[Bobboau]

you know I think I'm happy knowing that my doctor had to make it through a long and brutal composition before he started poking me with things.

and I think it would be a better idea not to take those trillions of dollars to begin with.

[iamzack]

I said make it cheaper, not make it easier. There's a difference.

And I'm not sure I agree. If the government doesn't take the money through taxes and build free-to-use roads, schools, etc, nobody is going to. People are selfish. That's just the way it is.

[Qent]

There is a difference between that and health care. Roads and the like are public goods. Once they're there, a whole lot of people can benefit, but any one person isn't willing to pay enough to build a road. That's where you'd need some kind of organization, e.g. the government, to collect a little money from everyone and build a road. Health care is not a public good. Having doctors available doesn't mean you can "use" them whenever you please, and one person's use of health services prevents someone else from using it at the same time. So the amount that individuals are willing to pay is actually an okay approximation of the value of health care.

This doesn't account for people who cannot pay at all, it just allocates resources efficiently. Under a totally free market, they'd just die.

[iamzack]

That's treating health care like a luxury, but it's not a luxury.

[Mongoose]

Idealistically?  Perhaps not.  But realistically?  Very much so.  There are one or two billion people on this planet for whom up-to-date vaccinations would be a luxury worth their weight in gold.

[Spicious]

Health care can only be considered a luxury in the third world. Hence, the US is a third world country.

It should be noted that roads tend to require routine maintenance or will otherwise become unusable. Also, other people using a road often does directly impede your use of said road.

[el_magnifico]

Well, I try not to go around annoying people about my country and its social organization, so I just tend to shut up, but I just can't resist it this time.

iamzack, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it just doesn't works. Argentina has free health care paid by the national, provincial and municipal government, health care and covenants with private institutions provided by the unions, and private health care. The result? Mediocre public health care paid by the middle class through taxes, unions getting incredibly rich and bureaucratic, and private health (generally the only that provides top of the line, state of the art health care) facing an unfair disadvantage in the market and thus becoming more expensive.
Why do we do it this way then? Well, just like with education, it's the only way we can provide those services for the considerable part of the population that simply can't pay for it (when it comes to human rights, you can't simply let them die). That's not your case. You guys earn enough, and you have a reasonable system working right now. If sometimes you have to make some sacrifices to save money for a surgery or something, the best solution is simply doing it (I'm in the middle class, covered by the public system and three unions and I still had to do it anyway for my past three eye surgeries, and for the next three too). Giving more money to the bureaucrats won't do anything to improve the situation, and it has a good chance of worsening it.

You're fine the way you are. Don't fix what's not broken.

[castor]

That's treating health care like a luxury, but it's not a luxury.

Sure it is. Everything beyond crawling to your cave to lick your wounds is.

[Liberator]

You do have a right to speak in a public forum.  You do not have the right to be heard in said forum.

You do have the right to do anything you want, anywhere you want.  You do not have the right to inflict those activities on others without their consent.

What a lot of people call "rights" are in fact far less than that. 

I've heard the phrase "moral obligation" used to justify the government stealing 1/6 of the US economy from the people.  While we do have a moral obligation to aid those who are less fortunate than ourselves, that obligation does not extend to paying for their home loans, car loans or boob jobs.

No one in genuine need is turned away from a hospital in the United States, and hospitals write off more than a little bit of the care they provide to those who can't pay for it.

Does the system work?  Not all the time, but you seem to want to turn over control of the system to a group of people whose only qualification is getting elected to public office. 

My question is this, why is it so important that this happens now as opposed to two years from now at the end of Obama's term(and we all know he's not going to have a second one)?

[Spicious]

I've heard the phrase "moral obligation" used to justify the government stealing 1/6 of the US economy from the people.  While we do have a moral obligation to aid those who are less fortunate than ourselves, that obligation does not extend to paying for their home loans, car loans or boob jobs.

Is it any worse than a small oligarchy demanding 1/6 of the economy and still deciding that people aren't worth keeping alive?

Does the system work?  Not all the time, but you seem to want to turn over control of the system to a group of people whose only qualification is getting elected to public office. 

And the qualification of the current set of health tyrants is? Not to mention that politicians don't tend to actually run anything themselves. That's what public servants are for.
Wait, are you proposing a technocracy?

My question is this, why is it so important that this happens now as opposed to two years from now at the end of Obama's term(and we all know he's not going to have a second one)?

However many thousands of dead and/or bankrupt people?

[iamzack]

My question is this, why is it so important that this happens now as opposed to two years from now at the end of Obama's term(and we all know he's not going to have a second one)?

Well, I can only speak for myself personally, but: Because I have a number of chronic health problems and no health insurance now.

[Mars]

Doctors are extremely valuable workers, it makes perfect sense that they should make quite a bit, when you get down to it.

[iamzack]

What about teachers? Farmers?

[Qent]

The current set of health tyrants are qualified to maximize profit. In a competitive market with no externalities, this is the most efficient scheme, and not just doing anything to get elected. I do believe that some minimum level of health care should be maintained for people who can't afford it, but also that the right balance is somewhere around where we are now.

Teachers and farmers are valuable. Farmers already make quite a bit thanks to federal payment. Are you saying that these should become more private?

[castor]

A person can get along without teachers and farmers. But a seriously sick person can not get along without doctors.
So from the point of view of an individua, the value of medical services is higher than the value of farming, education.

[iamzack]

Without teachers, we don't get doctors.

[Scotty]

Brought up before, that's why it's expensive.  You have to pay those teachers for the thousands of hours invested.

[Bob-san]

What about teachers? Farmers?

Less education required. A standard pre-collegiate teacher has a Bachelor's (preferably in something related to their subject) and a teaching certificate. To teach at any higher institution, the professor must have at least a Master's and often a Doctorate. Many professors also must Publish on a regular basis or have been In Industry for an extended period of time.

Farmering is often a family trade. Purchasing the hundreds or thousands of acres of land to run an efficient farm is expensive, especially for the best land.

[iamzack]

A Bachelor's degree is pretty expensive. Teachers don't get paid much, so in my state, if you agree to teach in North Carolina for a minimum period of time, the state takes care of tuition.

Why aren't we doing that for doctors, if they're so, so, so valuable?

[Scotty]

You aren't listening.  Doctors do get paid enough to pay off tuition.  Besides, take a look at what you just said.  The state.  States can run out of money too, and if they're paying for teachers' and doctors' tuition, they'll run out even faster.