will give to private health insurance companies. They will put their interests befoe the poor, the needy, the sick and even children.

Perhaps for them the Sermon on the Mount must have read “blessed are the insured for they are the children of the paid up” :whacky:

:clapping: Good one!

 

[Skip_Wiley]

I am constantly amazed at the support some people will give to private health insurance companies. They will put their interests befoe the poor, the needy, the sick and even children.

So then, businesses are bad?

Where are you suggesting that the uninsured get their coverage from, if not insurance companies?

Perhaps for them the Sermon on the Mount must have read “blessed are the insured for they are the children of the paid up” :whacky:

What does one have to do with the other?

 

[gmarie21]

I am constantly amazed at the support some people will give to private health insurance companies. They will put their interests befoe the poor, the needy, the sick and even children.

Perhaps for them the Sermon on the Mount must have read “blessed are the insured for they are the children of the paid up” :whacky:

The same could be said of those who believe that the government is the solution to the problem. The reality is that both the powers that be in the government as well as private health insurance are only after keeping their own tails employed. When health insurance returns to the hands of the patients as well as the doctors, then maybe, just maybe, things will get done for all. Then again, that is relying heavily on the fact that people will be honest and pay their physicians when they can afford it (putting their health ahead of their materialistic wants that can also drain their pockets). I am more than happy donating money to help a child in poverty receive quality health care. However, I do not want my $1 to pass through so many hands that the same child only receives .10 of that $1. No thanks, that child needs help without every “good intentioned” politician or businessperson saying “give me my cut first”.

 

[buffalo]

Uninsured Get $56 Billion in Free Care

WASHINGTON - Americans who go without health insurance for any part of 2008 will spend $30 billion out of pocket for health care and they will get $56 billion worth of free care, according to a report released on Monday.

Government programs pay for about three-quarters, or roughly $43 billion, of the bills for these uninsured people, Jack Hadley of George Mason University in Virginia and a team at the Urban Institute reported.

“Physicians’ donated time and forgone profits amount to $7.8 billion. After government payments to hospitals are subtracted, private philanthropy and profit margins are responsible for at least an additional $6.3 billion,” they wrote in the report, published on the Internet at healthaffairs.org/.

more…

 

[Fitswimmer]

I still want to know why the only health care options Americans can have are 100% free market or 100% government.

Can we not come up with some kind of plan that makes sure everyone is covered, that covered means covered and that people come before profit? Maybe it’s a hybrid of government and market, maybe it’s not-but what we have now is not working for the poor, for the middle class, for retired people or for business.