Rand Paul headed to Canada for hernia surgery (1 Viewer)

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
45,235
Reaction score
17,886
Online

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,952
Reaction score
8,647
Offline
It’s also functionally impractical.

Do these self segregated communities somehow manage to regulate the air that travels between them? The people engaging in everyday commerce? Or as you say, what about those that feel another way but still rather live in the opposite community?
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
42,874
Reaction score
35,564
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online
And Canada has universal health care. And none of the boogyman fallacies that you are parroting here have happened.

As you were so happy to point out, Paul is going to a private hospital that anyone can go to. And you can pay your own way or let your government funded health care pay your bill for you.
And that hospital is relatively cheap, because they get so much funding from the Canadian and Ontario governments.

Notice how they don't gouge anyone at $10k/day or so.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,952
Reaction score
8,647
Offline
You are over-simplifying and creating a false arguement. The basis of the Libertarian arguement is that you use FORCE to extort money from one, to provide services for another. It also LIMITS the free market, creating more government interference in the market, and reduces resources and raises costs.

...and increased costs is what people complain the most about. So adding more government to fix a problem CREATED BY GOVERNMENT is borderline schizophrenia.
TBH you are the one over-simplifying a complex economic situation. Along with making a number of assertions that don't exactly hold up under scrutiny.

Healthcare economics is not some binary phenomenon where more government automatically means more costs and less government means more innovation and more efficiency. In fact it is often the opposite in many respects, Or at a minimum not at all black and white as your framing suggests. That without intervention, regulation, or subsidization, the market risks failure. As time and again examples have shown that without intervention, healthcare markets are very prone to market failures. Take a look at the case of Martin Shkreli or the recent Epi-pen fiasco as an example where without government intervention you are going to get a lot of undesirable outcomes.

Furthermore there is not an example on Earth you can point to where the unregulated market managed to produce a cost efficient healthcare system that manages to maintain the same or better levels of overall social health(something intrinsically tied to economic productivity and capacity) and managed to produce more comprehensive coverage to a larger percentage of the population while maintaining innovation and outcomes. Which is something as a libertarian you are going to have to confront.
 
OP
OP
DavidM

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
45,235
Reaction score
17,886
Online
Furthermore there is not an example on Earth you can point to where the unregulated market managed to produce a cost efficient healthcare system that manages to maintain the same or better levels of overall social health(something intrinsically tied to economic productivity and capacity) and managed to produce more comprehensive coverage to a larger percentage of the population while maintaining innovation and outcomes. Which is something as a libertarian you are going to have to confront.
I've not seen evidence among devout libertarians that outcomes hold importance over principles, so I don't believe that efficient, quality care is a requisite goal. If it happens, fine, but more importantly, people should be *free* within a narrow, libertarian definition of what that means, even if that existence is harmed by greed.

You might not be able to afford quality health care, but there's no government stealing your money, so you're free! Great, huh?!
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,952
Reaction score
8,647
Offline
I've not seen evidence among devout libertarians that outcomes hold importance over principles, so I don't believe that efficient, quality care is a requisite goal. If it happens, fine, but more importantly, people should be *free* within a narrow, libertarian definition of what that means, even if that existence is harmed by greed.

You might not be able to afford quality health care, but there's no government stealing your money, so you're free! Great, huh?!
Which I can accept. I'll point out it's inherent flaws but as long as it isn't relying on a false set of assertions about matters of fact, fair enough.

It's when libertarians start trying to make the argument that their philosophy also = greater cost efficiency, greater market efficeincy, and that only getting government out the way is going to fix it. That's when I feel the need to step in and push back. Because one it's just lazy economics and two, it's not true.
 
OP
OP
DavidM

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
45,235
Reaction score
17,886
Online
Which I can accept. I'll point out it's inherent flaws but as long as it isn't relying on a false set of assertions about matters of fact, fair enough.

It's when libertarians start trying to make the argument that their philosophy also = greater cost efficiency, greater market efficeincy, and that only getting government out the way is going to fix it. That's when I feel the need to step in and push back. Because one it's just lazy economics and two, it's not true.
Oh, I'm there with you, I've just never been left with the impression that any of that really actually matters.
 

onthurdays

All-Pro
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
544
Age
36
Offline
TBH you are the one over-simplifying a complex economic situation. Along with making a number of assertions that don't exactly hold up under scrutiny.

Healthcare economics is not some binary phenomenon where more government automatically means more costs and less government means more innovation and more efficiency. In fact it is often the opposite in many respects, Or at a minimum not at all black and white as your framing suggests. That without intervention, regulation, or subsidization, the market risks failure. As time and again examples have shown that without intervention, healthcare markets are very prone to market failures. Take a look at the case of Martin Shkreli or the recent Epi-pen fiasco as an example where without government intervention you are going to get a lot of undesirable outcomes.

Furthermore there is not an example on Earth you can point to where the unregulated market managed to produce a cost efficient healthcare system that manages to maintain the same or better levels of overall social health(something intrinsically tied to economic productivity and capacity) and managed to produce more comprehensive coverage to a larger percentage of the population while maintaining innovation and outcomes. Which is something as a libertarian you are going to have to confront.

How bout the much less regulated lazik surgeries. Prices are advertised and they continue to drop. Completely oppsosite of other regulated insured surgeries and health care.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
17,621
Offline
In the sense that health care used to not be nearly as expensive, and the more the federal government has gotten involved in the issue, the more expensive it has gotten.
That’s not a definition of the term government.
 

SharonT

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 1, 1997
Messages
25,873
Reaction score
5,270
Location
Louisiana
Offline
In the sense that health care used to not be nearly as expensive, and the more the federal government has gotten involved in the issue, the more expensive it has gotten.
There is some truth to this.

Look at the regulations, and the personnel and systems needed to comply with these new regulations. (remember that thread by a dentist on SR needing to update office network, etc?)

Now look at all the middlemen in between your care, and your doctor's paycheck. It's a huge industry of bloat that's squeezing out profit at every turn.

Do you think those in the middle want to give up that cash cow? No, they hire lobbyists, posed as politicians to pass legislation to squeeze out more. :covri:
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

Headlines

Top Bottom