4 ms·

I live in Australia, our healthcare is universally free and of very high quality. I don't have a problem walking into any clinic in my area and getting free, pr

by nwh 13y ago

I live in Australia, our healthcare is universally free and of very high quality. I don't have a problem walking into any clinic in my area and getting free, prompt medical service. Just because yours sucks doesn't mean it's a bad idea to begin with.

whatevsbro 13y ago
> Just because yours sucks doesn't mean it's a bad idea to begin with. I didn't say it's a bad idea because ours sucks. I said it's a bad idea because if you're using money that's just taken from other people, you're not motivated to provide them with good service, and so on. The factors I listed cannot be escaped. You can rest assured that your system is slowly turning to shit too.
- angersock 13y ago
  What if your motivation is to care for other people and to provide the best service you know how to? Your model is flawed.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > What if your motivation is to care for other people and to provide the best service you know how to? What if you're not actually the people who run the system? Your question about some random, individual good doctors is not related to how the whole healthcare system is run and what can be expected based on it.
- nwh 13y ago
  If you're going to have that attitude you'd better not be using our roads, parks, public transport or indeed any other government services that have "stolen" money from you. I think you'd be a lot worse off if you decided not to pay tax and go without everything being a taxpayer entitles you to.
  - programmarchy 13y ago
    Hm, that's not a very good argument. If a slave takes a meal from his master, it doesn't mean he must condone slavery.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > If you're going to have that attitude you'd better not be using our roads, parks, public transport or indeed any other government services that have "stolen" money from you First, taxation is not "stealing", it's literally extortion. A mafia makes it clear that if you don't pay them "protection money", they will hurt you, and governments make it clear that if we don't pay taxes, we will be forcibly hauled to jail etc. In both cases, you're making payments under the threat of violence. Taxation is extortion. Second, your argument is that I shouldn't complain about taxation because I'm using the services funded by it. This makes no sense for at least two reasons: 1) I can't not use the services, and 2) extortion is still extortion, and immoral to begin with. If McDonald's decides to extort money from you, and then rams a Big Mac down your throat "in return", does the Big Mac entering your stomach make extortion moral?
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    Oh, I forgot: > I think you'd be a lot worse off if you decided not to pay tax and go without everything being a taxpayer entitles you to. Here it's worth pointing out that I can do neither. I can't not pay taxes, and I can't not use the services provided with tax money. Also, thinking that being a taxpayer "entitles" you to something is wrong. First, you have no choice. Again, you don't choose to "be a taxpayer", and being extorted doesn't "entitle" you to anything - you're just extorted and lose money. It's not like your extorters are interested in giving you anything, they're only interested in taking from you.
jedmeyers 13y ago
"I don't have a problem walking into any clinic in my area and getting free, prompt medical service." - does "prompt" mean waiting 265 days for an elective surgery?
- nwh 13y ago
  I've never needed to have elective surgery, so I can't comment on that.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - jedmeyers 13y ago
    Then I would say that your understanding of Australian medical system is somewhat idealized.
    - nwh 13y ago
      Elective surgery is pretty clear in it's definition. If it was life threatening it wouldn't be an elective procedure.
programmarchy 13y ago
Free? It's paid for by taxation and national debt. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't even calculate the cost, because prices are heavily distorted or even incalculable in socialized markets. ``...pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if government owned or controlled the means of production, then no rational prices could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods in a socialist system and not "objects of exchange," unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily inefficient since the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently. This led him to declare "...that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth."'' http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
- DanBC 13y ago
  Your post makes some weird assumptions and errors. The UK system has competition. For example: an NHS trust might provide drug and alcohol services. When the contract is renewed a charity might win that contract. Your post also makes the weird assumption that supplies (medication, medical devices, dressings etc, beds and sheets and food and everything) is all also owned and provided by the government. They are not, they are made and sold by private companies to other companies - some of those are private companies, some of them are foundation trusts. Modern health provision is much much more complex than "the government does it". You should investigate the NHS because it's fascinating,even for people ideologically opposed to this model of health care provision.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > Your post makes some weird assumptions and errors. No it doesn't. > The UK system has competition. For example: an NHS trust might provide drug and alcohol services. When the contract is renewed a charity might win that contract. The competition is a sham. The contract goes to whoever is the chummiest with the right people in power. > Your post also makes the weird assumption that supplies (medication, medical devices, dressings etc, beds and sheets and food and everything) is all also owned and provided by the government. His post did contain the word "socialist", but that doesn't mean he's assuming what you described there. I believe he just wanted to make a point about "socialist" policies, like public healthcare. Sure, the word can be defined in various ways, but healthcare is what we were talking about. The lesson here is that it's just inevitably going to be worse run than a business would be. The Mises quote wasn't directly related, but it's a good idea to read whatever Mises had to say. You might learn something about how economies really work.
semerda 13y ago
You still need private insurance to get around the quirks and delays of the public system. Saying that private insurance in AU wont cost you an arm and a leg like in the USA.

by nwh 13y ago

whatevsbro 13y ago

> Just because yours sucks doesn't mean it's a bad idea to begin with. I didn't say it's a bad idea because ours sucks. I said it's a bad idea because if you're using money that's just taken from other people, you're not motivated to provide them with good service, and so on. The factors I listed cannot be escaped. You can rest assured that your system is slowly turning to shit too.

angersock 13y ago
What if your motivation is to care for other people and to provide the best service you know how to? Your model is flawed.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > What if your motivation is to care for other people and to provide the best service you know how to? What if you're not actually the people who run the system? Your question about some random, individual good doctors is not related to how the whole healthcare system is run and what can be expected based on it.
nwh 13y ago
If you're going to have that attitude you'd better not be using our roads, parks, public transport or indeed any other government services that have "stolen" money from you. I think you'd be a lot worse off if you decided not to pay tax and go without everything being a taxpayer entitles you to.
- programmarchy 13y ago
  Hm, that's not a very good argument. If a slave takes a meal from his master, it doesn't mean he must condone slavery.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > If you're going to have that attitude you'd better not be using our roads, parks, public transport or indeed any other government services that have "stolen" money from you First, taxation is not "stealing", it's literally extortion. A mafia makes it clear that if you don't pay them "protection money", they will hurt you, and governments make it clear that if we don't pay taxes, we will be forcibly hauled to jail etc. In both cases, you're making payments under the threat of violence. Taxation is extortion. Second, your argument is that I shouldn't complain about taxation because I'm using the services funded by it. This makes no sense for at least two reasons: 1) I can't not use the services, and 2) extortion is still extortion, and immoral to begin with. If McDonald's decides to extort money from you, and then rams a Big Mac down your throat "in return", does the Big Mac entering your stomach make extortion moral?
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  Oh, I forgot: > I think you'd be a lot worse off if you decided not to pay tax and go without everything being a taxpayer entitles you to. Here it's worth pointing out that I can do neither. I can't not pay taxes, and I can't not use the services provided with tax money. Also, thinking that being a taxpayer "entitles" you to something is wrong. First, you have no choice. Again, you don't choose to "be a taxpayer", and being extorted doesn't "entitle" you to anything - you're just extorted and lose money. It's not like your extorters are interested in giving you anything, they're only interested in taking from you.

jedmeyers 13y ago

"I don't have a problem walking into any clinic in my area and getting free, prompt medical service." - does "prompt" mean waiting 265 days for an elective surgery?

nwh 13y ago
I've never needed to have elective surgery, so I can't comment on that.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jedmeyers 13y ago
  Then I would say that your understanding of Australian medical system is somewhat idealized.
  - nwh 13y ago
    Elective surgery is pretty clear in it's definition. If it was life threatening it wouldn't be an elective procedure.

programmarchy 13y ago

Free? It's paid for by taxation and national debt. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't even calculate the cost, because prices are heavily distorted or even incalculable in socialized markets. ``...pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if government owned or controlled the means of production, then no rational prices could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods in a socialist system and not "objects of exchange," unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily inefficient since the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently. This led him to declare "...that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth."'' http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

DanBC 13y ago
Your post makes some weird assumptions and errors. The UK system has competition. For example: an NHS trust might provide drug and alcohol services. When the contract is renewed a charity might win that contract. Your post also makes the weird assumption that supplies (medication, medical devices, dressings etc, beds and sheets and food and everything) is all also owned and provided by the government. They are not, they are made and sold by private companies to other companies - some of those are private companies, some of them are foundation trusts. Modern health provision is much much more complex than "the government does it". You should investigate the NHS because it's fascinating,even for people ideologically opposed to this model of health care provision.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > Your post makes some weird assumptions and errors. No it doesn't. > The UK system has competition. For example: an NHS trust might provide drug and alcohol services. When the contract is renewed a charity might win that contract. The competition is a sham. The contract goes to whoever is the chummiest with the right people in power. > Your post also makes the weird assumption that supplies (medication, medical devices, dressings etc, beds and sheets and food and everything) is all also owned and provided by the government. His post did contain the word "socialist", but that doesn't mean he's assuming what you described there. I believe he just wanted to make a point about "socialist" policies, like public healthcare. Sure, the word can be defined in various ways, but healthcare is what we were talking about. The lesson here is that it's just inevitably going to be worse run than a business would be. The Mises quote wasn't directly related, but it's a good idea to read whatever Mises had to say. You might learn something about how economies really work.

semerda 13y ago

You still need private insurance to get around the quirks and delays of the public system. Saying that private insurance in AU wont cost you an arm and a leg like in the USA.