IMHO, when Americans criticize socialized health care systems, they do so without understanding that they have a fascist health care system. There could be several huge improvements if the US would simply follow what other wealthy countries in the world do. Of course, we're going to have similar problems in America then, but are they worse than what we have now? For example, my father in law was laid off because of the current economic depression, if he gets a job, he can't get the same insurance benefits that he needs in order to get care for himself and his wife who both have serious health problems. Of course, in a system like the NHS, both him and his wife may not get the care fast enough in order to maintain their health. In particular, my mother in law has a degenerative disease that is causing dementia and she needs to live in a special care facility. Would the NHS choke her care off and kill her because it costs so much?
How would a truly free market in health care solve this problems? Americans don't know. Americans have a fascist health care system where costs have been driven up through the roof by state sponsored monopolies in insurance and medical services. I think that if we look at other free markets, we can predict similar phenomenon in health care. We can also look at the past. America had a freer market in health care long ago and some of those benefits are recorded in the historical record. I think, based on both of these examples, that a real market driven system would be FAR better for people than both the fascist and socialist health care models.
In a real free market system, the incentives for having good health would exist rather than being exactly opposite because of government intervention. There are all kinds of policies that government creates that destroy the health care of it's citizens. For example, America subsidizes corn production, making cheap processed food cheaper than healthy food. We also construct dietary advice based off of industrial needs rather than what is actually good for the body. If you learned about the health pyramid, with a diet that was heavy on carbs, you learned a fascist model of health that was intended to promote the interests of certain agricultural corporations. Another thing that America does that wrecks citizens health care is that it protects people from the results of living poorly. When 80% of chronic disease is self induced and we allow people to get care regardless, we take away any financial incentive to eat healthy.
On the supply side, when we erect all kinds of barriers in regards to insurance, we drive up insurance costs for everyone and make riskier policies unaffordable. When we monopolize care with regulation and give one class of people the legal authority to provide even simple forms of care, we jack up the prices for all forms of care across the board. For example, the AMA conspired with the government in the early part of last century to regulate diagnosis and treatment of even simple health problems. They created a licensure for such things that requires a huge time and financial commitment that simply is not needed for most health problems. This is one of the reasons it costs $$$ to take an aspirin from a doctor.
A real free market solves all of these problems. Health care costs would drop because there would be more people competing to offer services. People would be able to buy cheap insurance regardless of where they lived and what they needed. People would have real incentive to stay healthy because the true price of unhealthy behavior would finally be revealed. People would see actual prices and markets develop for healthy food and that sort of food would out compete the unhealthy food because of the true costs attached to it. There would be all kinds of benefits that people in both fascist and socialist health care systems can't even imagine. This is why I oppose both of these systems. I don't want to choose one over the other, because both of them wreck the health of citizens in different ways. IMO, the problem is government. We see the effects of two approaches of government regulation on health care and we argue between them without questioning the fundamental assumption of whether government should be involved at all. People refuse to look at the downside of both systems and correctly link this to government involvement because they were indoctrinated to the idea that government should do something in the first place.
The government is the problem. More government is not the solution.
How would a truly free market in health care solve this problems? Americans don't know. Americans have a fascist health care system where costs have been driven up through the roof by state sponsored monopolies in insurance and medical services. I think that if we look at other free markets, we can predict similar phenomenon in health care. We can also look at the past. America had a freer market in health care long ago and some of those benefits are recorded in the historical record. I think, based on both of these examples, that a real market driven system would be FAR better for people than both the fascist and socialist health care models.
In a real free market system, the incentives for having good health would exist rather than being exactly opposite because of government intervention. There are all kinds of policies that government creates that destroy the health care of it's citizens. For example, America subsidizes corn production, making cheap processed food cheaper than healthy food. We also construct dietary advice based off of industrial needs rather than what is actually good for the body. If you learned about the health pyramid, with a diet that was heavy on carbs, you learned a fascist model of health that was intended to promote the interests of certain agricultural corporations. Another thing that America does that wrecks citizens health care is that it protects people from the results of living poorly. When 80% of chronic disease is self induced and we allow people to get care regardless, we take away any financial incentive to eat healthy.
On the supply side, when we erect all kinds of barriers in regards to insurance, we drive up insurance costs for everyone and make riskier policies unaffordable. When we monopolize care with regulation and give one class of people the legal authority to provide even simple forms of care, we jack up the prices for all forms of care across the board. For example, the AMA conspired with the government in the early part of last century to regulate diagnosis and treatment of even simple health problems. They created a licensure for such things that requires a huge time and financial commitment that simply is not needed for most health problems. This is one of the reasons it costs $$$ to take an aspirin from a doctor.
A real free market solves all of these problems. Health care costs would drop because there would be more people competing to offer services. People would be able to buy cheap insurance regardless of where they lived and what they needed. People would have real incentive to stay healthy because the true price of unhealthy behavior would finally be revealed. People would see actual prices and markets develop for healthy food and that sort of food would out compete the unhealthy food because of the true costs attached to it. There would be all kinds of benefits that people in both fascist and socialist health care systems can't even imagine. This is why I oppose both of these systems. I don't want to choose one over the other, because both of them wreck the health of citizens in different ways. IMO, the problem is government. We see the effects of two approaches of government regulation on health care and we argue between them without questioning the fundamental assumption of whether government should be involved at all. People refuse to look at the downside of both systems and correctly link this to government involvement because they were indoctrinated to the idea that government should do something in the first place.
The government is the problem. More government is not the solution.
