In a system where all prices are paid beforehand with a tax, everyone working in the medical field is already compensated.
Who said anything about the government paying for them to go to college, or padding their paychecks? They would be working -for- the government.
The tax payers have to pay, therefore healthcare isn't any cheaper what-so-ever. In fact, it's more expensive because everyone pays more in taxes.
And do you know why that happens? Because doctors/hospitals know the insurance companies will be paying that and recommend a procedure that wasn't necessary. It's how they make their money. They can jack the price up because of that, which in turn causes the insurance companies to demand more from their customers. You've got the cycle reversed.
No, I don't have the cycle reversed. What you said is true as well. It's another example of how 3rd party providers fail when you hamper competition. That's what we see in the U.S. People rarely shop around for their preferred health insurance, they usually accept whatever it is their employer is paying. The employer often obtains whichever insurance is best for their business, not for their customers.
Imagine if car insurance companies allotted you a specific number of gallons per week based on your car's mileage that came included with the plan. People would start driving more conservatively to stay within that limit, or conversely make better decisions on what car to purchase for their needs. They wouldn't waste gas, because their paid-for amount in the insurance plan wouldn't cover them afterwards.
The entire example is really a red herring, though, and an exercise in futility. You can throw up hypotheticals fitting what you want them to be all you want.
My example was not a red herring what-so-ever. It's to demonstrate a natural process of "oh, I might as well take what I can since I'm not paying." This is the purpose of analogies, not to be used as evidence but to help paint a clearer picture.
Suppose car insurance companies do set a limit to the amount of gasoline people can buy per week, what then? People are going to limit themselves only by how much their insurance limits them. You're only partially right, in that you underestimate how much people will take advantage of the system. Even with limitations, people will try to squeeze everything they can out of insurance companies.
If insurance companies said, "We'll pay for 10 gallons a week", those who don't need 10 gallons will buy more, and those who need more than 10 gallons will end up paying for other people's fuel. It's best that everyone pays for their own gasoline - or, that they get a choice as to whether or not they want to become part of such a system.
The problem with this system is that people don't really have a choice about who their health care provider is. Most people obtain their health insurance through their work, because they can't otherwise. Because of this, people are at the mercy of their employers choice in insurance company, and at the insurance companies wanting to profit. The company might not give their employees an adequate plan, because they have to pay for it.
Employers pay for health insurance because there was a time when the government capped the maximum wage people could earn. Because of this, employers started offering insurance as a means of encouraging production since raises were out of the question. This is how employer provided healthcare began.
I'm not defending the current system. I understand it's flawed. It does need changed. However, national healthcare is even worse.
Like ****ing hell it is. Blame the victim, sure. It's their fault they got sick and might die.
I never blamed the victim for anything.
It has to do with responsibility.
Suppose Tom gets cancer. He shouldn't have to bear the costs of the treatments, it's not his fault he has cancer.
The solution? Take money from everyone else to pay for Tom's treatment.
How is this any more fair? You say Tom isn't responsible, so he shouldn't have to pay. But what about the tax payers? Why are they suddenly responsible? It's not their fault Tom got cancer either.
If we can trace a problem to its source, and that source can compensate for the issue they have caused - great! But some issues are traced back to acts of nature or unfortunate events.
No, the problem with the capitalist system is that medical treatment is a good you have to buy. There's no control at all, because they've got a monopoly on your health. They know you need treatment, and you either have to pay it or suffer. It's literally extortion.
Pardon, we're talking about capitalism. Not corporatism.
In a capitalist system, there's competition. Economics 101.
Do you know what we call medical practices most often not covered by insurance? Cheap. Why? Because people look for the cheapest, most efficient, operations.
Our system isn't this shining thing that's working. It's a pile of capitalistic ideals gone wrong that extorts money
Let me stop you right there.
You see the problems of a corporatist America in which capitalism has been hampered. I'll admit that I still lack understanding of the health care scenario, but I do recognize that the problem stems from 3rd party systems.
You blame insurance companies, yet you don't see how socialized healthcare works the same way and has the EXACT SAME problems.
It doesn't work that way. Take a look at our healthcare. Take a look at healthcare in the rest of the developed world. Look at the general state of things. You don't see them arguing so much about healthcare.
It's because they don't see, first hand, the negative effects of socialized health care. When the health care system fails to turn a profit, who notices? Nobody. The government takes more money from people's taxes, and when people complain about their tax rates going up, do they know why their taxes went up? No. They don't.
When you pay for healthcare through you taxes, you don't know what you're paying for exactly or even how the cost was determined. In a capitalist system, you know what your bill is and the amount of money that needs to be paid to pay off that debt.
Capitalism is a system where trade is simplified and we can easily observe price burden. Socialism, on the other hand, creates a giant pot and mixes everyone's bills together, so it's hard to figure out where improvements are needed. In a capitalist society, you can compare cheap medial procedures and expensive medical procedures and figure out which procedures need work on. In a socialist society, there is no distinction between the two - both expensive and cheap procedures are treated the same.
