Okay, I wanted to see if anyone else had something to say before I attempted to argue my piece.
<!-Quote-!>Quote:The boomers have been driving up demand for services for a generation. Thus, the pressure on the supply side driving up costs. Simple economics. Demand rises, prices rise.
Further complicating the math is the fact that more and more of the young and healthy are forgoing coverage as policy costs rise. Thus the costs are being spread over a smaller base of policy holders. Prices rise again.
I know its hard to accept that the market does not provide for a solution to the problem that will be socially palatable for our society, but there you have it. The market does not care about social equity or morality of any kind.
Those values are the responsibility of society as expressed through our political system and government. Taxation, by its very nature, is about redistribution of resources. It will be used to address our health care shortage and it makes sense to do so.
Collective purchasing power helps to control costs. The insurance and healthcare industries may scream bloody murder about it, but those are market forces at work. Just in favor of the consumer in this case.
We may temporize ad nauseum about how demand should be reduced by lifestyle changes, but what freedom do you value most?
A little higher taxes or Big Brother, Government or Business, playing nanny and forcing you to eat, sleep, breathe, exercise, etc. according to their agenda?<!-/Quote-!>
Okay, you made the good point about demand rising => prices rising and a good point about people forgoing coverage as prices rise. This would naturally make coverage for those that need it more expensive. However, you
also make the point that "society" should be rosponsible for controlling costs through government . . . and you also made the point that we could argue about how demand can be reduced by lifestyle change and compared that to a nanny state. Now, here is the twofold implicit meaning of your points:
1. By your own expression, "redistribution of resources," along with previous statements, you seem to partially acknowledge what "society's" solution entails: namely, it means the healthy paying for the sick. It means those with money paying for those without money. At this point, I'm just going to say that you shouldn't forget this. This isn't "society" paying for "society". This is one group of individuals paying for another group. You mention "collective purchasing" helping control costs. Whose costs are being "controlled," the cost of the sick or the cost of the healthy. The answer is invariably the former and not the latter.
Why should the healthy be mandated to pay for the sick?
2. Now, we arrive at the second implicit point found in the idea that arguing for reduction in demand is tantamount to a nanny state controlling your decisions. Taking this allegation seriously (not as rhetoric), we look at the assertion that the choice is between higher taxes and a nanny state. I ask, "is the alternative to higher taxes a nanny state?" The answer I invariably come to is No for three reasons. First, the market cannot and does not prevent you from eating unhealthily, not being careful, drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc. The absence of resource redistribution does not imply any behavior enforcement. Second, the consequences of the aforementioned behaviors are INEVITABLE. No amount of resource redistribution can prevent someone from developing cancer from smoking OR diabetes from obesity/high-sugar OR cirrhosis from drinking, etc. Third, the absence of resource redistribution does leave everyone on their own with dealing with these circumstances. This was your point. This is also not a nanny state. "There is freedom in choices, but there is never freedom in consequences. Therefore, if you would have good consequences, you must make good choices." This is a paraphrase of a little aphorism that I was taught as a little boy. This concept is absolutely essential for differentiating between a nanny state and the lack of resource redistribution. You CANNOT escape the consequences of your choices. This is not
control, this is a fact of life. To argue otherwise is to deny reality. Holding individual's responsible for their own care does not prevent them from making bad choices, it merely does not save them from the consequences of those choices.
At this point, I have still not come to a reasonable basis for challenging the point that society should provide healthcare for needy individuals. I have merely brought up the points that the reality of the situation is that the healthy are paying for the sick (or the low-risk are paying for the high-risk, the rich are paying for the poor . . . all of which are inessential to my main point that one group is paying for another group) and that lack of resource redistribution is not synonymous with a nanny state. In fact, a nanny state is highly unlikely in the opposing system (where one group is supporting another group). Why? There is no reason to regulate the behavior of others when you're not responsible consequences of their actions. The corrolary: there is reason to regulate the behavior of others when you're responsible for the consequences of their actions . . . it becomes your business in this case because you are paying for their decisions. This would lead to the shocking conclusion that a nanny state is the natural result of a welfare state. (Society is providing for you; therefore, society has a right to regulate your behavior.) It's not a mystery. "My house, my rules." as my mother used to say. I'll summarize them in two sentences right now.
1. The reality is that you are arguing that one group should support another group.
2. The reality is that the alternative to resource redistribution does not result in a nanny state.
<!-Quote-!>Quote:Not quite true Laguna, I personally have cost the NHS over 100,000 GBP in the last year (NHS = National Health Service of Great Britain), that (do your math) equates to 200 GBP a week ish, and not a one off, that is for the last YEAR alone.
And you know where the vast majority of that money goes? well, I'll tell you...
The Pharma companies. Private companies driven by market forces on a monthly, yearly whatever basis, they dont equate for one offs costing people their savings, its a constant demand and because the NHS has to achieve certain targets set by the govvernment it has no alternative than to pay these companies what they demand for their patented drugs.
PS. Having lived in the US and the UK and having had need of both health systems, you can all demand choice and the right not to pay for societies (someone elses) health care, but remember your stance now when your Grandad or Mom or, God forbid, you, need more than someone to fix your broken leg.<!-/Quote-!>
As far as the Pharma companies charging a lot of money, I would like to point out that the alternative is that they do not produce the drugs. If there is no profit in creating drugs, why would they create them?
Anyway, the real thing I intend to peel off this quote is the last argument that implies that I would change my mind when I or someone else I know needs care. As it stands, this really isn't a rational appeal. My being sick in no way provides the means of getting well. My parents being sick in no way provides the means for getting well. This is apparent off the bat. I would like to put forth the bold thesis that "Each person is responsible for taking care of themselves." Now, now, before you get all worked up and believe that I have ignored the fact that I or someone else may need help sometime, I would like to put forth a corollary thesis "Each person has the choice to take on the care of others." What we have here is two bold claims that hinge on the ability and willingness of the actor in such claims to provide care. I could voluntarily pay for the healthcare of my parents. I could voluntarily pay for my own care. I could do neither because I am unwilling or unable. In all situations, I am free to make my decisions based upon my abilities, and I am solely responsible for the consequences of the decision that I have made. If I cannot afford to provide care for myself or my parents, I can seek help from others . . . who can voluntarily decide to help or not help based upon their abilities. I cannot emphasize
ability and
voluntary choice enough. The simple fact is that if I cannot pay AND I cannot convince someone else to pay, I cannot recieve healthcare because somebody needs to be able to pay. The only difference between this and government-funded care is that in government care
voluntary choice is disregarded and
ability to support everyone is assumed . . . it's easy to get enough money when the people funding it don't need to be willing. Tying this into the earlier statement that being sick does not provide the means of getting well, I should not expect to get well if I cannot pay for it or convince someone else to pay for it. Whose problem is this? Mine, not society's. Who is responsible for solving it? Me, not society. Who should help me? Anyone who chooses to . . . and nobody that does not choose to.
I would help out parents and they would help me out, but this fact, that you seem to imply justifies government healthcare, does not imply any justification. There is a massive difference between people voluntarily helping each other out and using taxation (involuntary by nature) to pay for the care of myself or the people I care about. If someone is unable to fund their own healthcare and nobody will voluntarily fund that person's healthcare (directly or through charities), this means that they cannot recieve care . . . and they should not. The alternative can only involve coercion.
I can summarize my points here with these statements:
3. Each person is responsible for taking care of themselves.
4. Each person is only entitled to that which the are capable of providing themselves or is voluntarily provided by others.
<!-Quote-!>Quote:Human nature. They are overpriced and simply very unattractive to most consumers. The consumer pays full price for all services of routine sort, likely several thousands of dollars for a family and pay for insurance that never gets used, or so it seems.
Furthermore, they have also acquired a poor reputation for being consistently honored without a legal battle.
The issue for the Pharmaceutical Industry is cost vs retail price. Yes, the company is recouping developement costs; but again, human nature chafes at paying $500 for 17 cents of chemicals.
You are entirely correct, that the drug companies have worked miracles, but our society has expectations of the medical industry. The Hippocratic Oath comes to mind.
Poor track record there. We seldom have anyone to blame, besides ourselves, for our reputations.
We need them but don't have to turn a blind eye to unsavory practices.
One other point begs consideration, Jo. The fact that schools demand medical attention at levels they dictate for parents. Parents who fail to provide for their children such medical attention, for whatever reason, can find themselves dealing with Youth Services.
You are dancing around the main question:
Is a modern, just society reponsible to provide for an individuals health?
Most of the modern world has said "Yes, it is"
Again, Jo. helping subsume the costs on the demand side does absolutely nothing to impede innovation, entreprenurial initiative, or succesful private enterprise on the supply side.<!-/Quote-!>
Now, your argument starts here hinging on the perception of usefulness versus the actuality of usefulness. As far as that goes, it doesn't matter. If somebody
feels that the policy is not worth the price or the drugs are not worth the price, nobody is forcing them to buy either. They are subject to the consequences of their decisions in either case. I'm not sure what your point about society's expectations is. There are rational expectations: that insurance companies honor their contractual obligations. There are irrational expectations: that insurance companies provide unprofitable policies, that drug companies produce unprofitable drugs. Two classes of expectations. Don't blur the two. If somebody finds the cure for cancer, they have a right to charge whatever they damn well please for it. Why? Without this person's work, no cure would be possible. If they found a cure for cancer (or produced any drug curing or treating anything) and could not charge whatever they wanted for it, they could just as well not to offer it to anyone. If forced to offer it, they could destroy it. Just because "human nature" chafes at paying for something doesn't mean anything. I chafe at exercising 30 minutes a day, does that mean that I shouldn't do it? No. Exercising 30 minutes a day is healthy in the long run, does that mean I must do it? No. The result of each decision has consequences that are inescapable. The point of schools demanding medical attention by parents is an irrational demand anyway . . . you can demand all you like, but that doesn't provide the parents with the means for paying for it. My point is that the demand is irrational and an irrational demand is not evidence for or against any solution. You can demand care for everyone, that doesn't provide the means of paying for it. I'll summarize this section with:
5. The reality is that medical care costs money.
6. Irrational expectations are meaningless.
Now, I should be equipped to answer your final question.
1. The reality is that you are arguing that one group should support another group.
2. The reality is that the alternative to resource redistribution does not result in a nanny state.
3. Each person is responsible for taking care of themselves.
4. Each person is only entitled to that which the are capable of providing themselves or is voluntarily provided by others.
5. The reality is that medical care costs money.
6. Irrational expectations are meaningless.
I'm going to focus on this: "Is a modern, just society reponsible to provide for an individuals health? Most of the modern world has said 'Yes, it is'"
The reality that needs to be faced is threefold. First, medical care costs money. Second, you're arguing not that "society" is responsible for providing anything, but that one group should support another group. Third, the alternative to one group supporting another group is not a nanny state: in fact, this state of affairs is more likely to create a nanny state. I think it's fairly obvious that you understand the first point and have an idea of the second. I've explained the third earlier. This doesn't yet answer your question, but challenges the implicit assumptions. The alternative that I'm proposing is that each person be responsible for themselves. This is where your answer comes into play. If most people believe that "society" is responsible for taking care of individuals, then most people will have no problem donating voluntarily to charities or supporting others without requiring government involvement. This is where the idea that each person is entitled to that which they provide themselves or is voluntarily provided by others. Saying that each person is responsible for providing for themselves is not inconsistent with charities, helping others, asking for help . . . all of which are ways of helping out others voluntarily. The
only thing this is inconsistent with is the idea that someone is entitled to care that cannot be voluntarily funded. You're arguing that one group should be required to support another group involuntarily, whether they want to or not.
This is where you're ignoring reality with the appeals to society. Don't operate under the illusion that what you're advocating doesn't involve coercion. If it's all voluntary, then government involvement is not needed and charities are more than enough. To expect people to provide for the care of others when they have no reason to do so voluntarily is an irrational expectation . . . as such, it is meaningless.
Now: Is a modern, just society reponsible to provide for an individuals health?
If it ceases to be just, then sure.
On the contrary side: Is an individual person responsible for their own health?
Most rational people have said, "Yes, I am."
