At 1 hour ago, fatape wrote:
Preventative healthcare is still health care , if americans don't live as long because they eat too many big macs then it is still reflective the health care of a nation.
In a government run system their is actually incentive to promote preventive care since it is much more expensive to cure an existing condition then to prevent it in the first place. In a private system the opposite is true, if your not sick the health care industry dose not make money off of you.
When you say "expensive" I ask "Expensive for whom?"
Nothing your government does is particularly expensive for the the programs managers. This should be glaringly apparently in most matters that Government everywhere have gotten their hands into. It doesn't matter to them whether a war costs 10 billion dollars or 10 trillion dollars because these costs, if they affect them at all, only do so indirectly. [It might 'hurt' their reputation if the public is anti-deficit minded,
The other problem with your statement is it ignores the aspects of diffused costs and concentrated benefits. Ultimately, all costs for Government/State programs are born by Taxpayers. Each individual has certain healthcare costs which are placed upon the State, and the state conscripts resources from individuals on the basis of their income bracket [as is the case of income taxes] or on some other basis. most USUALLY this basis/criteria is entirely separate from the individual's actual consumption of healthcare services. We can assume this due to the fact that the whole institution of State-Controlled healthcare is based upon a personal aversion to the idea of individuals paying for their own healthcare in any meaningful and direct sense.
What this means is that the high cost of any single individual's own health coverage is not going to be felt by them directly. The personal benefit to them in living in a way that they enjoy but entails higher healthcare costs is necessarily going to be larger than the small, possibly non-existent increase in taxes.
You can then see how problems would emerge when EVERYONE follows this logic, it's a classic case where individual rationality doesn't lead to group rationality.
One problem is we live in a world of perpetual moral-hypocrisy where people feel it's evil for insurance companies to offer discounts for those who live healthy and put premiums upon those who have done the opposite. Yet these same people advocate either 1. The Government doing the same thing in terms of monetary incentives and punishments or even more extreme advocating 2. Outlawing of certain unhealthy behaviors.
With any transaction you're going to have one or more parties that aim at minimizing the amount they have to pay to get something, and naturally, the party that aims to maximize the amount that they get in selling something. It would be illogical to allow the latter party to be put in charge of 'controlling' the costs born by the former party. But no one advocates this.
The ones ultimately with the burden of controlling the costs are the consumers themselves... Or Taxpayers in the case of a [presumably?] democratically run centrally planned health care scheme. But neither group in either case has much of a reason to do any real cost control because the system of payment is disconnected from the system of receiving due to the structure of third party providers.
If you think about it, health insurance might make sense in the case of some random accident causing harm to life and limb. But it doesn't make sense in the case of most other matters of healthcare. Namely diseases that are associated directly with certain controllable behaviors.
This mechanism explains why, for example, the price of Cosmetic Surgery, in spite of increased demand and increasingly sophisticated technology, has been falling relative to the consumer price index. [Most healthcare costs have risen well above the CPI]
But all of this economics and logic is moot I suppose. Healthcare is and never really was a technical issue; it's a moral issue, nay a "religious" issue.