Nick, join me in Greenville, SC on October 9th. The Mises Institute is going to be doing a series of lectures at the Westin Hotel, and they just might convince you to become an anarcho capitalist!

 

BTW Thomas DiLorenzo will be there, too.

hi-five for being awesome, wise, but not crazy enough to be as cool as Jay.

 

Thanks.

 

Nick, join me in Greenville, SC on October 9th. The Mises Institute is going to be doing a series of lectures at the Westin Hotel, and they just might convince you to become an anarcho capitalist!

 

BTW Thomas DiLorenzo will be there, too.

 

I want to, but I don't know if I can afford it, I'll have to wait and see, but I love the Mises Institute and want to attend one of their lectures.

Who do you work for, again?

 

Oh that's right, the NHS.

That's wrong actually.

 

+ Private Health Care still exists anyway, so the greedy fucking arsehole doctors who want to work private, still can.

The government says everyone needs free food, so it taxes people to pay for free burgers from McDonalds for anyone who feels hungry.

 

The demand for McDonalds burgers increases, and the supply falls. The drive-through lines are much longer, extending all the way to the highway. The quality of the food falls (if that's possible), because McDonalds employees are overworked and unenthusiastic.

 

The % of income people used to spend on eating-out is gradually whittled away by the free food tax. You're still allowed to eat at other restaurants, but you have less money available to do it. Because it is impossible for other fast-food restaurants to compete with McDonalds' free burgers, they close down, leaving only the expensive steak-houses in the private market for food.

Just wait until you have an emergency and your gold-plated health insurance says only going to pay half the bill, leaving you with say a $5000 bill to find payment for, causing you more stress causing more health problems causing bigger bills etc.

So is there two groups here who think America should have a health system like the UK, and another group who totally reject that idea? Personally, looking at the struggles of the NHS (don't get me wrong, it was one of the great moments in UK political history by Clement Atlee and co) I would think twice about looking at the UK's health system.

Just wait until you have an emergency and your gold-plated health insurance says only going to pay half the bill, leaving you with say a $5000 bill to find payment for, causing you more stress causing more health problems causing bigger bills etc.

 

We have great insurance but my parents still paid a shit load of money for my moms cancer. Sadly the answer is not government bureaucracy that can't even run a nice restaurant. Truth is healthcare is such a mess because of government involvement, how is more involvement going to fix it? You don't fix a bullet hole with another gunshot.

 

Our family is middle class but has problems due to the medical costs but we need a solution that does not make it 100x worse with good intentions.

"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty."

 

Random quote I heard last night, thought I'd share it with you Nick.

So is there two groups here who think America should have a health system like the UK, and another group who totally reject that idea? Personally, looking at the struggles of the NHS (don't get me wrong, it was one of the great moments in UK political history by Clement Atlee and co) I would think twice about looking at the UK's health system.

 

The great thing about socializing something that was once private, is that when the government inherits it, it's already organized and staffed by people who are used to providing competitive service.

 

That's why initially, socializing something is wonderful for all parties involved. But you give it a generation, and the quality declines dramatically, and costs increase dramatically because new people are being hired. Socialization has the effect of making employees resent their customers, rather than try to provide the best service possible.

 

This is called the "NASA effect", for obvious reasons.

The NHS is great. I mean, where else can you get pissed out of your mind then still find someone willing to pump your stomach and put you up for a bit, all for the princely sum of £0.00? :drunk:

I actually had a discussion about this earlier. I agree with Tonsu. I lived in a country with a private healthcare system and it worked perfectly fine. It was compulsory to have a health insurance and no one was left without treatment.

I actually had a discussion about this earlier. I agree with Tonsu. I lived in a country with a private healthcare system and it worked perfectly fine. It was compulsory to have a health insurance and no one was left without treatment.

 

How old are you? Maybe not everybody wants/needs health insurance. Has that thought ever crossed your mind? (Hint: young people are paying for old peoples' medical treatment, whether they want to or not).

 

"Compulsory" means you go to jail or get a fine if you don't want to buy health insurance. That's EVIL.

 

It would be nice if everyone could have instant access to a quality doctor if they needed it. But that can never happen under a system that isn't entirely voluntary.

But what are we going to do about people with no insurance that use the emergency rooms like doctors offices? That costs the taxpayers a lot of money each year.

^the "A word"

(I'm afraid to say it now)

I'm lost.

How old are you? Maybe not everybody wants/needs health insurance. Has that thought ever crossed your mind? (Hint: young people are paying for old peoples' medical treatment, whether they want to or not).

 

"Compulsory" means you go to jail or get a fine if you don't want to buy health insurance. That's EVIL.

 

It would be nice if everyone could have instant access to a quality doctor if they needed it. But that can never happen under a system that isn't entirely voluntary.

 

It's quite a fair system as young people will end up paying for your healthcare once you reach a certain age. I can't see how anyone would not need a health insurance unless they are very rich. The fact that your age group is at low-risk is not gonna help you if you get seriously ill.:\

 

Oh and I'm 23 and I never really had any health problems.

For me, it's more of a matter of principle than anything. I simply do not trust my government. I don't want them in charge of yet another part of my life. They act like it's our dream for them to run it, but even if it were slightly more efficient, I wouldn't want it.

It's quite a fair system as young people will end up paying for your healthcare once you reach a certain age. I can't see how anyone would not need a health insurance unless they are very rich. The fact that your age group is at low-risk is not gonna help you if you get seriously ill.:\

 

Oh and I'm 23 and I never really had any health problems.

 

This is the principle of Social Security here in America - the young pay for the old to be able to retire. But there's a problem with that, because any time the number of retirees starts to increase relative to the number of young workers, the taxes for the young must increase as well.

 

It works for a while, right. But eventually it collapses. Look up the term "Ponzi Scheme" to understand this better.

 

The purpose of insurance is to pay for something catastrophic. Like if you get in a terrible car accident, or you discover you have pancreatic cancer early in life. Insurance isn't meant to pay for every little health problem that you might get. If you break your arm, or have treatable diabetes... these are just things that your family must pay out of pocket.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

 

Here's a good article by the CEO of Whole Foods on the healthcare issue, and his solution to fixing it, which I agree with wholeheartedly.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125029373754433433.html

 

Hereeeee weee gooooo!

 

Besides the fact that my family is going to be poor as balls, I'm excited.

This is the principle of Social Security here in America - the young pay for the old to be able to retire. But there's a problem with that, because any time the number of retirees starts to increase relative to the number of young workers, the taxes for the young must increase as well.

 

It works for a while, right. But eventually it collapses. Look up the term "Ponzi Scheme" to understand this better.

 

The purpose of insurance is to pay for something catastrophic. Like if you get in a terrible car accident, or you discover you have pancreatic cancer early in life. Insurance isn't meant to pay for every little health problem that you might get. If you break your arm, or have treatable diabetes... these are just things that your family must pay out of pocket.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

 

 

Here's a good article by the CEO of Whole Foods on the healthcare issue, and his solution to fixing it, which I agree with wholeheartedly.

 

People live longer these days and the average woman has less children, so yes, this is an issue. Prices have increased put it certainly hasn't lead to a collapse of the system. As the government provides subsidies for those who can't afford the insurance costs, this doesn't affect people's lives as much as you might think.

 

The insurance does pay for all health problems generally speaking but it's not as simple as that. The insured person chooses their premium. The insurance only pays if your health costs exceed a certain amount. If you choose to go for a low premium this amount will of course be higher. This system works well well as your costs are not usually gonna exceed the set amount if you only have to see a doctor once or twice a month. Accidents are a completely different matter and they are covered by its own insurance.

 

As for the article I disagree with what it says about the UK. The NHS is by no means perfect but it is much better than the US system because everyone is able to get treatment. Illnesses aren't always self-inflicted. A lot of people lead a healthy lifestyle and get seriously ill nonetheless. Do you really that a system which leaves them without healthcare simply because they can't afford it is a good one?

Sally, explain this to me:

 

What incentive do doctors and hospitals have to lower the costs of their services, if they can be 100% assured that all patients who enter their doorway will have their bills paid in-full by the insurance company?

 

The only way costs come down is when doctors compete for patients. If there is a pool of patients that are incapable of paying high fees to visit a doctor (the poor), then does it make economic sense for the doctors to let them all suffer and perish? Or does it make more sense for the doctors to accept lower payment in order to get the customers?

This is the principle of Social Security here in America - the young pay for the old to be able to retire. But there's a problem with that, because any time the number of retirees starts to increase relative to the number of young workers, the taxes for the young must increase as well.

 

It works for a while, right. But eventually it collapses. Look up the term "Ponzi Scheme" to understand this better.

 

 

lol, I was gonna use that exact ponzi scheme analogy until I read your entire post, and saw you'd beaten me to it. Its kind of ironic since during the election Obama kept harping about the injustice of paying things on a credit card addressed to the next generation.

Sally, explain this to me:

 

What incentive do doctors and hospitals have to lower the costs of their services, if they can be 100% assured that all patients who enter their doorway will have their bills paid in-full by the insurance company?

 

The only way costs come down is when doctors compete for patients. If there is a pool of patients that are incapable of paying high fees to visit a doctor (the poor), then does it make economic sense for the doctors to let them all suffer and perish? Or does it make more sense for the doctors to accept lower payment in order to get the customers?

 

The insurance does not pay bills in full as I just tried to explain.

 

First of all this would mean that the poor don't get the same quality of healthcare. Don't you think that's wrong? I know this also happens in the UK or Switzerland but to a lesser extent. Our system at least aims to achieve this. The American system doesn't seem to work as a lot of poor people end up with poor quality or no healthcare.

 

Also insurances are private companies. It isn't in their interest to pay extremely high fees so they will usually have a list of doctors you will be able to see in your area.