3) Health insurance policies aren't astronomically priced. There are expensive policies, to be sure, and situations tie in to the pricing, but several insurance companies offer basic youth-oriented plans around $50 a month. Students can get it even cheaper. 4) Government already greatly affects the pricing of healthcare in this nation. They set the prices at which insurance companies and doctors base their expenses; they cannot choose what they want to charge. Additionally, the federal government has locked insurance agencies out from selling across state lines; this lack of competition and diversification only adds fuel to the rising costs of healthcare. 5) Much of the "rising costs of healthcare" in the United States can be attributed to advancements in technology, medication, and treatments. Sure, things were a lot cheaper in the 60's. But more people died for lack of medical advancements and medical tests that couldn't be ordered as a preventative stop gap to not only catch conditions early, but treat them as well. 6) Doctors in the United States do not, to combat President Obama's myth, rip out tonsils and amputate feet just to get paid. In fact, when a person's body part needs to be removed, often it is not the doctor who assessed such a need that performs the surgery. So how would they make a dime off it? Are there people that do it? Probably. And they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I could go on for a while actually, but it would be really, really long.
Profits are not evil; they're incentive. In a free market society, they provide a goal to work towards and competition. You have choice, and that choice creates competition which drives costs down and quality of service up: whether oil or healthcare or cars or computers, the basic needs of a business don't change. Greed exists, but again, there will never, ever be a perfect system in which crime does not exist. The drive to better oneself becomes essential to a business - better services, lower prices, better products - as things progress in the marketplace. Stagnation in a corporation leads to failure; too high prices or shady deals, etc defeat the needs of the business, and the same applies to doctors.
On the contrary, once corporations become giant, there is far more chance for corruption to take place not in absence of governmental intervention, but because of it. Government involving itself, placing arbitrary caps, handing things out, and providing safety for certain groups destroys innovation. The inability to fail strips away incentive: why be great when you can be mediocre and slide on by?
So you point out the fundamental difference very well: You see necessities as something that should be controlled by the government as a form of protection from the people. I see the same necessities being controlled by the government as a threat to the people, a way to make them wholly dependent on the government. There was an awesome quote I found the other day by Grover Cleveland, President of the United States in the 1800's. This dude was a democrat, but he may be my new favorite President...
"...though the people support the government, the government should not support the people."
The particular story this quote comes from is actually far cooler than the quote itself and very telling about not only government intervention, but the generosity of the American people. If left to choose whom to trust, the Federal Government or the American People, I would choose the People 8 days out of the week and twice on Sundays.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-10 08:03 pm (UTC)4) Government already greatly affects the pricing of healthcare in this nation. They set the prices at which insurance companies and doctors base their expenses; they cannot choose what they want to charge. Additionally, the federal government has locked insurance agencies out from selling across state lines; this lack of competition and diversification only adds fuel to the rising costs of healthcare.
5) Much of the "rising costs of healthcare" in the United States can be attributed to advancements in technology, medication, and treatments. Sure, things were a lot cheaper in the 60's. But more people died for lack of medical advancements and medical tests that couldn't be ordered as a preventative stop gap to not only catch conditions early, but treat them as well.
6) Doctors in the United States do not, to combat President Obama's myth, rip out tonsils and amputate feet just to get paid. In fact, when a person's body part needs to be removed, often it is not the doctor who assessed such a need that performs the surgery. So how would they make a dime off it? Are there people that do it? Probably. And they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I could go on for a while actually, but it would be really, really long.
Profits are not evil; they're incentive. In a free market society, they provide a goal to work towards and competition. You have choice, and that choice creates competition which drives costs down and quality of service up: whether oil or healthcare or cars or computers, the basic needs of a business don't change. Greed exists, but again, there will never, ever be a perfect system in which crime does not exist. The drive to better oneself becomes essential to a business - better services, lower prices, better products - as things progress in the marketplace. Stagnation in a corporation leads to failure; too high prices or shady deals, etc defeat the needs of the business, and the same applies to doctors.
On the contrary, once corporations become giant, there is far more chance for corruption to take place not in absence of governmental intervention, but because of it. Government involving itself, placing arbitrary caps, handing things out, and providing safety for certain groups destroys innovation. The inability to fail strips away incentive: why be great when you can be mediocre and slide on by?
So you point out the fundamental difference very well: You see necessities as something that should be controlled by the government as a form of protection from the people. I see the same necessities being controlled by the government as a threat to the people, a way to make them wholly dependent on the government. There was an awesome quote I found the other day by Grover Cleveland, President of the United States in the 1800's. This dude was a democrat, but he may be my new favorite President...
"...though the people support the government, the government should not support the people."
The particular story this quote comes from is actually far cooler than the quote itself and very telling about not only government intervention, but the generosity of the American people. If left to choose whom to trust, the Federal Government or the American People, I would choose the People 8 days out of the week and twice on Sundays.