What is the impact of Government intervention in a market economy and when is enough, enough?
Free markets are those in which consumers and producers make choices of their own without government intervention. Well functioning markets are those in which consumers and producers are receiving the maximum value for their trade, both parties equally benefit.
Adam Smith wrote in A Wealth of Nations: The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. It is in this quote that Smith endorsed markets free of excessive government regulation and requirements.
Recently the American economy has seen changes in what has been traditionally a private market, health care, show signs of a transition to deep government regulation and entanglement. By 2014 Americans will be required to carry medical insurance. Insurance companies can no longer exclude children with pre-existing conditions, a protection that will soon be carried over to adults. Premium credits will be given to families to help pay for increase cost of medical coverage as well as many additional regulations and requirements.
Is this a necessary change in your opinion? What are the opportunity cost of such changes? Who benefits and who is harmed? Using the provided links analyze the importance of the planned health care reform and discuss the economic impact of the changes. Remember that economist think on the margin, are the marginal benefits greater that the marginal cost? IS THIS A CASE IN WHICH GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION CAN IMPROVE MARKET OUTCOMES?
Video link – Harvard economist proposal for fixing healthcare
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/04/jeff-miron-on-healthcare.html
Summary of Health Reform Law
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf
Pros and Cons of Health Reform Law
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
Free markets are those in which consumers and producers make choices of their own without government intervention. Well functioning markets are those in which consumers and producers are receiving the maximum value for their trade, both parties equally benefit.
Adam Smith wrote in A Wealth of Nations: The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. It is in this quote that Smith endorsed markets free of excessive government regulation and requirements.
Recently the American economy has seen changes in what has been traditionally a private market, health care, show signs of a transition to deep government regulation and entanglement. By 2014 Americans will be required to carry medical insurance. Insurance companies can no longer exclude children with pre-existing conditions, a protection that will soon be carried over to adults. Premium credits will be given to families to help pay for increase cost of medical coverage as well as many additional regulations and requirements.
Is this a necessary change in your opinion? What are the opportunity cost of such changes? Who benefits and who is harmed? Using the provided links analyze the importance of the planned health care reform and discuss the economic impact of the changes. Remember that economist think on the margin, are the marginal benefits greater that the marginal cost? IS THIS A CASE IN WHICH GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION CAN IMPROVE MARKET OUTCOMES?
Video link – Harvard economist proposal for fixing healthcare
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/04/jeff-miron-on-healthcare.html
Summary of Health Reform Law
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf
Pros and Cons of Health Reform Law
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
69 comments:
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm shows that many who argue against government intervention are afraid of higher taxes, government scandals, and lower quality health care. These are all probable effects that more government regulation of our health care may have on the economy. I think that the Harvard professor was right even though he had very few specific details in his argument. He wants to fix health care by trashing the government aspect of it. Basically Medicare and Obamacare cost too much money and the benefits that they give are unevenly distributed. Cost of health care is also raised because of inefficiency.
It just doesn't make sense to have healthier people pay for health care that they don't need. It also doesn't make sense to pile up funds for selfish people to take advantage of.
Economically speaking, the new Healthcare Reform Bill will not help much. For one, it will only raise the national debt. "Free" healthcare for every American will only mean skyrocketing prices for which the government will need to pay. The bill tries to compensate for that by cutting back on Medicare and introducing new taxes. However, these will not stop the debt from rising, as the this bill will cover far more people than Medicare. Also, the taxes required to cover these costs would have to be so high that Congress would be hesitant to pass. The government should be focused on lowering the debt. and this bill flies in the face of that goal.
This bill also won't help market outcomes. With this bill will come higher taxes, meaning that Americans will pay more from their paychecks and thus would decrease their amount of spending money. Therefore, they will spend less money on goods. And since our economy is at its best when consumers are buying a lot of goods, the economy will suffer some because of this bill. Given our recent national economic position, we can't really afford any more setbacks. Pretty much the only ones that would benefit would be people in the medical field, since people would take advantage of "free" healthcare and get a lot of treatment, probably more than necessary.
As much as I would love to say that there should be free healthcare for everyone, indiscriminate of age, economic level, or previous health issues, this idea is simply impossible in today’s society. As Adam Smith proposes in his A Wealth of Nations, the final stage of a society would be a commercial society, where every man is free to trade as he sees fit and what would be of most value to himself. Healthcare reform would seem contradictory to this, however, as it threatens to force healthcare services upon citizens of a supposed capitalist America and eliminate choice in the matter. When the government begins to clench tighter control of American services, we move further from the epitomized commercial society described by Smith and the smallest step closer to the government-run society described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World.
But besides the ever-looming threat of our society becoming one of those seen in futuristic dystopian novels, there are other economic costs of healthcare which should be taken into account. By providing inexpensive healthcare to everyone, the value of the good would also be expected to decrease. This means that current healthcare companies would lose profits as they would need to compensate in order to stay competitive in the market. Of course, the everyday taxpayer would have to pay for it, too, because nothing can ever truly be ‘free’, and where people taking advantage of ‘free’ healthcare would not have to pay, taxes would be increased in order for America to afford check-ups and doctors’ visits for even the slightest of concerns.
Overall, healthcare reform simply is not right for America. There are too many people that would require government assistance, and not enough money to support them. One day in the future healthcare reform may have potential, but for now, with the economy and the deficit as they are, it does not seem to be logically beneficial.
-Kathleen Carroll
I wasn't surprised to see that most of the responses were against government health care as the resources we were given leaned drastically in favor of repealing it. As much as I love going against the majority, I would have to say I agree with everyone so far. First, health care is not in the least a necessary change. Health care is available to almost every full time employee that is a part of a major company. Ergo, people that work are the ones that have health care. This, I believe is rightfully so. I believe that you need to contribute to society in order to receive its benefits. Government health care will allow people to not work and get welfare, unemployment as well as healthcare. I understand that there are people that need this due to a chain of unfortunate events, but the working class, let alone the government cant afford this. It only seems to help the poor and hurts the working class. I believe this even being considered is utterly ridiculous.
The new Health Care Reform Bill would not be very successful. Taxes would increase and many people are struggling to pay taxes on their own as it is. Being Americans, we are used to being treated individually and pay for what we want or need. Many medical procedures people have done are optional, like plastic surgery. It would be unfair for everyone to have to pay a little more in the form of taxes to cover the cost of a procedure the patient could have done without. Although this is not always the case, I dont't think it is resonable for us to completely change our health care system. Universal health care works well for Canadians, but we aren't them. We want different things and have different ideas about what each individual is responsible for. They also have longer waits for medical care, which we would have to get used to.
I don't think people who are healthy should have to pay extra for medical care that they won't use. However, I do think that the new health care reform bill would help people be better about going to check- ups and minor doctors appointments becuase it wouldn't cost them up front and it could potentially help stop a sickness from becoming life threatening when it could have been taken care of sooner.
I do not think this is a necessary change. The Medicare and Medicaid systems that are already in place have increased our federal deficit, and this bill would only make it worse. Although the Harvard professor did not offer specific details, he made his case and I agree with him that Obamacare would only make the federal deficit worse. As I went through the summary of the Health Reform Law, I saw no reasonable way for the government to afford such a program without raising taxes immensely. The Pros and Cons of Healthcare article showed that over the years the costs of this program would grow as people would take advantage of the system. Also, the healthy will be paying taxes to help pay for the healthcare of those who don't take as good care of their bodies. I see no reason for this bill and our federal deficit will only grow larger because of it.
It's a shame this isn't a perfect world. Such as it is, people fail at taking care of people we produce. The healthcare issue is a vicious cycle of conundrums that complicate everything modern society is based on - taxes, credit/deficit, basically the economy as a whole. And as the country is floundering economically, and we could barely hold it together before the Healthcare Reform Bill, we are not advanced enough to handle taking care of our citizens day to day health. Throw in Kathleen's dystopian society views and the inefficiency problems of the reformed healthcare that Jacky pointed out, as well as the Healthcare in a Nutshell comparisons, and the answer to government intervention impact is major deficit. The US is not prepared to handle this responsibility- just rework the idea and try again in the future.
I have to say that I believe that we do need a health care reform. However, I don't think the reform proposed by Obama is what we need. Obviously, if we are going to be able to provide health care that is easily obtained, there will need to be some kind of tax or payment that each person must make. There is no such thing as "free". There is a price for everything.
I'm afraid that with this health care reform our economy will be driven into an economic hole. Especially with the added burdens of Medicare and Medicaid. I think we should just eliminate these two programs and perhaps redistribute their funding into perhaps education and setting up more health care facilities.
I don't know much about economics, but it does not take an expert to see this bill as poisonous to our economy. Someday when we have cleansed our government, increased efficiency, and have revived our economy perhaps we can think of reforms such as these.
All in all, we are not ready for this bill and it will require a lot of tweaking and refining before anyone could even consider it a helpful rather than hurtful reform. When costs outweigh the benefits in such matters, it's probably better to avoid this program.
(Insert two paragraphs going against obama-care)
After watching an extremely persuasive republican inform me about a topic that I know very little about, I now believe that that government intervention Can Not improve market outcomes. There is also the fact that Balancedpolitics.org has many more cons than pros for "obama-care". Finally, Cooper is against obama-care. That pretty much settles it. One aspect that I still have trouble with is the moral implications of not providing the best medical coverage for someone in need of it, but, like Niki said, "this isn't a perfect world."
I look forward to learning more about health care in AP Gov/Econ next year.
AJ Solomon
The results that will ensue if the new Healthcare Reform Bill is passed will be a dire consequence for the American public in the long run. Many well-off individuals will have to sacrifice their "norm" of healthcare and settle for less satisfactory doctors and probably less than ideal service. In a perfect scenario yes healthcare should be issued to everyone equally regardless but in a “dog eat dog” environment that has been established by the private enterprise of the country it will not stand.
Many will not be satisfied with lesser quality of healthcare than they think they are entitled to, to allow a few individuals who have not worked nearly as hard benefit to medical services. Those who make more, should get more. That thesis is what our entire country was founded on. It has worked for our people and now has become expected by the residents of America. Why change to conform to the ideas of a council of politicians?
In addition to sabotaging how Americans view and use healthcare, the government debt will surely increase to new heights. I thought we elected a president who had a vision of when our country would be out of debt. With this new bill passing this vision will not come anytime soon.
Only those who had no previous healthcare or very minimum will benefit from this government takeover. All others will surely suffer. Overall, the marginal costs of this expenditure are way greater than the benefits. Hardworking, law-abiding citizens will be put in the passenger seat to illegal immigrants and those who thrive off of these government handouts. In a country such as ours that runs on private enterprise, the power should be kept with the people and the government should not intervene at all in American Healthcare.
From what I've read, everyone else and I are on the same page. None of the sources seemed to provide a pro that outweighed the increases in cost to the government, taxes, and potential complications further down the road. I liked Jeff Miron's video, not only because I didn't have to read anything, but he worded his argument in a way I like. He called health care a good, and goods are purchased, not paid for by the government equally for everybody, regardless of whether or not the use of said good is equal among everybody. And it isn't like the government has a job. The free care comes from our taxes, and it isn't fair to have those who earn enough money to pay for their own health care to be forced to pay for over 45 million other accounts as well.
So I rechecked the postings and I guess for some reason my post was deleted...
Medicare, Obamacare and all other Healthcare costs more money than they are helpful. The wealthy class pays taxes on these programs they don’t need or even want and the lower poorer classes use it as an excuse to not work and still get their necessities from the government (this is a broad generalization as we all know not everyone in the lower levels of society plan to stay in that state of being). They are based for the lower class because the government feels it has to provide everything to those that don’t have very much. Honestly it isn’t fair for hard working Americans to shell out their hard earned dollar for a healthcare bill they don’t even support, well knowing their buck is helping pay for someone else’s medical bills.
Adam Smith's comments definitely outline what I think of the idea of government involvement in private enterprises. Creating programs that provide "free" healthcare is an idea that cannot become a reality.
A couple people here seem to think that these websites resources are slanted because they offer more evidence against "Obama-Care' than they do for it. It isn't because they're slanted, its simply becuase there ARE more cons than pros to this form of health care.
A reoccuring fear of this government take over is that the quality of health care will fall; a justified fear. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
"Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care."
For example, a doctor would have to call central or do a post checkup poll on their patients, on a national level. This increases the time the patient has to be in the room, and other people who might actually need treatment will be waiting in the ......waiting room.
Even world leaders realize that this form of government health care isn't helping the masses so much.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/02/02/canadian-premier-comes-to-u-s-for-health-care/
A Canadian Premier came to the U.S. for treatment. Now THATS trust in a system.
Or maybe there he just didn't enjoy the waiting list as much as we are going to, come 2014.
I'm not gonna lie, it's a bit boring when everyone's on the same side of the argument.
The "balanced politics" site does have more cons than pros on the subject of Obamacare but I think a lot of it's repetitive and composed of fallacies. I mean look at number 1 "There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?" and 5 "The health-care industry likely will become infused with the same kind of corruption, back-room dealing, and special-interest-dominated sleeze that is already prevalent in other areas of government." They're just making pessimistic assumptions. Haha... the lack of faith in humanity nowadays is a joke.
Anyways search the same video by the Harvard professor on youtube and look at bobmunger's comments "This video claims that the way to reduce health care costs is to reduce regulation. There are numerous countries with higher life expectancy than the USA with vastly lower health care costs/capita. Most of their health care systems would be labeled "socialist" in the USA. What I object to is the assertion that eliminating regulation will lower costs. You don't need a graduate degree in statistics to read the graphs on ezra klein's page or dean baker's." A "socialist" health care system could work depending on it's specifics but I don't think Americans would accept it.
I'm still against more regulation but I believe that there are multiple solutions for this problems. The problem is taking the time to craft one.
Universal Health Care will not improve market outcomes, because by assuring that everyone has health care, the government is cutting competition out of the business equation, therefore making the quality of our healthcare substandard.
Competition breeds better products. Take the DMV, for example. There's no competition to make a better DMV, because it's a government-run organization with abysmal wait times in a crowded waiting area. If there was a better alternative, we'd all go there to get permits and licenses. But there is no alternative, and so we have to settle for what the government gives us.
But we cannot just accept this lack of efficiency when it comes to healthcare. Eliminating competition and settling for the government's inefficient structuring should not be commonplace in the medical world.
I completely agree with Jeff Miron's thoughts about healthcare. It isn't a right, and expansion of healthcare will increase the deficit in the long term. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/04/jeff-miron-on-healthcare.html
The less government intervention, the better. The only people that should be covered by the government are the very poor. That's it. We've got to see the big picture here, and that means repealing Obamacare and shrinking our deficit.
After all, you might be able to deal with long wait times on your rare trips to the DMV, but when it comes to receiving urgent medical attention, long waits and a lack of efficiency is detrimental to public health.
Re: Jackie.
I agree. Where's the pro-Obamacare people? I want to know why Universal Healthcare got passed in the first place if there's so many cons.
The comment you found on Jeff Miron's video was very interesting. All the sources do have sources of bias, sure, but that's why their arguments are so effective.
Re: Kathleen.
I love how you brought in the Brave New World reference. Well played. After all, if we eliminate competition in the health care industry, we'll eventually be left with no better alternative but to rely on the government for health care. And I seriously doubt that the government can effectively handle something as complex and costly as healthcare.
I agree with this point you made 115%:
"Overall, healthcare reform simply is not right for America. There are too many people that would require government assistance, and not enough money to support them."
Well said.
Re: Kathleen
I like your literary references. Even though I don't think the government will take this much power in the US soon, I think these references show the worst possible outcomes if more laws are made like the health care bill.
Re: Caitlyn
What kind of health care reform do you think we need? Do you want to just eliminate Medicare and Medicaid? or do you have a your own proposal on how the government should be involved in healthcare? I understand that you are against Obamacare, but do you think the government should interfere in a different way or do you think that the government should get rid of the interference already in place?
The Government intervention in the topic of health care recently is a step in the right direction.
The study done by two students at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine shows that the United States is far behind in keeping its citizens safe from preventable causes of death (in comparison to other industrialized nations). The study can be found at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080108082944.htm.
The study found that 101,000 deaths from preventable disease could have been prevented if the United States had similar policy to the "top three" in the study. The US is actually ranked 19th. Out of 19 countries.
When has our country strayed from its principle and goal to "promote the general Welfare?" (Source: UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION). Our country's current health care climate could be more accurately described as promoting the "generally well off."
When researching the subject (which, it seems, most of the posters have not done much of, or at least are not citing their research), I found that the Human Development Index seemed to increase as the government became increasingly helpful in the realm of health care. Countries such as Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, and Canada, which utilize a "Single Payer" system, which essentially provides health care for the entire population, generally rank higher than the United States in the Human Development Index (see sources http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/ and http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hum_dev_ind-economy-human-development-index for details).
While the economy would not likely take a turn for the better, we would have 101,000 more people to fight through the economic depression with us if we were to increase our country's health care system.
Though it makes for boring reading, I too am against Obamacare. I don't see that it makes the system any more effective, so why change it?
Firstly, Obamacare takes away a lot of people's ability to make decisions. It forces all to purchase healthcare. What if a person is healthy and they don't feel the need to buy healthcare they don't think they are going to use? Why force them to? That takes away their decision. Also, as shown in the Undercover Economist, Ch. 5, forcing even the healthy people to buy packaged health care simply results in wasteful spending. Obamacare would also decrease treatment options and flexibility for the patient, and decrease private practice options for doctors [http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm].
Listed in the pros of universal healthcare is the statement that "Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine..." I disagree with this statement. I think a "free" system would discourage preventive medicine. Again, from the Undercover Economist, Harford says that "if you compensate people when bad things happen to them, they may get careless." True, there will be some who will be more cautious with a free system, but there will still be those who will throw caution to the wind, because why bother with precaution when you can get treated later?
A repeal of Obamacare would not mean the poor would not receive healthcare at all. It would make healthcare less expensive, but less expensive for who? The wealthier will be forced to pay more taxes, supporting the poor, but receive less with their healthcare. I agree with Austin that people who contribute more should receive more; those who work hard should reap the benefits.
I do not believe the benefits outweigh the costs. Though the healthcare system can be reformed, I don't think this is the way to do it.
Re: Taylor
I'm not sure what's best as a health care reform goes. I obviously believe that every person needs health care. It doesn't matter if you're a bum on the street or a hard working middle class civilian that can afford to pay for their own insurance. Every person deserves health care. As many people as possible need to be taken care of. This is a first world country and if we can't give everyone the opportunity for health care, then do we really deserve to be called a first world country? I'm not sure what system would work best or if there should be any government interference.
I honestly don't think, in response to the views that too much government regulation in this area could generate a dystopia, that it could go that far. It's just health care y'all. The government is not going to start dictating and regulating every single aspect of our lives if a reform is put out. If it was going to do that, it probably already could have.
Medicare and Medicaid is a huge drain on our funds and I think if we eliminated these programs and put the money towards health care for all people, not just specific groups, it'd be better and fairer for the people. Instead of our tax money going only towards the elderly or disabled, more people would have benefits from what we pay.
Re: Rob
Hey! :)
You agreed that health care is a good and all that. It's hard for me to think about that as a good.
Say a person needed a life saving surgery. But they can't afford the treatment that was suggested because they are unemployed at the moment and don't have insurance yet they are in fact hard working. They cant help the tough situation they are in. So they don't get the surgery done and they die. All those who care for this person are now affected and grieving. They NEEDED the health care yet they could not get it.
You referred to it as a good. In this situation it's not just a good. It's something that can mean life or death. This is how I see it and this is why I think it's necessary for everyone to get health care, one way or another. I cant think of it as just another product that's purchased by people who can afford it.
The more I think about it, the more I think we need a health care reform. Just because, like the comment that Jackie shared with us said, a system could be looked upon as "socialist" doesn't mean that it should be discarded. It could be good for us. I may not agree so far with the reforms Obamacare puts forth but I definitely think there needs to be reform. I think if the health care bill was revised and edited, it'd be a very good thing. Let's look at some of the "socialist" programs in other countries that are in reality effective and model a system based on those. In the end, I think I'm becoming pro government regulations for health care.
Healthcare is an expensive beast in its nature. Our current health care system is simply to expensive for America. Ombacare will most likely be just as expensive if not more expensive for the Government and the people then the current system. It will benefit Healthcare professionals who will most likely have more patients, because more people would have healthcare. As result everyone will be paying higher taxes. High taxes without larger paychecks will only led more debt. No the reform is not the correct direction for our nation to move in, but maybe reform or removing healthcare form the Government.
Ok... I've got a problem. Can anyone explain to me why my posts always disappear after I post them?
Guess I have to repost what I wrote again.
As was correctly stated by the Professor from Havard, the government should have no role in the management of Healthcare. Something of this sensitivity is best left up to the consumer, who is capable of making such a decision as best fits them.
The program at hand is basically a cure-all solution that America's lawmakers think will somehow work. The problem is, of course, that the risks and costs associated with such a plan would far out weigh the risks. The government seeks to put its hands in where they don't belong, wuite frankly.
As Adam Smith stated in A Wealth of Nations, a private business is ultimately good for everybody. So long as it remains functional and efficient, it will prosper and the resulting prosperity will affect those who rely on it. When government cracks down on a healthy industry, its essentially equivalent to someone throwing a wrench into a well-oiled machine. Government bureaucrats are no more businesspeople than businesspeople are bureaucrats. Neither belongs in the other's realm, and yet when they two do swap place,s the only thing that comes as a result is chaos.
In fact, in my own honest opinion, any government intervention into the private sector is bad to begin with. It quite simply doesn't belong, and in the continuing analogy, no less than a fish belongs on land. The Insurance Industry does not, nor should not be subsidized. The real culprit are the doctors... but ultimately the insane prices we pay come down to the unhappy paitients who try to sue them.
In an article by TIME Moneyland*, the leading cause for increased medical bills is medical malpractice insurance and, subsequently, payouts to medical malpractice victims. As of current, there are currently few if any rules or guidelines governing such cases. Yet, such cases are the penultimate cause of the healthcare woes we have. How about we take a radical step then tyo rectify the problem? Instead of thinking short-term, as the socialized healthcare program unfortunately does, why not save yourself the time and perhaps trillions of dollars down the road by simply rewritting the legal codes? Between you and me, I think such an action's been needing to happen since about 1900.
The thing is, government intervention into an arena other than statecraft only serves to generate more problems. Solutions should fix issues, not create more. Limited regulation is good, but more often than not, even the most basic of controls only makes situations more problematic and expensive, whilst barely patching up the problem they sought to fix. Government intervention, quite frankly, simply functions the wrench thrown into the machine.
*http://moneyland.time.com/2010/02/25/why-is-health-care-so-expensive-let-us-count-the-conspirators/
In my opinion, being required to carry medical insurance can be good but it can also be bad. It really depends on how the person thinks. How can being required to carry medical insurance be good? Well,you never know when you will be sick or anything happens to your body all of a sudden.For example,sudden heart attack.Even though a person is healthy,anything can happen. If you are having a sudden heart attack,you might or might not need a surgery.However,why not carrying medical insurance just in case? The person that is carrying medical insurance is always benefited, then why not carrying it?
There is also a reason for people that believe they do not need medical insurance. Even though it is a good thing to carry a medical insurance,some people might not be able to afford it. Maybe,people think that it is not necessary to have medical insurance because they don't really use/need them. Then why not saving up those money for medical insurance on something else? Not everyone can afford it, especially under this bad economy. Using those money that was originally for medical insurance on other stuff can be very useful for those people.
I believe that it will not improve market outcomes, because it is related to healthcare and healthcare is something that everyone must need.It shouldn't be involved with the government at all(as trying to improve the market outcomes).
Changing the health care system seems like a giant waste of time. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the way it is run now. By giving every single American health insurance without discriminating based on how healthy they are, we have to pay to help the smokers get treatment for their lung conditions, the ones they brought on themselves and we just end up paying for less responsible peoples health care ourselves. It doesn't seem very cost effective either since now people are going to seek medical attention for every little thing and of course all the hypochondriacs will just be loving this opportunity to abuse the power they will have to continuously seek medical attention they don't need. This will just result increased taxes for Americans and probably an increased debt for the country
last comment was Lauryn Rasimas
RE: Mitch
What you mentioned about being able to save 101,000 lives is probably the biggest reason to support national healthcare. People obviously want to save as many people as possible, especially when it seems like they die because of something that is easily preventable. Unfortunately, though, I just don't see how it could be economically feasible right now. The nation needs to recover economically before it can think about this kind of thing.
Re: Taylor
I definitely agree with you about how the federal deficit will increase because of this bill. It also relies heavily on people paying taxes. Nearly half of American households (47%)don't pay taxes anyway, so they unfortunate other half of Americans will end up having a very large increase in their taxes.(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html)
The Pros and Cons of Health Reform Law definitely had way more cons than pros and I felt that all were totally valid and legitament fears of what would happen.
Re: sarahwong
I like your paragraph about how carrying medical insurance can be benificial. I never thought about how it would help if there was an emergency. It would definitely help people who are caring for the person after the emergency and allow them to put there full attention toward helping the person recover rather than worrying about the medical insurance, especially if the person needed to go in an ambulence or something. I still think that carrying medical insurance would only be benifical in some ways, but overall it will be really expensive and cost people more money, while only really helping some.
Re: Caitlyn
From what I read that you wrote, you believe that Medicare and Medicaid should be abolished and a new system that applies to more people should be put in place. Would this system be funded by higher taxes? Also, Medicare and Medicaid have contirubuted to the federal deficit. How would this new system not plunge us further in debt?
Re: Mitch
I agree that we need to save as many lives as possible, but why does the government have to step in? Our country's economy will only grow worse as we go further in debt due to health care. We are suppossed to look at this issue from an economic view instead of a humanitarian view. I suggest that we don't allow the government to worsen our economy by intervening in health care but instead, the people can help each other though non-profit organizations. This way people are still helped without the federal deficit growing.
I, for one, seriously doubt that any good can come from government regulation of healthcare. I agree with Cooper when he said it will only increase the debt. That is, economically speaking, the last thing we need as we near default on our loans. Nothing is ever free. "Free" healthcare will need to be paid for, which will ultimately be the government's expense. This increased spending will either raise taxes, increase our national debt, or both.
I've seen this said in other posts, and I agree with it wholeheartedly: higher taxes lessen the amount of spending money that the populace has, which from a market standpoint WILL NOT help us any and will ultimately lead to more economic stagnation.
Overall, this Healthcare Reform Bill is not in the country's best interests; our government would be too big and be spread too thin.
This will lead to worse things...
RE Caitlyn Burns:
I completely agree on what you said about the need for reform. Obamacare is not, in my opinion, what will accomplish this. This version of healthcare reform was a knee-jerk response. Rash actions only lead to chaos...
RE Connor Mullins:
Your post begs the question: what are the numerous cons that outweigh the pros (I'm sure BalancedPolitics.org alludes to them directly and/or indirectly--I honestly have not gotten the opportunity to read from this particular link)? Where I agree Cooper is a brilliant individual, basing your claims on this fact alone is a weak argument (although, I'm sure you were using this as a compliment/joke)... ;) ...Remember the rhetoric!
You do have a point when you bring up the moral ramifications of this Healthcare Reform Bill. I agree with the adage that this is not a perfect world. There is never one perfect way to perfectly solve problems, whether it's healthcare or war or the economy. We can only hope our government makes the right decision based on the circumstances. We need to balance humanitarian concerns with the logistics of the matter. People look to America for leadership; frivolous spending like with Obamacare does not put us in a good light. We're also looked at as the land of opportunity and better conditions...people come to us for healthcare. This whole matter is double-edged sword.
Re: Lauryn
I would largely agree with you. The health system as it is right now does not nor should not be fixed. The underlying causes of healthcare prices should be however. We do not need a system in which all of healthy America supports the habits of unhealthy America with their taxes.
Re: Jacky Chen
I think your comment on a 'lack of faith in humanity' is funny because on the contrary, it's my complete and utter faith in humanity to act in human ways that causes me to agree with what you evidently seem to disagree with. Call me a pessimist (because let's be honest, that's what this whole thing is making me sound like), but I believe it is the very nature of humans to act in their own self-interest, frequently regardless of the consequences for other people. When the website is referring to "corruption, back-room dealing, and special-interest-dominated sleeze," they're referring to all the ways a person in power will alter an organization to suit their own needs and desires. And you may be looking at the bright side of things (and by all means, go ahead and do so—it's probably better for the soul anyway), but that doesn't mean one can be ignorant to the fact that it happens quite regularly every day. So yes, the website may be making assumptions, but you can't say they're not at all baseless. Humans will be humans, and if you give a human power, they'll do what they want with it.
Re: Caitlyn Burns Re: Rob Dale?
I think healthcare is tricky to define as a good or a service, because in many ways it is both. Drugs administered could be considered a good, but having surgery performed would likely be a service. But that's not really the point I wanted to address.
What I did want to address was Caitlyn's argument about how healthcare would save lives, and so it's not right to deny it to people. The thing is, if we're going to argue that there should be no cost to a life (which, don't get me wrong, I love life and would totally not put a price on it, but there's still an argument to be had), then should we not take into account other deaths all over the world? If we're going to say, "America needs healthcare, because healthcare saves lives," shouldn't we also say, "America needs to interfere in wars abroad, because interfering with wars abroad saves lives"? Why is an American life worth more than a life in the Congo or in the Ivory Coast? But, of course, we can't save all those lives, because interfering to save every human on this earth would leave America bankrupt. Of course we want everyone to live happily, healthily, and comfortably, but how much can we sacrifice to achieve that?
Re:Sarah Yuen
I liked the point you brought up about forcing people to buy health care. You're totally right, why should people who don't want to spend the money on it have health care forced upon it. It seems to limit their rights and freedoms which is wrong. What gives Obama the power to do that?
ugh...last comment was Lauryn Rasimas
LAURYN RASIMAS
Re: Austin Kopas
I agree that people who contribute to society are the ones who should reap it's benefits. Although not every persons job offers health care benefits, generally a with the exception of some of the poorer citizens working people can afford their own health care. So it seems like only a small portion of the population will be benefited from health care reform.
Re: Mitch
I agree that we should be saving as many lives as possible, but at what cost? Saving lives does not mean the government must step in. There are other ways to fix the situation. From 2000 to 2005, the economy has increased the amount spent per individual on healthcare from $4,790 to $6,697. [http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670.pdf] So government involvement has increased somewhat over the years, but what improvements have we seen? We are still here looking for more reform, and even more government involvement.
Re: Kathleen Re: Jacky Chen
Sadly, I agree with you Kathleen about the fact that as humans we are selfish and act in self interest rather than for others. Looking at our own arguments here, mine included, many of us believe that taxes shouldn't be raised on the hard-working to help support the poor. Is it safe to assume that most of our parents are hardworking, and pretty well off? Of course we are going to say that we don't want a change in healthcare, for at the moment we are well off with the system as it is. But it would be interesting if we were put into the shoes of those not so well off. I still agree with Austin and Lauryn, that the hardworking should reap the benefits, but I also believe that those who are poorer and cannot afford health insurance should have the opportunity to be protected should the worst happen. Government intervention just doesn't seem to be the way to do it.
Re: AJ
I agree! We live in a capitalist society where we were raised to believe that you have to work to earn perks in your life, and paying for health care, although it sounds harsh, is how it should be, at least here. Ideally, we would be able to provide the benefits to everyone that needed it similar to how we provide unemployment and welfare checks, but the capital required for such an undertaking would be far too much to spend every year. After all, social security killed itself. Imagine how much we'd be throwing at hospitals if the goverment had to pay everyone's medical bills
Re: Taylor
Like I said I'm not sure what's best for the country. All I know is that those two programs waste a lot of money and if a different system could be designed that could help more people then why not do it? We already pay taxes for that so why not take away those and pay for the new one that covers more people?
Re: Kathleen
You can't really compare this situation to interfering in a war. Yes it may save some lives but unfortunately there would be the loss of life. Our troops would be in danger.
With health care reform, we aren't putting people in a war zone, endangering their lives. It doesn't endanger lives to reform the way we give coverage to the people. And if it is done right, we help people.
Re: Kathleen Re: Caitlyn Re: Me
Woot for reply trains!
Kathleen made a good point. It's both. But it's not something that we can just give to everybody. And the surgery would still be given, it's illegal to deny medical care to someone without health care. I'm sure there's some reserve of tax money somewhere for emergency, life-or-death treatment, but not "I don't feel so good let's spend $300 dollars to find out I have a cold" money. After reading Caitlyn's comment though, I've kind of changed my outlook. There should be, if there is not already, a reserve (which would likely still be very expensive, but less so than the 'free' health care) for emergency treatment of people without health care. They shouldn't die because they don't have it, but at the same time they shouldn't get the same perks that people have worked especially hard to earn.
Re: people
Read this site http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx
It's got a pie graph of costs, reasons for increasing cost of healthcare, and major progressive proposals.
An interesting fact I found was "it is estimated that health care costs for chronic disease treatment account for over 75% of national health expenditures." That means people who have ongoing illnesses or are just old are the anchor pulling us down. This isn't nice at all but it's just something to ponder.
Also if you look at reasons for increases in cost of medical care, "spending on new medical technology and prescription drugs has been cited as a leading contributor to the increase in overall health spending," but how much do all these new drugs and instruments cost to produce? That's just the problem, we have no idea. A pill that could be produced for 10 or 15 cents could be being sold to us for 10 or 15 dollars. Unlike products like TV's, we have very little understanding of what goes into making drugs so we are left in the dark in that aspect.
Also, I want to bring up a 2nd hand account of something a doctor said. A family friend had a conversation with her doctor about which drugs they choose and how they choose them. (By the way, doctors basically have their hands tied with all the regulations behind the curtain or at least that's what I've learned through multiple friends.) The doctor told her that cost is a great factor right next to effectiveness. So to make more money, they would sell you more expensive money. Then your insurance hurts. Unnecessary things like this can be eliminated and costs could be lowered. So in reality we don't even know how much health care has the potential to be lowered to. With some trimming and streamlining, a trustworthy organization could find out but we just don't trust the government I guess.
Re: Kathleen
Haha, that is an interesting way to look at it. I just looked over the fact that faith could be put into negative actions. I guess if you wanted to, you could cite "the Prince" where he has no faith in people when they need to be faithful and that's why he would rather be feared. This is a problem though. If we can't fix it there will NEVER be an end to world hunger, poverty, war, and just general violence and problems. I know that asking for change on an individual level is insane but all great things have humble beginnings.
Re: LAURYN RASIMAS
Health care is not offered to many businesses, you may be right about that but there are other way of obtaining it and maneuvering around that. First of all, I'd like to point out that my own job offers health care, and when looking at the information it actually was quite inexpensive. Even the family plans, although limited, were very interesting. So my point it if health care is something you find important you could aim for jobs that carry plans, it would be the same as taking a job that doesn't pay at all and then complaining about the pay. It doesn't make sense.
Robbert Dale,
I could not agree more that the video made the most sense and was very easy to...well, not read. I also agree with you about the taxes part of health care. It doesn't make sense for the government to force us to pay for something we don't want. This may be extreme, but this does near us toward socialism, where everybody's money is shared. I believe in freedom, where I can donate to charity if I want people to have health care.
Re: Cooper Lewis
"Pretty much the only ones that would benefit would be people in the medical field, since people would take advantage of "free" healthcare and get a lot of treatment, probably more than necessary."
I somewhat agreed with you. However, people in the medical field aren't the ones that are benefited. Patients with "free" healthcare are benefited also. Yes,your right. They might get a lot of treatment and more than necessary,but in those "unnecessary" treatments,im sure that they would actually need them. So, people that have "free" healthcare and people in the medical field are both benefited.
RE: Jacky Chen
I also agree with you and Amy Suto that it is ridiculous in the fact that if there is so much apposition to the Universal Healthcare and Obamacare why are they being passed in the first place? I think it might be due to most people being naïve in hoping that some “white knight” will save everyone from the woes that is going to soon constrict social security and now healthcare. They have hope that it will be fixed for them so they themselves do not have to deal with the very problems themselves. It may sound pessimistic as Kathleen has stated earlier but it is the truth. It is hard to find hope and light in a situation that is being controlled by people who are not knowledgeable in the area but are instead power hungry for any type of position. In my opinion the whole system will need to be eventually revamped to where the evil of some government officials can be weeded out and not allowed back into power.
Re:Mitch Re:Jacky
I looked at your links and would have to agree with your argument, and put the whole economy issue aside, because as Jacky pointed out, the economy would suffer only because everything is based off of ridiculously high profit goals and legal hand-tying to reach them. So I disagree with Cooper, and being enlightened, change my idea from my initial argument, although actually doing the streamlining of healthcare would take some serious groundbreaking people. Way to go guys, changing minds with real knowledge.
RE: Rob Dale
I enjoyed your solution on how the people that need healthcare the most but cant afford should be able to have some benefits. How we provide for unemployment and welfare is probably the best way we should be dealing with handing out healthcare to the less fortunate. There probably should be some paper work with background checks to ensure that the people that really need it, do get help. Otherwise the system would get over run and fuel more fire to debt that is encompassing the country. It may sound ridiculous and an over the top procedure to give away healthcare benefits but it seems to be the only safeguard so it isn’t taken advantage of. Do not get me wrong, I am not an inhumane person so I believe everyone has the right to live but I also do not like to be swindled by my government officials that were elected to deal with this situation responsibly. It almost seems too late to deal with this situation so it can be catered to everyone. At this point some cuts will need to be made somewhere to save the ship that is America’s Healthcare.
Re:Jacky and people
That fact of older people weighing the system down is unfortunately true, yes. And I would say that calls for another Brave New World reference.
Also, (people) I think it is somewhat unrealistic to say that if the government regulated and enforced universal health care, quality of care would fall, because the government is not forcing everyone to chose the same company for health care, so there would still be competition, and the progresses made to reduce the economic issues of the matter; and, for the less corrupt companies and government funded researchers, there would be incentives to create new technologies and medicine to decrease the weight of chronic diseases and illnesses associated with older people. There would still be competition to be better, because what person wants to pay more for less, when they can get a better deal elsewhere? So the arguments based on lack of competition are invalid, based on the current reform idea of everyone having health insurance - it is NOT everyone have health insurance from this one certain company. (look at Mitch's links or the original question links).
Re: Caitlyn
If a program is made to help more people, then won't it cost more and we'll have to raise taxes more? The more people that benefit from the government program, the more it will cost.
Re:Allie
Thanks!!! I totally agree that the system will end up with middle and upper class Americans paying for insurance that doesn't add anything to what they have now while also paying for the insurance of others. And thanks for looking at this economically still. Others seem to be saying that health care is a right and that we should help people, which doesn't apply to economics. That's a whole other debate.
Re: Kathleen
I entirely agree with your argument. Human beings are entirely and innately selfish by nature. We seek only to benefit ourselves, and even those close to us we seek advantage over. For those of us with syblings, how often do we find ourselves in some sort of competition with them? Our very nature is based off of the fight for survival, and in the end, if you can't be on top, you're on the bottom.
Yeah but Ryne, this sibling rivalry you refer to does not stay accurate for the united states and the American people. The siblings that are worse off look to mommy and daddy (the goverment) for support and hold their hands out to whatever they want. Healthcare is something that the government wants to provide for the people that are not very well off. And it seems that the siblings that can hold themselves to a higher standard aren't recognized by their parents, and they feel like their hard work isn't appreciated.
Re: Kopas
I think your comment on these programs being a form of socialism was spot on. Surely this wasn't the purpose of our governemnt. They merely wanted to find excuses to use the wealthy tax dollars for insanely expensive healthcare programs that hardly have any beneficial outcomes. You must try to understand our government is one that believes the people are unable to provide for themselves or make rational desicions, so it takes from the wealthy- to make sure they don't spend their money poorly- and give it to the poor- through welfare, healthcare etc etc.
^^little more sarcastic than I planned...
Re: kmow32 Re: Ryne
Alright, I'm confused. We were initially talking about how human nature causes corruption in society, but you seem to have taken that analogy and used it to describe the entire system in general, which is fine. What I'm confused about is that you seem to be disagreeing with what Ryne said while concurrently making an entirely valid argument against the healthcare reforms, which is the side Ryne and I took. But maybe I'm just reading it wrong and causing a lot more confusion than there should be.
Anyway, I think I agree with the analogy, so long as I'm understanding it correctly. From my experience as one of four children in a family, the kids who need help wind up going to the parents for support even as adults, because they've been so spoiled from having things handed to them that they never fully cut the umbilical cord. On the other hand, the children who have made their own way through life never need the constant support of the parents, and as they grow independent they also find themselves neglected the same kind of attention that the 'needier' children have. I think that's pretty relative to one of the points made on the pros and cons list given to us: if the government gives free healthcare to its citizens, they will never be able to take it back because too many people will view it as the government getting rid of their right to healthcare, even if this so-called 'right' never existed in the past.
Re: Amy
I agreed with you. Yes, there is no alternative, so we have to follow what the government give us. We have no control if we can choose to carry medical insurance or not.Therefore, we have to do what the government tells us to do.
RE: Cooper/Sarah/Taylor
I recognize that the reform I have mentioned would cost the country many millions. The rigid privatization of the health care industry is a large contributor to this, however. Anyone who has had to spend a night in the hospital quickly realizes how devastating these fees could be to a lower-income family.
Just the night in the hospital usually costs over 1,000 per night (Approx, no time for sources, i'll be back with them). How is a family with an ANNUAL income of 18,000$ supposed to do this? The reform of the entire industry would cheapen such outlandish costs.
Every day, people are rolling the dice, hoping that they don't have an unpreventable injury that turns their lives upside down. This is plain wrong. Nobody could take advantage of this system in a great way, because he or she would have to hurt himself to do so.
Re: kaacarroll/Ryne
I initially thought that Ryne was trying to connect the analogy of sibling rivalries to the bigger picture of things, but i didnt really understand he was building off of your comment. Hence the disagreement in the first part of my previous posting, which didn't really make any sense. So I apoligize for that. Now that I have re-read the earlier conversation between you two, I agree with your arguments and analogies. Sorry for the mix up!
Post a Comment