Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

A Capitalist Argument For Socialized Medicine

SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 7:26:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What is your response to this?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 8:52:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 7:33:40 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I saw this early, but forget the argument. Can you explain it?

If healthcare is a government run program, this gives the government huge buying power, which allows to it haggle down to much better prices, which results in all around cheaper healthcare. He supports this by showing the disparity between the prices of various operations and treatments in america, and those in countries with government run healthcare.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 3:02:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He started out with a false portrayal of socialism as being exclusively focused on equality; in fact socialists maintain that socialism is also more efficient, and indeed there's no statistically significant correlation between free markets and growth.

Then he made an exception for healthcare that was similar to socialist arguments for socialism in general, and failed to explain why his previous argument for capitalism doesn't apply to healthcare. Shouldn't capitalism cause innovation in healthcare, just as he alleges it does in other industries? If it's the matter of healthcare insurance being financial, why doesn't his argument apply to finance in general and beg for bank nationalization?

But ultimately, he's honest about the reasons for his self-contradiction: he and his family have been hurt by privatized medicine, because of pre-existing conditions; they don't have the pre-existing condition that is poverty, so they could care less about the broader argument for socialism.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 5:43:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Classic *iknowthere'sanameforitbutidon'tknowwhatitis* fallacy. He makes a dichotomy between spending money on healthcare, and spending money on other stuff. He argues that spending money on other stuff increases the size of the "pizza" by more innovation. However, by spending money on other stuff, you aren't spending it on healthcare. Healthcare generates jobs, just as spending money on other stuff generates jobs. Whether it's more overall efficient to spend money on healthcare rather than other stuff is irrelevant because that denies the basic free market principle of non-intervention.

tl;dr he's stupid
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 6:44:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He calls it a 'capitalist argument' when it completely disregards individual rights and predicates itself on what is best for the collective or "pizza." I think John Green is a smart guy and generally like his videos , but this one seriously brings into question his critical thinking skills. If he's going to broadcast his support of socialism, the least he could do is not misrepresent it as capitalism.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 6:57:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 5:43:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Classic *iknowthere'sanameforitbutidon'tknowwhatitis* fallacy.

False dichotomy?

He makes a dichotomy between spending money on healthcare, and spending money on other stuff. He argues that spending money on other stuff increases the size of the "pizza" by more innovation. However, by spending money on other stuff, you aren't spending it on healthcare. Healthcare generates jobs, just as spending money on other stuff generates jobs. Whether it's more overall efficient to spend money on healthcare rather than other stuff is irrelevant because that denies the basic free market principle of non-intervention.

tl;dr he's stupid
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 5:50:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 6:57:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/9/2013 5:43:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Classic *iknowthere'sanameforitbutidon'tknowwhatitis* fallacy.

False dichotomy?

No.

He makes a dichotomy between spending money on healthcare, and spending money on other stuff. He argues that spending money on other stuff increases the size of the "pizza" by more innovation. However, by spending money on other stuff, you aren't spending it on healthcare. Healthcare generates jobs, just as spending money on other stuff generates jobs. Whether it's more overall efficient to spend money on healthcare rather than other stuff is irrelevant because that denies the basic free market principle of non-intervention.

tl;dr he's stupid
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 11:39:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find it interesting how nobody ever acknowledges the impracticality of competition in certain sectors of the economy.

When buying healthcare (and I mean actually going to a hospital or doctor), you are most likely going to the nearest hospital, you are likely going to the doctor that you have always gone to (since they know you better), and when your doctor writes a prescription, you buy what is on the prescription, which is almost always the same in price and quality. You don't say "Oh dear, it appears that my appendix has ruptured. Let me look at some reviews of local hospitals on Yelp real quick," you call 911 and an ambulance takes you to the nearest hospital. That hospital does not have to compete with other hospitals - if you are near them when you have a medical emergency, you will go to them and not another hospital. You're not buying a new brand of cereal here, you're being put into a situation where someone else gets to put a price tag on your physical well-being. It makes sense to socialize medicine in this case, and in the case of urgent medical emergencies if nothing else, because competition is literally impossible.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 6:25:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 11:39:17 PM, drhead wrote:
I find it interesting how nobody ever acknowledges the impracticality of competition in certain sectors of the economy.

When buying healthcare (and I mean actually going to a hospital or doctor), you are most likely going to the nearest hospital, you are likely going to the doctor that you have always gone to (since they know you better), and when your doctor writes a prescription, you buy what is on the prescription, which is almost always the same in price and quality. You don't say "Oh dear, it appears that my appendix has ruptured. Let me look at some reviews of local hospitals on Yelp real quick," you call 911 and an ambulance takes you to the nearest hospital. That hospital does not have to compete with other hospitals - if you are near them when you have a medical emergency, you will go to them and not another hospital. You're not buying a new brand of cereal here, you're being put into a situation where someone else gets to put a price tag on your physical well-being. It makes sense to socialize medicine in this case, and in the case of urgent medical emergencies if nothing else, because competition is literally impossible.

Exactly. Capitalism breaks down as an effective system when there are too many natural barriers to consumer choice.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 8:38:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 11:39:17 PM, drhead wrote:
I find it interesting how nobody ever acknowledges the impracticality of competition in certain sectors of the economy.

When buying healthcare (and I mean actually going to a hospital or doctor), you are most likely going to the nearest hospital, you are likely going to the doctor that you have always gone to (since they know you better), and when your doctor writes a prescription, you buy what is on the prescription, which is almost always the same in price and quality. You don't say "Oh dear, it appears that my appendix has ruptured. Let me look at some reviews of local hospitals on Yelp real quick," you call 911 and an ambulance takes you to the nearest hospital. That hospital does not have to compete with other hospitals - if you are near them when you have a medical emergency, you will go to them and not another hospital. You're not buying a new brand of cereal here, you're being put into a situation where someone else gets to put a price tag on your physical well-being. It makes sense to socialize medicine in this case, and in the case of urgent medical emergencies if nothing else, because competition is literally impossible.

I'm not following how socialized medicine would fix that problem. Is it because all hospitals would be paid by a single source, so competition would take place beforehand?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:00:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 8:38:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/10/2013 11:39:17 PM, drhead wrote:
I find it interesting how nobody ever acknowledges the impracticality of competition in certain sectors of the economy.

When buying healthcare (and I mean actually going to a hospital or doctor), you are most likely going to the nearest hospital, you are likely going to the doctor that you have always gone to (since they know you better), and when your doctor writes a prescription, you buy what is on the prescription, which is almost always the same in price and quality. You don't say "Oh dear, it appears that my appendix has ruptured. Let me look at some reviews of local hospitals on Yelp real quick," you call 911 and an ambulance takes you to the nearest hospital. That hospital does not have to compete with other hospitals - if you are near them when you have a medical emergency, you will go to them and not another hospital. You're not buying a new brand of cereal here, you're being put into a situation where someone else gets to put a price tag on your physical well-being. It makes sense to socialize medicine in this case, and in the case of urgent medical emergencies if nothing else, because competition is literally impossible.

I'm not following how socialized medicine would fix that problem. Is it because all hospitals would be paid by a single source, so competition would take place beforehand?

There still wouldn't be much competition in the case of medical emergencies, but the effects of other people being unable to pay their bill (increasing overall prices of hospital visits in order to recoup losses from unpaid bills) would be lessened, as hospitals would always get paid. Competition could increase in the case of less urgent medical procedures, since patients would be able to choose the highest quality medical facility without worrying about prices. And, of course, the government would have the power to negotiate prices like an insurance company would, meaning hospitals wouldn't be able to charge absurd amounts of money for procedures that really didn't cost as much as they are charging.. All of this ensures that hospitals get paid fairly, and that patients don't have to pay unfairly because other people didn't.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian