4 ms·

> If your basis for arguing is cost, then you're not making a very good argument. It's not. It's that any service that's run with money that's just confiscated

> If your basis for arguing is cost, then you're not making a very good argument. It's not. It's that any service that's run with money that's just confiscated from other people will be poor quality, because there's no motivation to provide good quality, because you don't actually have customers. You get to choose between an Android phone or an iPhone, for example. Imagine you were forced to only buy Android phones. Do you think they'd be good quality?

beat 13y ago
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. You're talking theory (or more precisely, you're talking ideology). The observed data is that the American system is over twice as expensive as the average of comparable countries, and half again as expensive as its nearest competitors, while the results are little better and often worse. If your ideology of confiscation and motivation does not explain the observed facts, then your ideology is wrong, not the facts. That's what makes them facts.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > You're talking theory (or more precisely, you're talking ideology). Nope, I was talking about the way people work. > The observed data is that the American system is over twice as expensive as the average of comparable countries I didn't claim that the US healthcare system represents anything even remotely close to a free market. I was making a point about "public" vs "private" in general.
  - beat 13y ago
    When you talk about "confiscation" and a lack of motivation due to a lack of financial involvement (which is what you're saying), you're not talking about whether or not the current American system is "free market". You're talking about socialized systems like, say, Finland. You are implicitly criticizing them as expensive and not service-oriented, because they use tax money rather than direct payments. If socialized models provide more expensive and poorer quality healthcare than systems with market forces involved, then it should be directly reflected in the American system being at least marginally better than the socialist systems. It is not. It is demonstrably far, far worse. Therefore, your argument continues to be flawed, despite your attempt to dodge the reality of facts. (I suppose you could argue that the American system of private insurers and private providers is somehow more socialist than any of the European systems. Good luck with that.) As an aside, I reject your implicit assumption that "customer service" is the only thing that motivates good work. Pride, decency, and enjoyment all motivate better work than money. That's why most people are better at and care more about their hobbies than their careers, and why people are willing to take low-paying jobs that are emotionally rewarding. Seriously, you're buying a lot of ideology about money and motivation that simply makes no sense in the real world.
    - whatevsbro 13y ago
      > If socialized models provide more expensive and poorer quality healthcare than systems with market forces involved, then it should be directly reflected in the American system being at least marginally better than the socialist systems. It is not. It is demonstrably far, far worse. Therefore, your argument continues to be flawed, despite your attempt to dodge the reality of facts. (I suppose you could argue that the American system of private insurers and private providers is somehow more socialist than any of the European systems. Good luck with that.) I'm not dodging anything, and you saying so doesn't make my argument flawed. To make it more clear, it's about more government involvement vs less government involvement. The only way the government affects an economy is through coercion: taxes, laws, regulations, licences and so on. Without government involvement, people would just do business however they wanted, and the corporations bribing politicians would actually have to engage in honest competition. The less government involvement there is in X, the better X will be. It's as simple as that. Obviously, the government is very much involved in the US healthcare system. There's Medicare, Medicaid, and yes, all those insurance companies between the health care providers and their customers. Providers can charge outrageous fees for procedures because their customer doesn't care - he's not the one paying, after all. Often the patients aren't even aware how much is being charged to their insurance companies, and if the patient himself is paying, the price is completely different. "Oh you're paying yourself?! Let me knock a zero off of that". > As an aside, I reject your implicit assumption that "customer service" is the only thing that motivates good work. You're free to reject an implicit assumption I didn't actually make, of course. The single biggest motivator for good work is self-interest, because your customer only pays you if he likes what he's getting in exchange. The way business works is through benefiting its customers, because otherwise they wouldn't pay for its services. When exchanges are voluntary, both parties benefit. Your benefit is the profit you get from selling your services, and your customer's benefit is whatever you do for him. As long as you're doing business without any government involvement, you'll simply have to keep pleasing your customers, lowering your costs / improving your productivity, and just overall maintaining a good level of quality. But all of this is predicated on the existence of competitors, and buying your services being voluntary - otherwise these mechanics don't apply anymore, and then you get lower quality and higher costs. This was my argument, and it very much still stands. It's based on human nature, the way we actually work, here in the real world.
saraid216 13y ago
Doctors: people who go through years of hell because they don't actually care about their patients.

beat 13y ago

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. You're talking theory (or more precisely, you're talking ideology). The observed data is that the American system is over twice as expensive as the average of comparable countries, and half again as expensive as its nearest competitors, while the results are little better and often worse. If your ideology of confiscation and motivation does not explain the observed facts, then your ideology is wrong, not the facts. That's what makes them facts.

whatevsbro 13y ago
> You're talking theory (or more precisely, you're talking ideology). Nope, I was talking about the way people work. > The observed data is that the American system is over twice as expensive as the average of comparable countries I didn't claim that the US healthcare system represents anything even remotely close to a free market. I was making a point about "public" vs "private" in general.
- beat 13y ago
  When you talk about "confiscation" and a lack of motivation due to a lack of financial involvement (which is what you're saying), you're not talking about whether or not the current American system is "free market". You're talking about socialized systems like, say, Finland. You are implicitly criticizing them as expensive and not service-oriented, because they use tax money rather than direct payments. If socialized models provide more expensive and poorer quality healthcare than systems with market forces involved, then it should be directly reflected in the American system being at least marginally better than the socialist systems. It is not. It is demonstrably far, far worse. Therefore, your argument continues to be flawed, despite your attempt to dodge the reality of facts. (I suppose you could argue that the American system of private insurers and private providers is somehow more socialist than any of the European systems. Good luck with that.) As an aside, I reject your implicit assumption that "customer service" is the only thing that motivates good work. Pride, decency, and enjoyment all motivate better work than money. That's why most people are better at and care more about their hobbies than their careers, and why people are willing to take low-paying jobs that are emotionally rewarding. Seriously, you're buying a lot of ideology about money and motivation that simply makes no sense in the real world.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > If socialized models provide more expensive and poorer quality healthcare than systems with market forces involved, then it should be directly reflected in the American system being at least marginally better than the socialist systems. It is not. It is demonstrably far, far worse. Therefore, your argument continues to be flawed, despite your attempt to dodge the reality of facts. (I suppose you could argue that the American system of private insurers and private providers is somehow more socialist than any of the European systems. Good luck with that.) I'm not dodging anything, and you saying so doesn't make my argument flawed. To make it more clear, it's about more government involvement vs less government involvement. The only way the government affects an economy is through coercion: taxes, laws, regulations, licences and so on. Without government involvement, people would just do business however they wanted, and the corporations bribing politicians would actually have to engage in honest competition. The less government involvement there is in X, the better X will be. It's as simple as that. Obviously, the government is very much involved in the US healthcare system. There's Medicare, Medicaid, and yes, all those insurance companies between the health care providers and their customers. Providers can charge outrageous fees for procedures because their customer doesn't care - he's not the one paying, after all. Often the patients aren't even aware how much is being charged to their insurance companies, and if the patient himself is paying, the price is completely different. "Oh you're paying yourself?! Let me knock a zero off of that". > As an aside, I reject your implicit assumption that "customer service" is the only thing that motivates good work. You're free to reject an implicit assumption I didn't actually make, of course. The single biggest motivator for good work is self-interest, because your customer only pays you if he likes what he's getting in exchange. The way business works is through benefiting its customers, because otherwise they wouldn't pay for its services. When exchanges are voluntary, both parties benefit. Your benefit is the profit you get from selling your services, and your customer's benefit is whatever you do for him. As long as you're doing business without any government involvement, you'll simply have to keep pleasing your customers, lowering your costs / improving your productivity, and just overall maintaining a good level of quality. But all of this is predicated on the existence of competitors, and buying your services being voluntary - otherwise these mechanics don't apply anymore, and then you get lower quality and higher costs. This was my argument, and it very much still stands. It's based on human nature, the way we actually work, here in the real world.

saraid216 13y ago

Doctors: people who go through years of hell because they don't actually care about their patients.