--- again from the peanut gallery --- Vitaliy, What you are espousing is a theory. It is a theory, I might add, which you cannot support with practical and real world experiences. Case in point, you BELIEVE that the costs would be lower were there no "state" subsidies (I don't know that you can prove this), and in reality, what you are looking for is the whole system of health insurance to be eliminated all together. Its a theory, and I think if you are being fair you should call it as such. Unless I am mistaken, there is absolutely no-where on the planet that has such a system (where health care is completely out of pocket, there is no state safety net, nor is there health insurance). If there is such a place, I would be very interested to know about it. Equating one thing with another doesn't prove your theory. There are reasons why costs are able to be cut. When it comes to health care, costs are not able to be cut at all, and it is going to be expensive whether or not the health care costs come out of your pocket. Put another way, lets look at caring for a dog (I really hate to resort to this, but it is in my opinion a fair way of looking at what you are saying). Vet costs are high. Are they as high as they are for humans? Probably close (I pay about 200 dollars a year to have my dog tested for various things, get his rabies vaccine, and make sure he is healthy). It is not uncommon to blow thousands of dollars on an animal. I had a dog who got cancer. Would cancer treatment been so low that it was practical for him? No, it wasn't. The vet suggested we put him out of his misery and not waste the money. So, we put him down. Am I saying that if we abolished insurance that this is the kinds of decisions people would make? Its a theory. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. The point is that there is no example of what you are talking about for humans, and the best corollary doesn't show what you are talking about. This isn't political, since absolutely no politician is advocating what you are talking about. Do I think you are a bad person? No. I just think you need to be clear that you are talking theory. In any event, the whole discussion is essentially moot in my opinion because this isn't even what the debate was on to begin with (it started with a fairly innocuous conversation about the merits of the United States Postal Service). Anyways, that's how I see it, and I am sure that is also how others would also see it. Note to administrators, my extreme apologies if this is too political -- it wasn't meant as such. I think several statements were made that I felt merited a counter balance, and I felt I could provide such. Aleksei On 29 November 2010 14:32, Vitaliy wrote: > Bob Blick wrote: >> But I can share something that may help some of you understand why I may >> seem more sensitive than others. >> >> Earlier this year I helped save a man's life. One of the other tenants >> where I work burst into my office and said "come quick, Steve's hurt >> bad"(His name isn't really Steve). He was laying dead of a heart attack >> just inside the large courtyard of the business complex my office is in. >> I gave Steve CPR while my neighbor called emergency services(911). About >> six or seven minutes later a fire truck with paramedics showed up and >> took over. A few minutes after that an ambulance came. They gave Steve a >> hypodermic in the chest and also jolts of electricity and got his heart >> going and off they went to the hospital where he spent three weeks in >> intensive care and another two in the cardiac center after having an >> implanted defibrillator. He's doing fine now and scheduled for a bypass >> operation soon. Steve is a small business owner and in today's economy >> has lots of debt and almost no income and has no health insurance. But >> he has gone through the paperwork to be declared indigent and his >> medical bills are going to be paid by the state. >> >> If any of the Vitaliy's social or economic policies had been in place, >> Steve would be dead today. Either there would be no emergency phone >> number, the firemen wouldn't have been trained paramedics or would have >> refused to come, the ambulance wouldn't pick him up because he had no >> means to pay, the hospital would have refused him, he wouldn't have >> gotten the defibrillator, or he would have committed suicide because of >> the $729,000 final medical bill(yes, I saw it, it really was $729,000). >> >> So I don't want to hear about Libertarian politics. My friend is alive >> today, and they'd have him dead. > > The above is a gross misrepresentation of my views that I feel I must > respond to. > > People who believe in personal freedom and individual responsibility, are > not evil. I feel compassion for the fellow man, and help those in need to > the best of my ability, when I get the opportunity. > > Where we differ, is on the role of the state in helping people. While it = may > sound good in theory, the unintended consequences quickly wipe out any > benefits. Take the $729,000 bill, for example. Just think about it: what > could the hospital have done to Steve, to rack up such insane bill? Why d= o > things cost so much?* > > The usual explanation (espoused even by some economists I respect) is tha= t > technology is driving up the cost. New machines, new technologies, comput= ers > everywhere. We get better quality care, we are told, that is why healthca= re > is more expensive today. This sounds plausible, until you consider that > everywhere else technology made things *cheaper*: cars, industrial > automation, cell phones, etc. Home PC prices are falling even though they > are getting ever more powerful. > > I struggled with this question for a while, and it wasn't long ago that I > understood the reason behind the rising costs: state subsidies. It may so= und > like a paradox, but you don't need to understand economics beyond the bas= ic > law supply&demand to see how this works. When someone else pays for your > healthcare, you don't care how the money is spent, and neither does your > doctor, who in fact may have the incentive to prescribe very expensive te= sts > & procedures even when much cheaper options are available (you would pick > them yourself, if you were paying for the care with your money). State > subsidies of healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid) thus create more demand, and > since the supply of healthcare, prices go through the roof. > > If "my" social/economic policies had been in place, everybody would be mo= re > prosperous, and healthcare would cost a fraction of what it does today. E= ven > if Steve was broke, his friends could easily chip in and pay for his medi= cal > bills. It would constitute true charity, as opposed to the phony charity > which involves doing good at someone else's expense (under the threat of,= or > actual use of, violence). > > Vitaliy > > *Earlier this year my newborn contracted a bad case of MRSA > (http://tinyurl.com/nikmrsa) that landed him in the hospital. Whenever we > would ask how much something cost, we would get strange looks from the > nurses, and even the billing department couldn't give us clear answers. > Finally, we got a cost breakdown, and learned that Tylenol costs $10 per > pill, and that the hospital charges $300/day for a tiny room that my son > shared with another patient. Supply and demand. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .