Where are the humanitarian values within capitalism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My dear brother Ridgerunner šŸ™‚

Thank you! I will certainly order this book when I next get the chance (and perhaps the second one). It looks very intriguing and you have provided a very informative account of its basic contents that has piqued my interest.

Again, thanks a lot!
 
2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with ā€œcommunismā€ or ā€œsocialism.ā€ She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of ā€œcapitalism,ā€ individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for ā€œthere are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.ā€208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
 
2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204A system that ā€œsubordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of productionā€ is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. ā€œYou cannot serve God and mammon.
 
april32010 said:
2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204A system that ā€œsubordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of productionā€ is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. ā€œYou cannot serve God and mammon.
Click to expand...
When was profit defined solely as money? People can profit with barter just as much as they do with indirect exchange, although economic efficiency goes way down because itā€™s so much harder to find a trading partner. šŸ˜›
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Nonsense. Hospitals used to provide free healthcare to the poor all the time. Then the AMA swayed politicians and regulated the market and eventually brought medicare. Is it any surprise that the regulated market of healthcare has seen worse services at a higher cost while unregulated markets like technology have seen better services at a lower
Click to expand...
You make a statement like this, and accuse ME of writing nonsense? Is this your model of sustainable and affordable health care for everyone? Or, do you not think that is a desirable goal? Hospitals provided free care for the poor when malpractice insurance premiums were not in six digits, and they didnā€™t cure anything. All they did was make people comfortable. Do you have any idea what it costs to build and staff a surgical suite, today? In the days you talk about, it was tile walls, bright lights, an autoclave, and some instruments. The X-ray machine was in the basement. Ask your local hospital what their nuclear medicine department cost to build.

The last hospital bill which I saw, for a five day stay, was $432,000.
 
epan said:
You make a statement like this, and accuse ME of writing nonsense? Is this your model of sustainable and affordable health care for everyone? Or, do you not think that is a desirable goal? Hospitals provided free care for the poor when malpractice insurance premiums were not in six digits, and they didnā€™t cure anything. All they did was make people comfortable. Do you have any idea what it costs to build and staff a surgical suite, today? In the days you talk about, it was tile walls, bright lights, an autoclave, and some instruments. The X-ray machine was in the basement. Ask your local hospital what their nuclear medicine department cost to build.

The last hospital bill which I saw, for a five day stay, was $432,000.
Click to expand...
  1. The AMA lobbied and was successful in closing many for-profit hospitals.
  2. The AMA lobbied and was successful in closing many medical schools.
  3. The AMA lobbied and was successful in requiring many businesses to offer unnecessarily over-extending HMOā€™s.
  4. Medicare raises demand and so raises prices for healthcare services.
  5. Prescription drug patents last more than 20 years at last check. During that time no one may imitate the drug and no one may make improvements to the drug unless given express permission of the company that owns the patent. This has hindered research.
  6. The AMA lobbied and was successful in banning most other forms of medical treatment such that only allopathic medicine is allowed.
Here is an illuminating article on the sordid history of healthcare in this country:
mises.org/daily/4276

With an appearance by Andrew Carnegie!
 
In a true democracy, people should get to vote on what values get promoted in society. Humanitarian values would likely come out on top. But we do not live in a true democracy and important issues are consistently swept under the rug.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
  1. The AMA lobbied and was successful in closing many for-profit hospitals.
  2. The AMA lobbied and was successful in closing many medical schools.
  3. The AMA lobbied and was successful in requiring many businesses to offer unnecessarily over-extending HMOā€™s.
  4. Medicare raises demand and so raises prices for healthcare services.
  5. Prescription drug patents last more than 20 years at last check. During that time no one may imitate the drug and no one may make improvements to the drug unless given express permission of the company that owns the patent. This has hindered research.
  6. The AMA lobbied and was successful in banning most other forms of medical treatment such that only allopathic medicine is allowed.
Here is an illuminating article on the sordid history of healthcare in this country:
mises.org/daily/4276

With an appearance by Andrew Carnegie!
Click to expand...
The bottom line is that we can afford healthcare at current costs, is we simply eliminate the private insurers. Just look at Germany, Japan, Korea, etcā€¦ This is a clear case where ā€œsocialismā€, as many people call it, works better than capitalismā€¦ if your goal is to provide good healthcare to an entire population. It has been proved repeatedly throughout the world. That is the only reason that I brought it up.

You are correct, that the AMA opposed HMOā€™s, and socialized medicine. They no longer oppose it, if I understand their position. The big obstacle now, is the insurance company lobby, and misinformed consumers.
 
epan said:
The bottom line is that we can afford healthcare at current costs, is we simply eliminate the private insurers. Just look at Germany, Japan, Korea, etcā€¦ This is a clear case where ā€œsocialismā€, as many people call it, works better than capitalismā€¦ if your goal is to provide good healthcare to an entire population. It has been proved repeatedly throughout the world. That is the only reason that I brought it up.

You are correct, that the AMA opposed HMOā€™s, and socialized medicine. They no longer oppose it, if I understand their position. The big obstacle now, is the insurance company lobby, and misinformed consumers.
Click to expand...
Eliminating private insurers would be a breach of oneā€™s right to free enterprise. Who is the government to tell citizens they canā€™t strive to make a living off of their skills and/or opportunities, without being funded by the government? Such a thing would make us totally reliant on the government in order to receive health care - something Iā€™m just as uncomfortable with as the government wanting to take away firearms.

I contend, the less reliance we have on the government the better - that is how we actually get things done.
 
epan said:
The bottom line is that we can afford healthcare at current costs, is we simply eliminate the private insurers. Just look at Germany, Japan, Korea, etcā€¦ This is a clear case where ā€œsocialismā€, as many people call it, works better than capitalismā€¦ if your goal is to provide good healthcare to an entire population. It has been proved repeatedly throughout the world. That is the only reason that I brought it up.

You are correct, that the AMA opposed HMOā€™s, and socialized medicine. They no longer oppose it, if I understand their position. The big obstacle now, is the insurance company lobby, and misinformed consumers.
Click to expand...
This does not respond to my points. The problem is too much regulation. More regulation will only create problems as it has for the other bankrupt countries of the West.
 
epan said:
The last hospital bill which I saw, for a five day stay, was $432,000.
Click to expand...
I went through a detox at a hospital (which is FAR, FAR cheaper than any other hospital services) - a local hospital, the closest that dealt with addicts, not a fancy ā€œdetox spaā€, just a plain, lay on a bed, have BP taken occasionally, have clonidine and valium administered if it gets too high, strapped down if the hallucinations start, ativan and lamictal and depakote to control seizures kind of detox - and the cost for a seven-day (name removed by moderator)atient detox (no aftercare: just the length of withdrawal itself to make sure I was out of the life-threatening part) was $42,000 out of pocket - AFTER INSURANCE, which covered 75%. (The actual cost therefore was $168k.) And I was stuck on the psych ward with some true nutters fearing for my safety.

I was paying, at the time, $250 a month for insurance for myself alone. That $42k nearly bankrupted me and caused me to sell my house (which I had bought less than six weeks before) at a steep loss (this was during the worst of the housing bubble). God led me through all of it to discern a sacerdotal vocation, and possibly even a monastic one, though. I doubt I would have otherwise. (I bought the house the day I turned 18, and hadnā€™t had it long enough to take out a $40k HELOC, etc.).

And that was in 2008, I think, maybe 2007. Prices have gone up since then.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
This does not respond to my points. The problem is too much regulation. More regulation will only create problems as it has for the other bankrupt countries of the West.
Click to expand...
No. The problem is a healthcare system whose primary motivation is profitability for insurance companies.

Countries which have single payer systems, such as Germany, Japan or Korea, have just as much regulation, or more, than the US system. But they can provide better health care, on average, and to their entire populations, for a substantially lower cost as a percentage of GDP.

Butā€¦ it also depends in how you measure things. What are your goals for a medical system? If the goal is good and affordable care for all, then private insurers must be eliminated, at least as US insurers operate now. Failing that, then unfortunately they must be highly regulated, more regulated than they are now, or they will exclude large portions of the population. But that still leaves the problem that their very existence adds at least 30% to the cost of health care, in order for them to make a profit.

If your goal, is purely capitalistic, for profit: who cares about seniors; or the seriously ill; or the poor, as long as the insurers and hospital corporations are profitable, then nearly all regulation is bad.

If your goal is in the middle, then you probably favor something in between the two.
 
epan said:
No. The problem is a healthcare system whose primary motivation is profitability for insurance companies.

Countries which have single payer systems, such as Germany, Japan or Korea, have just as much regulation, or more, than the US system. But they can provide better health care, on average, and to their entire populations, for a substantially lower cost as a percentage of GDP.
Click to expand...
And theyā€™re also going broke. The system isnā€™t working.
Butā€¦ it also depends in how you measure things. What are your goals for a medical system? If the goal is good and affordable care for all, then private insurers must be eliminated, at least as US insurers operate now. Failing that, then unfortunately they must be highly regulated, more regulated than they are now, or they will exclude large portions of the population. But that still leaves the problem that their very existence adds at least 30% to the cost of health care, in order for them to make a profit.
Click to expand...
If your goal, is purely capitalistic, for profit: who cares about seniors; or the seriously ill; or the poor, as long as the insurers and hospital corporations are profitable, then nearly all regulation is bad.
Click to expand...
If your goal is in the middle, then you probably favor something in between the two.
Click to expand...
Before the AMA revolutionalized the industry, there was no widespread dissatisfaction with the system as it existed. Why are you so opposed to the system that does not increase government power, increases individual liberty, and works better than government control?

There is no system that has ever worked better for innovation and to drive down cost than private ownership. Competition drives progress.
 
epan said:
No. The problem is a healthcare system whose primary motivation is profitability for insurance companies.

Countries which have single payer systems, such as Germany, Japan or Korea, have just as much regulation, or more, than the US system. But they can provide better health care, on average, and to their entire populations, for a substantially lower cost as a percentage of GDP.
Click to expand...
Do insurance companies make more profit than the cost of government bureaucrats to manage a healthcare system? What about Mutual of Omaha, which is non-profit? Its rates are little different from those of any other insurer.

A lot of countries hide a lot of their medical costs in other government expenditures. In Austria and France the government pays for medical schoolā€¦100%. But they donā€™t count that in the ā€œcost of careā€. Doctors are salaried and make less than they do here in some of those countries. But then, they donā€™t have big debts to pay. In France, the government pays their malpractice insurance. Malpractice suits are severely constrained. And all of that, as well as other ā€œsocial welfareā€ programs causes the taxes of most of them to be much higher than our own, and not only on the ā€œrichā€ either.

And even in some of those countries, there is still private insurance. In France, for example, 1/3 of the medical system is private and of better quality than what most get.

And the birth rates in those countries are abysmal. And we wonder why.
 
Ridgerunner said:
And all of that, as well as other ā€œsocial welfareā€ programs causes the taxes of most of them to be much higher than our own, and not only on the ā€œrichā€ either.
Click to expand...
Correct. These systems, in consequence, are heavily socialistic and result in restrictions on the opportunity for personal wealth, unless inherited (aristocratic class or other inherited wealth, often). This is vastly different from the American concept of opportunity. It means that in those countries, generally where/how you are born is where you will stay throughout your life, in terms of income and opportunities to rise above that income. The ā€œmiddleā€ class is heavily, heavily taxed, but that segment is what we would call here ā€œthe lower middle class,ā€ with very little buying power and far fewer opportunities to advance.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Do insurance companies make more profit than the cost of government bureaucrats to manage a healthcare system? What about Mutual of Omaha, which is non-profit? Its rates are little different from those of any other insurer.

A lot of countries hide a lot of their medical costs in other government expenditures. In Austria and France the government pays for medical schoolā€¦100%. But they donā€™t count that in the ā€œcost of careā€. Doctors are salaried and make less than they do here in some of those countries. But then, they donā€™t have big debts to pay. In France, the government pays their malpractice insurance. Malpractice suits are severely constrained. And all of that, as well as other ā€œsocial welfareā€ programs causes the taxes of most of them to be much higher than our own, and not only on the ā€œrichā€ either.

And even in some of those countries, there is still private insurance. In France, for example, 1/3 of the medical system is private and of better quality than what most get.

And the birth rates in those countries are abysmal. And we wonder why.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is that single payer systems offer good healthcare for entire populations, at a substantially lower price. The current US model is unsustainable, if current trends continue. Period.

The savings in single payer systems match the overhead and profits imposed by our private insurance system, which is an interesting coincidence.

Yes, European medical schools are subsidized. But I have news for you. So is every US med school. You canā€™t find one which is either not privately endowed, dependent on government research grants, or subsidized outright. The portion that is paid in tuition by students is only a small part of their revenue streams.

But there is another hard question here. What to do with the 48 million uninsured, and the additional 50 million or so of underinsured in the US? If they can be insured, in addition to those who are already insured, and this can be done for less, as a percentage of GDP, say 30% less, than we are paying nowā€¦ does this good outweigh the benefit to the insurance companies?

What to do with a system which cancels your insurance, once you are disabled and unemployed? This is the most mind boggling fact in our system. The more you need health insurance, then the less likely you are to be able to get it.

I donā€™t see the social benefit of social darwinism for the minority who prosper, when weighed against the benefit of full healthcare coverage.
 
I am in full concurrence with the last post, and, I believe additionally, with everything Epan has stated. Itā€™s not often that Iā€™m not the most conservative one in the room, but on economic issues itā€™s guaranteed that Iā€™m not, unless Iā€™m sitting in the Politburo.
 
I find it curious that the discussion has completely gone to health care. ā€œHumanitarian valuesā€ concerns more than just our hospitals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top