Richard Epstein, professor of law at The University of Chicago, discusses the current proposal for healthcare reform.
He points out inconsistencies in what is been promised and what is in the bill, and makes suggestions for a more efficient health care system.
Bio
Richard Epstein
Richard A. Epstein, the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, is the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Epstein is also, a visiting professor at NYU Law School.
Law professor Richard Epstein gets to the reality behind the promises in Congress' healthcare reform bill. Proponents of the bill claim people who are already insured will be able to keep their current plans. This promise, he fears, is a "giant sham."
System for the advance financing of medical expenses through contributions or taxes paid into a common fund to pay for all or part of health services specified in an insurance policy or law. The key elements are advance payment of premiums or taxes, pooling of funds, and eligibility for benefits on the basis of contributions or employment without an income or assets test. Health insurance may apply to a limited or comprehensive range of medical services and may provide for full or partial payment of the costs of specific services. Benefits may consist of the right to certain medical services or reimbursement of the insured for specified medical costs. Private health insurance is organized and administered by an insurance company or other private agency; public health insurance is run by the government (seesocial insurance). Both forms of health insurance are to be distinguished from socialized medicine and government medical-care programs, in which doctors are employed directly or indirectly by the goverment, which also owns the health-care facilities (e.g., Britain's National Health Service). See alsoinsurance.
It's fairly obvious that the speaker puts bean counting ahead of compassion. Set aside what can and cannot be done within the constraints of finance and medical science, and it becomes obvious that unregulated Capitalism is when someone profits at another's expense without any regard for the predicament that the profiteering creates for people.
In this regard Capitalism is the perfect cover for the brutish, the bullying, the fascist mentality, even if it has learned to smile and sound like it is making a plausible argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khalsa
Arrogant know-it-all.
As opposed to your humble ignorance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by khalsa
Repeat the mantra "Free market is the only way".
Except at the end when he specifically said that it was not applicable vis-à-vis children, but your mantra of reducing his every argument to a supposed mantra rather then debate them is really all we can expect, can we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by khalsa
Of course most of the people who follow this same mantra aren't willing to put a price on a life like this guy.
Indeed, he makes the point that resources aren't unlimited and that the concept of opportunity-cost is such that a utilitarian-calculus of rationing must occur under the logic of single-payer. But remember that he isn't for single-payer. It's not that he is comfortable with putting a price on life, but that he is explaining that single payer requires putting a price on life. The moral question is really for you, since you appear to be for it - do you understand that this is a corollary of what you want, and are you comfortable with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by khalsa
He says the public option will kill all insurance. I agree, so what?
He explains "so what" for the entirety of the lecture. Being humble, I suppose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by khalsa
He argues that government run healthcare has it's place like schip, well if SCHIP is so great then why not have it for everybody? I.E. Single-payer.
Again, he explains the difference towards the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khalsa
Of course if you don't like universal healthcare there is another free market approach which he doesn't address. Get rid of the insurance companies and have patients directly paying doctors. Why not discuss this, it seems like the real free-market choice?
How is taking an entire set of companies and "getting rid of them" (nice euphemism), and forcing people to deal with their doctor in a particular fashion by decree a "free-market choice"? You're obviously very confused. How very modest of you.
I'll have to cut the next part up and deal with it in parts, because it's loaded to the hilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khalsa
How can "consumers" (I prefer people)
It is the people who consume. Runners are people who run. See how this works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by khalsa
make good health decisions
It's called the sanctity of contract. You can make good decisions because you know that your agreements are enforced by the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khalsa
, when they know that their only option is to pay a for-profit company
How do you make good hair-cut decisions when you know that your barber just wants to make profit? How do you make good eating decisions when you know that your grocer just wants to make profits?
Quote:
Originally Posted by khalsa
who's only path to profit is by denying them care for their health?
Does your barber's only path to profit consist of giving you a quick and bad hair-cut so he has more time for more customers? (woops, I mean people. Didn't mean to be insensitive or something). Does your grocer make more profits by selling your rotten fruit he got at a huge discount? Think about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khalsa
This sounds like communism to me.
Communism is a state of anarchy in which there are no property rights. Socialism is when the state runs and owns everything. Fascism or corporatism is when the state doesn't own everything de jure but effectively controls it de facto through laws and edicts.
Here's the fun part: guess which category you fall into. And don't be humble about this - share it with us!
Arrogant know-it-all. Repeat the mantra "Free market is the only way". Of course most of the people who follow this same mantra aren't willing to put a price on a life like this guy. He says the public option will kill all insurance. I agree, so what? He argues that government run healthcare has it's place like schip, well if SCHIP is so great then why not have it for everybody? I.E. Single-payer. Of course if you don't like universal healthcare there is another free market approach which he doesn't address. Get rid of the insurance companies and have patients directly paying doctors. Why not discuss this, it seems like the real free-market choice? How can "consumers" (I prefer people) make good health decisions, when they know that their only option is to pay a for-profit company who's only path to profit is by denying them care for their health? This sounds like communism to me.