Hlysnan wrote on May 1
st, 2010 at 10:29pm:
Subsidising drug companies has higher benefit/cost than nationalising drug companies. When more than 85% of the country chooses to cover themselves with private health insurance, there is no need for the government to intervene as they are only going to force health costs upwards.
JaeMi, this is a rightard argument, so you're on track.
Giving money to private companies is rightard. Owning them, like our government does with Medicare, is supposed to be leftard.
The difference?
Well, that's a big question, but from what I can see the incentive of private companies is to make money.
But a doctor doesn't usually work harder the more you pay him/her. I've been to doctors for no fee at all.
And medication doesn't work any better the more you pay for it.
The role of the state in medicine? Until the invention of the hospital, there was no role at all. Then the state decided to send the men off to war, there were massive battlefield casualties, and the hospital and socialised medicine came out of that. After WWII, the bargain was we got state-funded health services and pensions because the state was scared all the soldiers would reform their ranks and fight the state.
In some places they did.
Anyway, some things work better in private hands, some work better in public hands. Each nation-state is different, and there are no clear prescriptions for all this, no real formulas, despite what Milton Friedman would have you believe.
Margaret Thatcher found this out with various industries: privatisation and the introduction of competition does not necessarily improve services and make them cheaper. Sometimes things get much worse.
Margaret Thatcher, of course, believed there was no such thing as society at all, just individuals and self-interested consumers.
And maybe she was right.
But in America (before Obama - the leftard's - reforms), people were refused treatment in hospitals and health funds made up their minds on whether to pay for your treatment - treatment you had paid them to insure you for. Some people could not get any insurance at all because they had existing health problems. Many of them died without insurance, even if they could pay for it, and without treatment.
Can you imagine having a ruptured appendix and being refused treatment? It happens in many places today.
If this is the sort of "society" individuals want, they need to be saved from it. Saving your life is not the function of a nanny-state, it's the reason people live together - to help each other out.
This is the reason people become doctors - or should. If all you want out of medicine is a house in Double Bay and a Jag in the driveway, you're in the wrong business.