I’m adding this to my Amazon Wishlist.
The BBC gives a 13-year-old a cassette-playing Sony Walkman. Confusion ensues.
Why libertarians want to see sick people dying in the street for lack of health insurance. (Yes, that’s sarcasm.)
Florida DUI checkpoint yields 1,131 vehicle stops, two outstanding warrant arrests, six felony drug arrests, one misdemeanor drug arrest, and 104 traffic citations. Hmm. What’s missing, here?
Irvine, California’s little police state. Sounds sort of hellish to me. But I can see how some might find it pleasant.
World’s strongest vagina sets new lifting record. Hang on. What?
Absurd escapes from the old GI Joe cartoons. I used to watch that show every day when I got home from school.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, July 7th, 2009 at 3:04 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under Alcohol, General Criminal Justice, Motorist Freedom.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
These damn police DUI checkpoints make my blood boil every time. My girlfriend couldn’t understand why I was getting so angry… As I tried to explain that it’s involuntary relinquishing of rights as well as sloppy policework and a lot of unnecessary OT for the majority of the officers and staff there who seemed to just be standing around.
I guess my question is this- what are your rights in this situation and how can this kind of half-ass nonsense get a good legal challenge to shut it down?
@ #1: You have no rights, as you pointed out…
good luck with that.
Nice link about universal healthcare. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that England flat out denies people surgery and midication on a regular basis.
Anyone have any idea if black market healthcare exists in Europe?Any links?
Most people have been trained to think about any problem involving life & death emotionally rather than logically, and viciously attack anybody breaking from that norm.
This is why a healthcare system that will only spend 44k to extend a life by a year (and forbids spending your own money to do any better) gets hailed as a success story. Equality (with regard to income) is the highest value. Saving & improving lives and improving technology are a distant second and not even on the radar, respectively.
You can drive from one end of Irvine to the other, getting lost for hours along the way, and you’d swear you circled the same block over and over again.
Thanks for the reminder that having a good job right now is the only thing keeping me in CA. Eff this state.
I could swear that the Irvine story was a Twilight Zone episode or Ray Bradbury short story. Brrrr.
The fact that no one was arrested for a DUI at the checkpoint only means they are working!
[...] The Agitator. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Coming Soon: A Breathalyzer in Every [...]
Since the DUI checkpoint was a bust, over 1100 stops and not a single DUI, do you think the Florida will shut them down?
Good article, but it did not answer your sarcastic question.
Which is the problem with libertarians on the healthcare issue. You can point out the problems of the Universal Care where there is lots of readily availible data. But you do not have a solution that has actual data to back it up.
As it stands now Universal Care is not the solution being debated but Universal Coverage.
How in the halibut do you issue a TRAFFIC citation at a DUI checkpoint? Aren’t the cars STOPPED?
The health care article is just another, “OMG the government will ration healthcare!” scare peice. Utterly lacking in critical analysis, and therefor unconvincing.
I am unconvinced that it limits my freedom (or is bad for the overall economy) for the government to provide universal services out of revenue from taxes. I see nobody serious standing up to argue against socialized roads or police departments or a thousand other everyday public goods.
There can’t be a road to everywhere. Does the government deciding to build free pubic roads to certain places limit your right to travel freely? I’d say no, because you can build your own road (if you have the means) or walk or whatever.
An analogous argument is presented that, by providing access to a national group plan and acting as an insurer, the government will necessarily ration access to healthcare (in the same way private insurers currently do).
The observation that even “universal” services are ultimately rationed is obviously true. An FBI agent will probably not guard your house all night whenever you hear a noise. If you attempt to use a public road as a private race track, you will have trouble.
No national health system we could conceivably end up with would prevent the purchase of supplemental insurance for services above and beyond what the government will provide (or direct payment for those services out of petty cash if you are Oprah or Warren Buffet)
If you hate all taxes on principle, that is fine. But this argument about rationing access is woolly-headed bullshit. Nothing stops you from paying (voluntarily!) to have extra helpings.
What was missing at the Fla. DUI checkpoints
- 12 vehicle forfeitures
- 11 tazerings (within training guidelines)
- 10 asset forfeitures (if they had money on them, it must have been for drugs)
- 9 beaten motorists
- 8 planted evidence
- 7 puppy shootings
- 6 SWAT raids
- 5 sexual assaults
- 4 threats of unjustified prosecution
- 3 ambulance drivers arrested
- 2 police shootings
and a partridge in a pear tree
Note from the article “We conduct these checkpoints to enforce and to educate.” Oh, thats right, the police are entirely justified in stopping people for educational reasons.
Cop “Sir, blow into this bag, and read this”
Motorist “its ‘a hundred years of solititude’”
Cop “sir, are you refusing to be educated? Would 50,000 volts help you appreciate magic realism?”
Irvine residents seem happy with the local government and their police force seems astoundingly professional and well-respected. The city’s small and the government is local. Even as a libertarian, it seems like a nice place to live to me.
I’m oddly turned on and scared at the same time by the Russian girl!
as for the health care debate- I know I’m on the losing side on this. Again, just like with seat belts, helmets, fish pedicures, etc- someone else knows what I must do to pursue my happiness…
I’m disappointed to learn that I’m not a serious person, since I think making people do what you want (like pay for stuff) at gunpoint is a suboptimal method of solving problems.
Wait what? You don’t have to look at some faraway land to find government officials telling you you can’t spend your money on the healthcare you want. If you’ve got cancer and are gonna kick it in a year and want to try that new treatment that was just discovered… you can’t. It has to be proven safe to the FDA first. That you’re going to die before that happens isn’t their problem. If the treatment is too narrow to generate enough money to offset the additional FDA cost, you’re also SOL, even if the treatment was discovered long ago.
If you know a thing or two about common illnesses and want to provide very basic low cost medical treatment and advice to people… you’ll probably end up locked up a cage.
If you have chronic pain and take the unauthorized but effective steps to treat it… you’ll probably end up locked in a cage.
D.C. neighborhood upset over fake televised raid
Montgomery County police officers staged a fake raid in Northwest D.C., complete with guns drawn and police lights blazing, sparking outrage from local residents who were not warned that the cops were acting for a TV show.
About a half dozen off-duty officers, who wore county uniforms and drove county police cars, were hired by a local production company to stage a police raid on 315 Aspen St. NW, which is about a quarter of a mile from the Montgomery-D.C. border.
continued:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-neighborhood-upset-over-fake-televised-raid-7932558-50075112.html
I’m disappointed to learn that I’m not a serious person, since I think making people do what you want (like pay for stuff) at gunpoint is a suboptimal method of solving problems.
Well, that’s your retort for everything. I could just as easily say that letting poor people die in the street just so you can retain 100% of your wealth is suboptimal. Or, less hyperbolic, I could say that employer-sponsored health care that locks sick people into their jobs with the threat of coverage loss is suboptimal as well.
And, again, you still haven’t made any actual suggestions. You can pick apart the NHS all you want but the fact is nobody is suggesting such a system and even if they were there’s no reason we would have to model every aspect of the NHS.
Wait what? You don’t have to look at some faraway land to find government officials telling you you can’t spend your money on the healthcare you want. If you’ve got cancer and are gonna kick it in a year and want to try that new treatment that was just discovered… you can’t. It has to be proven safe to the FDA first.
You’re perfectly free to leave the country to obtain those treatments; companies just can’t sell them to you legally in this country without FDA approval. And in any case, while I agree with some of the criticisms of the FDA I don’t think it’s particularly onerous to expect companies to demonstrate the safety of their treatments; there are, of course, various types of cancer w/ various survival rates so many cancer patients are not going to “kick it in a year” unless they receive treatment that actually kills them. Obviously we want to avoid that.
If you know a thing or two about common illnesses and want to provide very basic low cost medical treatment and advice to people… you’ll probably end up locked up a cage.
Well, most advocates of universal coverage/care are in favor of delegating such tasks to nurses and such instead of doctors, which would result in some cost savings. Not quite the same thing of course, but we do at least agree on the benefit of breaking the expensive-doctor monopoly on basic health services.
If you have chronic pain and take the unauthorized but effective steps to treat it… you’ll probably end up locked in a cage.
Again, I’d suspect that most advocates of universal coverage/care take a fairly dim view of the drug war hysterics lead to such conclusions.
I thought Comment #1 referred to the Russian lady…
More government won’t solve health care, it will only make it worse. There is much data to prove the point from other countries attempting to provide for everyone. But I forgot, Team USA is DIFFERENT, so it will be done correctly here! Health care costs are astronomical compared to paving the town roads, so it’s not reasonable to use the tax/public use argument.
Who in their right mind is for MORE government force and steal your money by threat of fine/kidnapping/caging/death if you refuse to “voluntarily comply”? Only those that don’t have jack shit to their name are for it, because it only adds more to their pockets at the expense of everyone else. We’re all not equal, and that’s just the way it is. Work hard, make sacrifices, and try to do better for yourself. The “what about the sick/poor/etc” argument is a small percentage of the affected population, so it’s a red herring argument.
Re: GI JOE escapes: “I used to watch that show every day when I got home from school. ”
Really? I’d have assumed you wold have refused to watch it on general principles, since the Joes blatantly violated Posse Commitatus on a regular basis.
“Why libertarians want to see sick people dying in the street for lack of health insurance.”
At least you’re admitting it.
hmm the choice between being denied a life-saving procedure from the government that bleeds me dry and being denied a life-saving procedure from the insurance company that bleeds me dry hardly seems like a choice at all.
I am unconvinced that it limits my freedom (or is bad for the overall economy) for the government to provide universal services out of revenue from taxes. I see nobody serious standing up to argue against socialized roads or police departments or a thousand other everyday public goods.
When the government seeks to acquire limited goods or services for the purpose of offering them below cost, it will invariably corrupt the market. Guaranteed 100%.
Note that government construction of roads is rather different from government provision of health care:
-1- For the most part, roads are not a limited resource; one person’s usage of a road generally does not impair others from using the same road.
-2- Road construction generally yields a substantial positive network externality. Building a road in a sensible place will make other roads more useful. Most types of health care offer no such synergistic benefit.
-3- Private road ownership and toll collection would impose substantial logistical difficulties and inefficiencies, many of which are avoided by having the government own and manage most roads.
Although having the government provide any type of good or service will introduce substantial inefficiencies which would not be present were such good or service provided privately, in the case of things like roads, government ownership eliminates many other inefficiencies which would generally dwarf those added by government. By comparison, the inefficiencies eliminated by government health care are much less, and those added are much greater.
Try getting private health insurance or health care in Canada. It’s illegal there.
The government is already rationing health care through regulation restricting the supply of health care. That’s what certificates of need, the AMA, the FDA, and a host of other agencies and regulations do. I think it’s pretty obvious it isn’t working.
Umm. The Fourth Amendment?
I wouldn’t want a house like that. Everyone thinks they have a say in whatever you you want to do with it. For example, you can be sure there would be a major shit storm if you decided to modernize it with vinyl siding.
More government won’t solve health care, it will only make it worse. There is much data to prove the point from other countries attempting to provide for everyone. But I forgot, Team USA is DIFFERENT, so it will be done correctly here! Health care costs are astronomical compared to paving the town roads, so it’s not reasonable to use the tax/public use argument.
Well, that’s interesting, because as far as I can tell the entire libertarian position is based on anecdotes about having to wait in line for treatment and some vague notions that if drug companies and the medical sector in general aren’t allowed to run massive profits, innovation would flounder. Actual solutions seem to be few and far between.
Frankly, if our mode of health care was so obviously superior I would expect countries with socialized care to be switching back to a private model; that does not seem to be happening.
The government is already rationing health care through regulation restricting the supply of health care. That’s what certificates of need, the AMA, the FDA, and a host of other agencies and regulations do. I think it’s pretty obvious it isn’t working.
Likewise, the market is rationing health care by locking out people who can’t afford care or coverage. There are many obvious and predictable situations under which an individual will not be able to afford care and will not be able to obtain insurance and the unfortunately the only suggestion I’ve ever seen from libertarians is that private charities will somehow pick up the slack.
I’d really like to know what the libertarian solution to the healthcare problem is. Can someone point me to a link where it’s laid out?
Right now, all I see is “Universal healthcare bad!” without recognition of the fact that the current system is awful too. We pay RIGHT NOW for everyone to get healthcare by using our hospitals as general practitioners — it’s just a hidden cost. The article lists a 23hr wait for an ER visit… well, it takes a hell of a long time to see a doctor here, even if you’re a trauma patient (if you’re not actually dying, that is). I waited 18 hours to see a doctor when I shattered my tibia at LA County hospital. It took them 6 hours to give me pain medicine. And if I hadn’t had my own insurance to get me taken elsewhere, it would’ve taken 2 WEEKS to get surgery.
I’m not saying that universal health care *is* the answer… right now, I don’t know what is. But it would be nice if we had an actual option from the libertarians to look at that isn’t the current broken system.
-1- For the most part, roads are not a limited resource; one person’s usage of a road generally does not impair others from using the same road.
Road construction, however, is a limited resource.
-2- Road construction generally yields a substantial positive network externality. Building a road in a sensible place will make other roads more useful. Most types of health care offer no such synergistic benefit.
Keeping people healthy and releasing them from the lock-in of employer-based care won’t have any positive benefits?
-3- Private road ownership and toll collection would impose substantial logistical difficulties and inefficiencies, many of which are avoided by having the government own and manage most roads.
Is the same not true of health care? Any moderately complex case is likely to generate bills from multiple providers, any of which your insurance may or may not cover to varying percentages which may or may not be negotiable or eligible for out-of-network reimbursement or payment using your HRA/FSA/whatever. Rolling through a toll booth is child’s play compared to understanding the details of your insurance coverage and medical bills.
Right now, all I see is “Universal healthcare bad!” without recognition of the fact that the current system is awful too. We pay RIGHT NOW for everyone to get healthcare by using our hospitals as general practitioners — it’s just a hidden cost. The article lists a 23hr wait for an ER visit… well, it takes a hell of a long time to see a doctor here, even if you’re a trauma patient (if you’re not actually dying, that is). I waited 18 hours to see a doctor when I shattered my tibia at LA County hospital. It took them 6 hours to give me pain medicine. And if I hadn’t had my own insurance to get me taken elsewhere, it would’ve taken 2 WEEKS to get surgery.
My girlfriend got into a bad bike wreck a couple weeks ago on a Friday night. We feared she might have some internal bleeding, so we had a friend drive us to the ER. We spent about 5 hours there just sitting around, explained our situation to 6 or 7 different people, spoke with an actual doctor for about 10 minutes, spent another 10 minutes getting a CT, and left with a bill over $3k (and it would have been even more if we hadn’t declined their suggestion to transfer her to another hospital for examination by a trauma surgeon and overnight observation). It’s beyond me why people invest so much in defending the current system.
Who in their right mind is for MORE government force and steal your money by threat of fine/kidnapping/caging/death if you refuse to “voluntarily comply”? Only those that don’t have jack shit to their name are for it, because it only adds more to their pockets at the expense of everyone else. We’re all not equal, and that’s just the way it is. Work hard, make sacrifices, and try to do better for yourself. The “what about the sick/poor/etc” argument is a small percentage of the affected population, so it’s a red herring argument.
Well, I guess that’s the libertarian argument in a nutshell: I got mine so the rest of you can suck it.
NO! NO! NO!
Lime green stucco is the way to go. With a colonial entrance. And a huge sundial with a smiley face on the roof.
@ Matt D # 33
And I guess the statist argument in a nutshell is “I don’t care what you’ve done to earn it, I want it and I’m going to take it.”
#30 | sqlcowboy
the reason libertarians aren’t in power is that there isn’t a ‘platform’ on different issues. The general platform is ‘leave us alone’- minimal government. we recognize that crisis’ are either natural market reactions or unintended consequences to a govt. intervention.
undoubtedly, given billions of dollars, the govt can design a system that will provide healthcare to everyone. the immediate benefits will disguise the future unintended consequences, which will be ‘crisis’ that need fixing.
the govt created much of this crisis with wage freezes under FDR and medicare/medicaid programs. there are companies already contracted to the govt to deliver ‘high quality, state of the art’ healthcare in our humongous prison system. Google ‘CMS prison death’ to begin your education into govt healthcare gone wrong.
There isn’t a libertarian plan because that would require central planning of a market and that does not work.
Matt D, seriously. You’re just spouting off rhetoric. No one is defending the current system. Replacing one shitty system with another shitty system is not ideal. Your solution is to do more the same thing that is fucking everything up.
How’s this. In a free market, supply meets demand. If poor people demand health care, someone will find a way to meet the demand at a price they can afford. But we don’t have that in America. We have a controlled market, so stop saying the free market is failing when that is obviously not the case!
Bottom line, thinking that we can give everyone fantastic health care is like saying we can give everyone mansions or SUV’s. There aren’t enough resources to do that. I don’t see how we can say, “if everyone can’t get great health care, then nobody should get great health care.”
The only way to get better health care is to let the rich buy the best, innovate it, so it becomes cheaper and more refined allowing more people to afford it. There will always be disparity. If not disparity, than severe rationing. It’s one or the other.
There is no good solution here. There is no solution that will give everyone free health care that is actually worth a damn. It’s a dream. You might as well get mad at us for denying that the Easter Bunny exits and blaming the free market for it.
You really want to know why countries with socialized medicine aren’t changing their models? Because government doesn’t give up power once it has obtained it.
It doesn’t matter who pays for health care, there simply isn’t enough to go around to everyone. Until we solve the supply issue, it’s going to suck no matter what.
So Marty, the Libertarian position is … nothing?
If the libertarian position is “We don’t want people to die” then there must be a libertarian solution to the problem that will help people who can’t afford to buy healthcare in the current system.
Which laws need to be gotten rid of? Which regulations should be scrapped?
And will that give everyone access to healthcare? Probably not, since healthcare providers are a scarce resource, and therefore, the price will rise to meet the market, so people who can’t afford it now, won’t be able to afford anything beyond the basics in a truly free market solution either. So if that’s the case, then the libertarian position *is* what Radney says it is not — that poor people don’t get good healthcare.
How’s this. In a free market, supply meets demand. If poor people demand health care, someone will find a way to meet the demand at a price they can afford. But we don’t have that in America. We have a controlled market, so stop saying the free market is failing when that is obviously not the case!
Typical–there’s never a flaw in the market so long as you can find some shred of government intervention to pin it on.
How’s this: the market will shut out those who can’t afford the price of entry. There’s a ratio of income to treatment expense below which a person ceases to be a viable customer, and that’s always going to be the case. It’s a pipe-dream to think that people making $10-$30k/year are going to be a significant enough presence in the market to spur innovation sufficient to bring, say, cancer treatment or extensive surgeries within their range of affordability. In terms of basic care, sure–I actually agree with you there. If consumers dealt directly w/ providers rather than through the insurance intermediary, I imagine we would see greater competition and innovation in basic services and prices would drop.
Bottom line, thinking that we can give everyone fantastic health care is like saying we can give everyone mansions or SUV’s.
Well, no, because health care is largely a service and inasmuch as it is a tangible product it is one with relatively low marginal cost. And it’s something we already spend a ridiculous amount of money on, both in the private and public sector.
The only way to get better health care is to let the rich buy the best, innovate it, so it becomes cheaper and more refined allowing more people to afford it. There will always be disparity. If not disparity, than severe rationing. It’s one or the other.
Actually, it’s the same thing. Disparity is rationing. You just don’t want to call it that because then you lose the rationing boogeyman.
You really want to know why countries with socialized medicine aren’t changing their models? Because government doesn’t give up power once it has obtained it.
So I assume you have examples where a substantial majority of citizens have demanded the demolition of their country’s public system but been thwarted by the government?
I should add, insurance companies already do their damnedest to weasel out of covering people, which is another form of rationing that exists under the current system.
You’re still missing the issue that this is a problem with supply, not who pays. The government policy wonks should be interested in generating more personnel and facilities. That is the reason I referred to it a finite good even though it’s not supposed to be a finite good. But once again, supply has been manipulated. Government doesn’t solve problems.
The market might shut out those who can’t afford health care at the current cost. Most people were shut out cell phone service and cable tv at first. The market innovated, pretty much everyone has these things now because costs came down.
Disparity and rationing are not the same thing. Not even a little bit.
So I assume you have examples where a substantial majority of citizens have demanded the demolition of their country’s public system but been thwarted by the government?
I can point to data that says people in some of those countries with universal coverage aren’t happy with it, except even more people are more unhappy with our system. Which isn’t too surprising, since it looks like we’re paying as much for public funds on top of all the private spending, and manage to have crappier care. People are right to say we aren’t working with a free market system, but we seem to have combined a lot of bad features and gotten rid of the advantages that could have come from the government getting involved (yeah and most people here are probably going to say there are no advantages right?).
I’d be interested in hearing someone explain how a system with no government intervention would be an improvement over other options (other than saying less government is inherently good). Personally from what I’ve heard I wouldn’t mind seeing something like a Dutch system. It still relies on people choosing coverage from private companies, but puts in regulations to ensure everyone can get some decent care. Yeah the government is putting in money to distort the market, but it distorts things so companies have an incentive to take care of sick people instead of finding excuses to pay for it.
We interrupt this lively discussion for a brief comment on another topic…
If you like G.I. Joe-related humor, seek out the PSA video mash-ups originally posted at heavengallery.com.
“Now you know.”
In a free market, supply meets demand. If poor people demand health care, someone will find a way to meet the demand at a price they can afford.
That’s a tenet of faith, not a rational argument, and it seems to ignore the very real phenomenon of limited resources. Very often the market cannot provide any good at any price. And the market incentives are all wrong, here, because health care is something you will often die if you do not get.
That doesn’t lend itself to lower prices, to say the least. Just wanting something usually isn’t enough to get someone to sell it to you at the price you want. Indeed, wanting it bad enough usually prompts them to sell it to you at a much higher price than you would prefer.
@Matt D: Best I can tell, from the responses, the solution is to remove regulation on who’s allowed to practice medicine. Then, in the new ‘free market’ all those people can have doctors! They’ll have never seen the inside of a medical school unless they saw it on television, but the crayola medical degree will look really impressive!
Plus they can test new drugs on poor people before they give them to anyone that matters. No need for an FDA!
Everyone wins!*
*Except the poor and most of the middle class but they don’t count.
GI Joe PSAs, just to belabor the point: http://www.fenslerfilm.com/PSAS.htm
“Typical–there’s never a flaw in the market so long as you can find some shred of government intervention to pin it on.”
So true. Often the only solutions you see here to any given problems are 1. “deregulate,” 2. “lower or eliminate taxes,” and 3. “there isn’t really a problem”.
P.S. those GI JOE PSAs are absolutely hilarious.
Having a completely Government run Medical system is not going to work. Look at Medicaid / Medicare, look at VA and military health care. Those are government run programs and I’ve yet to meet a person who willingly sang the praises of them, unless they were trying to recruit me.
One of the biggest problems I see in the medical world today is that no one can tell you what the actual price of a service is going to be. They can be estimated, but even then the estimates can be hundreds if not thousands of dollars off. Theoretically a person should be able to call a doctor/hospital/lab and ask “how much is this going to cost me?” They should be able to shop around and find the best deal for their money, just like any other service. Unfortunately shopping around only seems to work on medications, and only limited to generics, due to the fact that if a company has a new drug that hasn’t hit the patent date your only option is the brand name. Maybe we actually need a little government regulation to state that prices for services should be readily available, wither it be a doctors visit or an x-ray. Not what the prices should be, just that they should be available, and it shouldn’t fluctuate just because you’ve got insurance or not. I’ve run into enough cases where a service was one price for the insurance company (due to deals in the medical communities not to go above a certain amount) and something completely different for the uninsured.
Those are government run programs and I’ve yet to meet a person who willingly sang the praises of them, unless they were trying to recruit me.
No one is going to “sing the praises” of any system of medicine, because medicine is never a purchase you feel good about. You go out and buy a new novel, and the process is positive from the get-go: you’re anticipating a great read, you can’t wait to get it home, and afterwards it was as good as you hoped, or even better.
But with health care, you don’t look forward to going to the doctor. Medicine is never enjoyable. You have a problem, you’re in pain or having symptoms, or maybe your very life is at risk, and you go in, and at best you’re brought back to normal, no better off than before; much more likely, you walk out of there with exactly the same pain you had before, only with the promise of abatement in a few days.
Nobody likes going to the doctor. Nobody derives enjoyment from their medical system. Nobody is going to “sing the praises” of any system, public or private. On the other hand, when we look at objective metrics, public health care wins out every time. Nobody, not even the status-quo-defending glibertarians here, advocates putting seniors back on a private system and eliminating Medicare. Well, if it’s good enough for grandma why isn’t it good enough for me?
One of the biggest problems I see in the medical world today is that no one can tell you what the actual price of a service is going to be.
In countries with single-payer health coverage, they can. The answer is “free, and do you need some money for transportation?” On the payment side, there’s much less price variability because the government negotiates rates, like it does for Medicare. On the hospital’s side, the vast paperwork overhead is reduced because they no longer have to keep track of whose insurance you’re on before they can tell you how much it’s going to cost.
Car repairs are never enjoyable either, but I’ve got a great mechanic I recommend to all my friends.
Trying to talk to libertarians about healthcare policy reform is frustrating. It reminds me of trying to discuss drug policy reform with committed Drug Warriors. They are in the grip of an ideology which causes them to reject any evidence or argument that does not fit their world-view.
#25:
Your assertion that private care and insurance are illegal in Canada is wrong. Here, let me google that for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=private+insurance+canada
Although, in all fairness, it seems that it was illegal in Quebec (not all of Canada, just Quebec) until 2006. Their federal supreme court struck down that law as a violation of their charter of human rights.
Oh, and why would you think that there is no network effect benefit in having universal coverage?
Have you heard of vaccination and herd immunity? Universal vaccination* is the perfect example of a public good.
Similar with treatment for TB and other communicable diseases. Early treatment for one infected person is much cheaper than crisis care for that same person, plus care for all those he manages to spread it to before he goes into crisis.
* no I don’t want the government to force it on you at gunpoint. Just to pay for it if you want it. But you’d better keep your disease-infested unvaccinated kids the hell away from me and mine.
There’s a big difference between a flat tire and a broken foot. As far as price shopping goes, when a person is unconscious or otherwise unable to act on his own behalf, who does the price shopping? If I get hit by a car and get severely injured, how many hospitals should I call before for price comparisons?
Hannah #51,
I agree with you but… as long as there is a 3rd party payer, be it government or an insurance company, individuals have no incentive to shop around. That’s the reason you cannot currently get an accurate quote, the providers are not negotiating with you because you aint writin them the check.
I always wondered where COBRA got all their money. I also wondered why Hot Wheels cars can handle a 2 story fall with minor paint damage while dad’s car gets all smashed up simply backing into the garage door.
“Nobody, not even the status-quo-defending glibertarians here, advocates putting seniors back on a private system and eliminating Medicare.” – I personally find it rather offensive that I pay for my parent’s health care, even though they make roughly twice what I do, even in retirement. Not all seniors eat cat food for dinner, why should the taxpayers at large foot the bill for those with ability to pay their own way? Sell the $300K RV when you get cancer.
Since so may commenters are demanding a suggested system here is mine: amortize the expected health care costs over your entire lifetime. At current rates, it looks like my employer will pay at least 3/4 of a million dollars in premiums over my lifetime. If I had the freedom to let Walmart treat my boo boos now, I could save quite a bit for my end time, certainly more than 22 thousand dollars.
Thalience,
You never took anything than a basic econ class right.
Okay, lets run through some basics of insurance.
You have a pool of people in it. Some healthy, some not. If the insurance companies can’t tell the healthy from the unhealthy they will charge an average rate based on the average cost if people get sick.
Now, suppose people can leave the pool and signal that they are healthy by say…having a higher deductible. Now what happens? The healthy people leave the pool and you now have what economits call a seperating equilibrium…i.e. two equilibria, one for the healthy and one for the unhealthy.
So a public/government plan gets the sick people, the healthy buy private insurance. You’ll then have to tax the healthy to pay for the unhealthy becuase otherwise the unhealthy public plan will be too expensive for many of the unhealthy. This is especially true when dealing with pre-existing conditions. In that case the premium would be equal to the cost.
In the end, with taxes and their premiums healthy people would likely return to the government plan, and the private market would be very small to non-existent. Depending on which sort of government plan we get it could be very good (France) to very bad (England).
Steve: I’m glad other people like France’s system. It seems most people arguing over health care assume the US, Canada, and England are the only three countries in the world.
I’d love to get a public plan like France has. As one of the healthy people, I’d have no problem paying taxes that are getting people in to see doctors. Even if I never need it.
Especially since I strongly doubt the taxes could be much higher than my insurance payments. Most of which go towards making the insurance company. Is that a better goal than poor kids seeing doctors?
I only keep insurance just in case…car accident or unforseen illness and all that. At which point they’ll probably just deny everything and cancel my policy when I complain. I’d switch companies, but they’re all like that.
Your “choice” is shopping around for the one that charges a little less and who’s least likely to cancel your policy the second you start costing them money. Free market for the win!
Car repairs are never enjoyable either, but I’ve got a great mechanic I recommend to all my friends.
Sure, so did I, until he kept my car for two whole weeks so he could “order a part” which he never did order. I took it back to the dealer and they had it on-hand, took an afternoon. Never been back to the other guy.
It turns out that two or three oil changes weren’t an adequate sample of his work, especially in regards to body repair. The same problem exists with your doctor. Sure, he’s good with your kids and knows a lot about your aches and pains, but the time you need him to accurately diagnose your cancer is liable to be the only sample you ever get of his cancer-diagnosing ability, and it’s kind of crucial that he gets it right the first time.
The truth is that, of all the people who might be involved in that transaction, you’re the one who knows the least, and is therefore the least suitable consumer. Medical choice seems like a really stupid place to make your stand against public health care; for starters, the system we have doesn’t provide much choice, and secondly, it’s not clear that putative patients are the best-suited to choose. That’s assuming you’re even conscious at the time you need medical attention, which is often not the case. How are the unconscious supposed to choose?
The french system is one of the best, if not the best, in the world. However, it should be pointed out that the french system is not sustainable. They are having the same problems we are, just not at the same rates. I like to compare it towards driving towards a cliff. We are going 50 mph, France is going 20 mph. Clearly switching is preferred, but not a viable solution for too long.
Matt D: Road construction services are a limited resource, but for the most part roads are not. Generally, the government is in the business of providing roads, rather than road-construction services.
The vast majority of roads in this country are utilized as less than 10% of capacity (probably less than 1% in most cases). Even though the the roads are free (of marginal cost to the user), the demand for them is generally self-limiting. There is generally no need to prioritize access to the roads for people who need them most, since everyone could drive most roads as much as they would want without conflict (of course, people generally only want to drive on roads that will take them where they want to go, and people generally only want to make a certain number of trips).
By contrast, the amount of health care that people would like to get is not self-limiting to an extent that’s anywhere close to the level of resources available. No matter how much is spent, there will be someone who would have liked to have received more service than he got. Since resources are finite, their allocation must be prioritized via some method (whether by chance or other bad means, or by some good means). Allocating resources by people’s willingness to pay for them isn’t perfect, but it’s far better than many other alternatives.
Suppose two people could both benefit to some extent from a treatment. Given a choice between receiving the treatment or having an extra $500 in his pocket, person #1 would rather have the $500. Person #2 would rather have the treatment. Would there be any reason to treat person #1 and not person #2? If one were going to do that, one could make both person #1 and person #2 happier by instead giving person #1 the $500 and person #2 the treatment.
By contrast, the amount of health care that people would like to get is not self-limiting to an extent that’s anywhere close to the level of resources available.
Don’t be stupid. People don’t go to the doctor just for fun. Hypochondriacs have a legitimate mental condition, but there’s hardly enough of them to justify the idea that health care is not “self-limiting.” Almost nobody seeks health care unless they need it (indeed, the number of people who do need it but do not seek it is a much, much more pressing problem.) And, indeed, the problem facing us right now is one of waste and unnecessary treatment, because we incentivise doctors and hospitals to provide (and charge for) treatments, not improve health.
Are people unaware that rationing goes on everyday with evey insurance company? We have two tiers of care in the US for people with insurance coverage. Those whose insurance will pay for care and medication and those that won’t.
I am a Continuig Care Manager in a clinic and help people with pulmonary diseae manage their care. I used to be able to negotiate with insurance companies, no longer.
The best insurance is Medicare and Medicaid, they have the lowest copay and the best coverage.
Why don;t you ask people on the front line about care and what occurs?