Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 14:00:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
994 times
|
| |
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ...
> I'm thinking a system that lets you choose to pay your share of taxes
> and receive the care or not pay them and absolutely not be eligible
> without providing the cash at the time of service might work, maybe
> not. I assume there are those who might say that even those who
> willingly choose to not pay should still be eligible in emergencies or
> things that happen "through no fault of their own".
Healthcare is definitely the toughest nut to crack here. The problem is that
essentially for anyone in the world, there is a medical condition which
would take more resources to treat than they themselves own (god knows what
it would take to bankrupt Bill Gates, but even if he is "safe", I doubt
there are more than a few hundred or thousant people in the world who would
be "safe").
What this means is that we need the ability to pool our resources to share
the risk. That means that the healthy people need to participate.
The problem I see right now in the US is that insurance plans are starting
to exclude more and more people (either through denying them participation,
or denying certain care). Some of this is reasonable, since I think we
overspend on some types of care. Another cause is certainly that we don't
have a perfect market. Another problem is that the administrative costs of
healthcare seem to be increasing. Are they really? I know I have heard
stories of doctors abandoning their practice because of malpractice suits,
but is that really as serious a problem as presented?
In a perfect free market, it should be possible for any group of people to
create an insurance plan for themselves which meets their needs. Most
likely, there will be plenty of plans with sliding scales based on ability
to pay, though most (all?) of those plans will have some specific
requirements for eligibility, ensuring that all participants are held
accountable.
The free market will also decide how to "ration" healthcare. I think dignity
of those with terminal conditions would be greatly increased, because
instead of the debate being disjoint, there would be a cohesive decision as
to what treatments really are worth the cost. These decisions will take into
account the feelings of the patient, their family and friends, and the
realities of the condition. More people would probably be trained in things
like CPR, but we would also respect without question "Do Not Rescusitate"
orders. Right now we give a lot of unwanted, useless, care near the end of
peoples lives because the whole system is not held accountable, and as a
result, there is less care for those for whom care would more than pay back
its cost in increased production of wealth by the person being cared for.
Just some thoughts...
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
