The Free market does not provide health care for millions

  1. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleid=12524
    in the longer run, the problem is to deal with ronald reagan's excommunication of affirmative government. "government is not the solution to our problem," reagan said in his first inaugural address. "government is the problem." reaganism rested on two propositions: that government was the root of evil and that, once government was "off the people's backs," the free market would solve our problems. now it is evident that the free market does not provide health care for millions of our people, does not ensure full employment, does not protect the natural environment, does not improve our schools, does not clean up our inner cities, and does not stop global warming. the very character of these problems calls for a larger measure of public action. this is the intellectual and political challenge that democratic brain trusters must meet.
    •  
  2. 27 Comments

  3. by   Simplepleasures
    Its been long in coming, maybe we will appreciate reforms much more after having suffered through the last 6 years. Its up to the poor and middle class to see to it that we get a government that represents not just one segment of the society, we have to demand that our voice be heard, the free market was an experiment gone wrong, just like at the other end of the spectrum, communism.
  4. by   Simplepleasures
    I couldn't resist.

    Pirates of the Health Care-Ibbean

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk23A...related&search
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Mar 2, '07
  5. by   Simplepleasures
    Here's one for our Milton Friedman followers, from the Milton Friedman Choir!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Seg...related&search
  6. by   pickledpepperRN
    Making Healthcare Affordable for All Americans:
    http://www.gop.com/Issues/Healthcare/
  7. by   Simplepleasures
    Health Care: A Universal Need with a Universal Answer

    http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb...ON04/703180315

    Universal health care will not be solved by the private sector.Private enterprise is based on profit. That's no secret and no sin.But when we're talking about necessity-which health care is-decisions about coverage, benefits and costs cannot be left to companies that when faced with the choice, will choose profit over patient.

    Just look at Walter Reed Army Medical center, we know that these contractors allowed our wounded vets to live in squalor, presumably to lower cost.


    Michael Tanner's op-ed as the "con" in this mandated health insurance polemic on the same page brought a chuckle ("It's an infringement on individual liberty"). A major proponent of Bush's failed Social Security privatization scam, Tanner is a rigid ideologue-belief disguised as thought, generalaties foisted as inevitabilities, privilege parading as destiny. He champions abandonment of all social insurances as the cost of freedom.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Mar 18, '07
  8. by   pickledpepperRN
    Key principles of a universal health care system include (links below open PDF exerpts of FTCR's report Crisis & Opportunity):

    Covers everyone and pays for startup costs by redistributing existing funds. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/Crisis&Oppo2

    Lets government control health care dollars to take advantage of bulk purchasing and protect the ERs, hospitals, doctors, nurses, and clinics that provide care. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/Crisis&Oppo3

    Gives patients the right to choose which doctors and hospitals they visit and provides comprehensive coverage and treatment options. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/heal...rsalproposals/

    Eliminates the role of private insurers and HMOs that provide no health care benefit, while allowing patients to purchase supplementary coverage if they choose. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/Crisis&Oppo1

    Focuses on preventing disease for better health and a more efficient health care system. Even the VA had better patient satisfaction ratings than private healthcare! http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/heal...teransaffairs/

    Gives decision-making authority to a publicly accountable independent body. I think nurses and other direct hands on providers of care need to lead this decision making.http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/Crisis&Oppo4

    “We are relying on the free market to solve the health care problem in America. We say we don’t want single payer
    systems or government intervention. The problem is that you can’t really shop for value in health care. When we go to buy a car, we kind of know how much we spend and how much of a value we are getting back in return. Not so in health care.”
    Dr. Thomas Garthwaite, Director, Health Services, County of Los Angeles
    http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/heal.../cal-medicare/
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Mar 30, '07
  9. by   RedCell
    I believe if the majority of people without health insurance stopped spending their money on nonessential items such as cigarettes, beer, cable/satellite television, cellphones, plasma screen tv's and "spinning rims" for their "ride", they could easily afford a policy. If the car payment is too much ride the bus, or better yet, lose some weight and get a bike (it will make you cheaper to insure without the type II diabetes and obesity). As an example, a family of 4 (nonsmokers) can get a PPO with Blue Cross/Blue Shield for $223.00 a month with a $2,500 deductible. They have an A+ AM rating. http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/

    I would prefer to have the choice to choose my health insurance rather than have my government tell me who I can or cannot see. People should be responsible for their own actions. If you can't afford health insurance for children, wear a condom.
  10. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from RedCell
    I believe if the majority of people without health insurance stopped spending their money on nonessential items such as cigarettes, beer, cable/satellite television, cellphones, plasma screen tv's and "spinning rims" for their "ride", they could easily afford a policy. If the car payment is too much ride the bus, or better yet, lose some weight and get a bike (it will make you cheaper to insure without the type II diabetes and obesity). As an example, a family of 4 (nonsmokers) can get a PPO with Blue Cross/Blue Shield for $223.00 a month with a $2,500 deductible. They have an A+ AM rating. http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/

    I would prefer to have the choice to choose my health insurance rather than have my government tell me who I can or cannot see. People should be responsible for their own actions. If you can't afford health insurance for children, wear a condom.
    The current health insurance system dictates who you can see for care. Unless your current doctor has signed a contract with your insurance carrier you will not be able to see them without prior authorization, significant out of pocket costs or private prepayment subject to reimbursement A single payer system will give you true choice. see the Lenoir pediatrics lecture over on the news side of this site for an explanation of this phenomenon. 14-17% of our current health care dollars are wasted d/t administrative costs or profit. A single payer system would rededicate this waste to the provision of primary patient care/prevention and then we truly would have the best health care in the world.

    The other point of my post is that we do have a collective obligation to help each other to raise healthy children. The neglected kid of today will take care of you in the nursing home........
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Mar 30, '07
  11. by   VivaLasViejas
    Quote from RedCell
    I believe if the majority of people without health insurance stopped spending their money on nonessential items such as cigarettes, beer, cable/satellite television, cellphones, plasma screen tv's and "spinning rims" for their "ride", they could easily afford a policy. If the car payment is too much ride the bus, or better yet, lose some weight and get a bike (it will make you cheaper to insure without the type II diabetes and obesity). As an example, a family of 4 (nonsmokers) can get a PPO with Blue Cross/Blue Shield for $223.00 a month with a $2,500 deductible. They have an A+ AM rating. http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/

    I would prefer to have the choice to choose my health insurance rather than have my government tell me who I can or cannot see. People should be responsible for their own actions. If you can't afford health insurance for children, wear a condom.
    ~~~sigh~~~

    Stereotypes such as this add absolutely NOTHING of value to the debate. Please, let's keep this discussion on topic and about the actual issue, rather than make gratuitous and derisive comments about the character of uninsured Americans.

    I will say this, however: Unless you've been there and walked a mile in their moccasins---as I myself have at various times in my life---you don't have the right to judge people who, for whatever reason, find themselves without health insurance. Until you experience the crisis of choosing between food and medicine, or trying to wait out an illness and then winding up in the ICU fighting for your life---as I have---don't try to tell ME that I was a bad person who made bad choices and therefore deserved whatever happened to me. Thank you.
  12. by   rngreenhorn
    Quote from hm2viking
    http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleid=12524
    in the longer run, the problem is to deal with ronald reagan's excommunication of affirmative government. "government is not the solution to our problem," reagan said in his first inaugural address. "government is the problem." reaganism rested on two propositions: that government was the root of evil and that, once government was "off the people's backs," the free market would solve our problems. now it is evident that the free market does not provide health care for millions of our people, does not ensure full employment, does not protect the natural environment, does not improve our schools, does not clean up our inner cities, and does not stop global warming. the very character of these problems calls for a larger measure of public action. this is the intellectual and political challenge that democratic brain trusters must meet.
    ok so name the country that has universal health care that does provide: full employment for its citizens, full protection from the natural environment, better schools, perfectly "clean" inner cities, and is stopping global warming.
  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    The free market doesn't provide anything to anybody without an EXCHANGE of services.

    That is how economics works.

    Only when the gov't interferes with economics can the illusion of 'something for nothing' be maintained. But, it is most certainly only an illusion.

    There is no free lunch, or free healthcare, for that matter. There will not be. You cannot legislate costs out of the provision of a product. To be sure, you can corrupt how those costs will be paid. In this case, it will be paid with rationing, for everybody. And since the poorest are LEAST able to resist gov't intrusions into their lives, you will find a socialized healthcare system will STILL systematically act in opposition to the poor.

    In reality, by interfering with economics, the gov't has a heavy-handed hand in restricting the very economics of those they wish to 'help'.

    The truth is that the free market has brought more economic freedom to the poor than any other competing mechanism, to include the gov't. And that includes healthcare, as well.

    Socialized medicine is uncompassionate.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  14. by   HM2VikingRN
    except: how does the current (non)system of the us fulfill the essential mission of health care:

    http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethic...ommon_good.asp

    as a middle principle, the principle of beneficence (and nonmaleficence) is the basis for certain specific moral norms (which vary depending on how one defines "goodness"). some of the specific norms that arise from the principle of beneficence in the catholic tradition are: 1) never deliberately kill innocent human life (which, in the medical context, must be distinguished from foregoing disproportionate means); 2) never deliberately (directly intend) harm; 3) seek the patient’s good; 4) act out of charity and justice; 5) respect the patient’s religious beliefs and value system in accord with the principle of religious freedom; 6) always seek the higher good, that is, never neglect one good except to pursue a proportionately greater or more important good; 7) never knowingly commit or approve an objectively evil action; 8) do not treat others paternalistically but help them to pursue their goals; 9) use wisdom and prudence in all things, that is, appreciate the complexity of life and make sound judgments for the good of oneself, others, and the common good.
    ....
    in general, the common good consists of all the conditions of society and the goods secured by those conditions, which allow individuals to achieve human and spiritual flourishing. the social teaching of the catholic church insists that the human community, including its government, must be actively concerned in promoting the health and welfare of every one of its members so that each member can contribute to the common good of all. this teaching is encapsulated in the principle of the common good and its corollary principle of subsidiarity. according to this understanding, the principle of the common good has three essential elements: 1) respect for persons; 2) social welfare; and 3) peace and security. all three of these elements entail the provision of health care in some way as an essential element of the common good.

    so far as the common good presupposes respect for persons, it obligates public authorities to respect the fundamental human rights of each person. society should allow each of its members to fulfill his or her vocation. insofar as it presupposes social welfare, the common good requires that the infrastructure of society is conducive to the social well being and development of its individual members. in this respect, it is the proper function of public authorities to both arbitrate between competing interests and to ensure that individual members of society have access to the basic goods that are necessary for living a truly human life, e.g., food, clothing,health care, meaningful work, education, etc. finally, this conception of the common good requires the peace and security that accompanies a just social order. public authority, then, should be used to ensure, by morally acceptable means, the security of society and its individual members.
    ...
    right to healthcare, the
    from the perspective of catholic moral teaching, the "right to health care" for all is not an optional stance. rather, the right to health care is a human right founded on human dignity and the common good. considered as such, health care is more than a commodity in so far as it is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity that ought to be provided for and to everyone. this absolute right to health care, however, should not be understood as an unlimited entitlement, but as a right that carries with it corresponding duties regarding justice, stewardship and the common good.
    the world is imperfect but allowing conditions that increase health disparities is immoral when it is within the control of society to modify these conditions. there is no liberty or freedom in the absence of good health. poverty is strongly correlated with ill health. by failing to address root causes of ill health we are denying people the opportunity to work their way out of poverty which is in the common interest of the individual and society at large. in the very big picture of the world the countries with universal health systems have much lower rates of poverty and higher overall shared prosperity. (the us has 20% of its children living in poverty and norway has 5%. the living standards of norway are very comparable to those of the us.) i don't necessarily agree with everything that the norwegian government does to reduce poverty but i do think that the us needs to set a societal goal of reducing poverty and its effects by half within the next 2 decades. reducing poverty equals better overall health which equals lower health costs.
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Mar 31, '07

close