Medical Economics
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
October 29, 2007 11:51am CST
Economics is the study of distribution of scarce resources.
There is a lot of talk about how everyone benefits in a Socialized Medicine environment. That's impossible. Why? Because the medical field is not an infinite well of expertise, supplies and equipment.
Because there is a much higher demand for medical care than there are resources, there has to be a way to limit the distribution.
In a free society, the resources go to those who can pay directly for the services, buy insurance or qualify for aid from either the government or private benefactors.
In a Socialized Medicine society, the resources are allocated by the government.
Either way, unless enough people are willing or forced to become medical professionals, or work to create and build supplies and equipment to me used by medical professionals, the very politicians who promise a better system through socialized medicine... are lying.
2 people like this
4 responses
@muppetsnap (229)
• Canada
31 Oct 07
I feel you are mischaracterising the situation. I don't think anyone is considering the government running healthcare. It generally doesn't work out all that well (although I would argue that it's better than 1000s of people not getting the care they need, but I will stick to your points).
Your arguement is a little odd to me. You seem to be saying that vast numbers of people aren't getting medical care that they need (hence if they did there would be a shortage of care). This to me (and one would hope to any compassionate person) means that there is a need for some kind of community solution (call it what you will) to ensure nobody need go without medical care (or face the choice between care and losing their home and possessions).
Modern medicine is expensive - far too expensive for most people to "Pay as you go" (and I disagree with your assessment that if people did then prices would fall - there would simply be fewer treatments available. Although I feel we all agree that taking the huge insurance company profits and plouging them back in would help cut the costs for everyone...). Nobody asks us to pay as we go for our Abrams and B2s - why is it different for healthcare?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
31 Oct 07
I think you missed my point. The point is, if medical care becomes an entitlement paid for through taxes, the demand for the scarce resources of the medical field will skyrocket. We already have a shortage of medical professionals, so how do those who are screaming for "universal healthcare" propose we apportion the resources if money is no longer an issue?
@muppetsnap (229)
• Canada
1 Nov 07
I think I spoke fairly well to your point. But specifically, we'll train more Doctors. If there is already a shortage, then the market isn't working with the current system either. I think it's more likely that specialists and money are the things that are missing - both of which could (I would argue) go hand in hand with a lack of investment because institutions aren't certain of funding because insurance companies are required to try and pay as little as possible - rather than ensure the availability of all resources everywhere.
But I think it's a disingenuous argument. Arguing against the concept of universal healthcare because there is the possibility of some hypothetical shortfall seems like the tail wagging the dog.
@muppetsnap (229)
• Canada
1 Nov 07
One place the money could come from would be the huge profits made by insurance companies. How about paying just the same for medical care and getting more for it, just to avoid the overhead of profit making insurance companies? Insurance companies shouldn't profit by finding ways to avoid treating people.
And as I say - the obstacles should not deter the core moral imperative of being a community and looking after the sick.
@CraftyCorner (5600)
• United States
29 Oct 07
You are right...to an extent. However, there is a lot of bloat in the system. Doctors find themselves tied up in endless paperwork trying to keep a hydra that is the managerial operation functioning.
*
Medicine needs to eleminate that bloat some how in order to better utulize those resources. The paperwork needs streamlining, perhaps be reduced to electronics. Paper costs a great deal of money to produce, house, and sort. A computer system can eleminate dozens of file clerks at $10 an hour.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
29 Oct 07
I hope you're not looking to government programs to streamline the system. When I worked in the medical field we often spent two or three times more time making sure our paperwork was correct by government standards than we spent on treating patients.
The farce of it was, the words and phrases required of the ambulance services I worked for were all different, even for 2 services in the same city.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
30 Oct 07
Yes they are lying.
Anytime the government takes over from private enterprise the quality suffers.
There would be longer wait times, there would be qualifiers as to necessity and availability measured against lifestyle and overall health, and everyone would suffer due to the degraded services.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
1 Nov 07
Sounds like you really didn't have medical care at all.
@soccermom (3198)
• United States
30 Oct 07
Part of your discussion that really stuck out to me was "unless enough people are forced to become medical professionals". With the cost of malpractice insurance I don't know why anyone would want to be a doctor. I'm not sure what the answer is to the medical crisis in this country, but I can guarantee you that the only people that are truly getting rich are the insurance companies. They reep the income from all sides.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
30 Oct 07
True, they get it coming and going. To me, most of the reason most things cost so much is insurance and credit. If the market was based on Pay As You Go, then prices would have to be much lower.
