SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
perhaps not life threatening, no, but elective surgery includes things like hip replacements etc
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Poor people had better access to medical treatment on a free market (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SylviaB
- Start date
Health.gov.au
Tell me then, how is removing the government out of the equation going to help shorten 'waiting lists'.
jennyfromdabloc
coked up sociopath
John Stossel isn't an academic and he appears on FOX NEWS.
Therefore, the opposite of what he says must be true.
Thus PROVING that public healthcare is good.
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
ugh
have you read anything in this thread
when government regulates + subsidises something, supply falls and prices rise
hence on a free market supply would be greater and prices would be lower
not that it really matters...
Last edited:
Richard Gilmore
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 270
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
in other words, more people are able to access healthcare. if we get rid of that ability, subsidisation, safety net etc, less people will be able to access healthcare and thus supply will increaseSylvesterBr said:
you're a nutjob.
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
no, you're the idiot.
the RACS just limits the supply of surgeons so that they can create a shortage and make more money
besides, in a stateless society, RACS would still exist, except certification (or whatever) wouldn't be mandatory.
If you want (what you believe to be) the best quality available, then you would go to a RACS approved surgeon; if you just want the surgery without having to wait for months then you would go to whoever you could get.
but since there would be far more surgeons, they couldn't afford to be shit because it would be too damaging for their reputation.
what you just said makes zero sense
RACS doesn't limit the supply of surgeons. It would actually be in their best of interests to have more surgeons because they collect a yearly fee from surgeons (~ 3-6K). More members = more money. It merely oversees the training of fresh graduates and evaluates their competency in the profession and ability to perform surgeries unsupervised.
If 'certification' was optional then fresh graduates with absolutely zero experience can perform surgeries. Realistically, no one will risk their lives by having fresh graduates performing open heart surgery on them per se. Consequently, fresh graduates will pursue further training under the provision of RACS in order for them to be recognised nationally. So no point in having 'certification' optional. Which is exactly what the current system is, thus rendering your proposal redundant.
Last edited:
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
they would still make more money by ther being a shortage
anyway, can I currently just open up a university and start training surgeons without getting any state approval?
No fresh graduate would actually want to perform surgery (by themselves) anyway
No, because not everyone will agree to the RACS guidelines.
And I would rather have a inexperienced surgeon operate me than no surgeon, if it was life or death.
Statistics you've provided about patients waiting more than a year for surgery fall under the umbrella of elective surgery. You never wait more than an hour in case of life or death situations for a fully qualified experienced surgeon to see you. Provided you went to the emergency department not your local GP. ~Sigh~
Last edited:
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
im not talking about elective surgery
seriously though, no one dies from waiting for surgery?
Uh...one point to offer:
Government intervention may cause inefficiencies inefficient, but relative to what? Show me how a perfectly competitive free-market ideal is feasible in this world, given the criteria for perfect information, no transaction costs, no barriers to entry, etc, etc.
Theory of the Second Best, dude.
moll.
Learn to science.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,545
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Dude, everyone dies eventually. Probably a lot that died could have been saved by some form of surgery. Doesn't mean they count as having died waiting for it.
P.S. When I have more time I will respond to your dissection of my last post.
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Compared to the free market!
Investment on a free market is guided by profits, loses and prices. If someone is making a huge profit/the prices of something is very high in a certain industry, then other capitalists will notice this and invest in this industry.
If someone if making large profits, it indicates that there is not much supply in that industry, and so other capitalists will rush to get a share of the market i.e. to supply a demand.
when government invests in something, however, they don't rely on prices and are hence detached from the structure of production. They invest where they are arbitrarily believe the investment is needed, rather than what prices will indicate, and hence are inherently less efficient than private investors.
Given your economic illiteracy, I'm going to assume that you don't mean 'perfect competition' in a theoretical economics sense, but anyway, that notion is complete bullshit.
If you just mean that in order for a free market to work we need 'perfect competition' (again, bullshit concept), then that's a load of shit. When countries free up their countries, economic growth nad hence standard of living always rises. There are literally dozens of examples of this.
from Thomas Sowells' Basic Economics:
When many African nations achieved independence in the 1960s, a famous bet was made between the president of Ghana and the president of the neighboring Ivory Coast as to which country would be more prosperous in the years ahead. At that time, Ghana was not only more prosperous than the Ivory Coast, it had more natural resources, so the bet might have seemed
reckless on the part of the president of the Ivory Coast. However, he knew that Ghana was committed to a government-run economy and the Ivory Coast to a freer market. By 1982, the Ivory
Coast had so surpassed Ghana that the poorest 20 percent of its people had a higher real income per capita than most of the people in Ghana.
This could not be attributed to any superiority of the country or its people.
In fact, in later years, when Ivory Coast politicians eventually succumbed to the temptation to have the government control more of their country's economy, while Ghana finally learned from its mistakes and began to loosen government controls, these two countries' roles reversed-and now Ghana's economy began to grow, while that of the Ivory Coast declined.
Similar comparisons could be made between Burma and Thailand, the former having had the higher standard of living before instituting socialism and the latter a much higher standard of living afterwards. Other Countries-India, Germany, China, New Zealand, South Korea, Sri Lanka-have experienced sharp upturns in their economies when they freed those economies from many government controls and relied more on prices to allocate resources. As of 1960, India and South
Korea were at comparable economic levels but, by the late 1980s, South Korea's per capita income was ten times that in India.
India remained committed to a government-controlled economy for many years after achieving independence in 1947. However, in the 1990s, India "jettisoned four decades of economic isolation and planning, and freed the country's entrepreneurs for the first time since independence," in the words of the London magazine The Economist. There followed a new growth rate of 6 percent a year, making it "one of the world's fastest-growing big economies." In China, government controls
were relaxed in particular economic sectors and in particular geographic regions during the reforms of the 1980s, leading to stunning economic contrasts within the same country, as well as rapid economic growth overall. Back in 1978, less than 10 percent of China's agricultural output was sold in open markets but, by 1990, 80 percent was.
The net result was more food and a greater variety of food available to city dwellers in China and a rise in farmers' income by more than 50 percent within
a few years. In contrast to China's severe economic problems when there was heavy-handed government control under Mao, who died in 1976, 'I the subsequent freeing up of prices in the marketplace led to an astonishing it economic growth rate of 9 percent per year between 1978 and
1995.
ugh. Let's just assume that what any of what you're saying makes sense...
In order to support the introduction of a free market economy, we ONLY need to demonstrate that it would work better than the state. It does not need to be "perfect" (whatever that means).
In order to justify state, you have to show why it works better than the free market. which it doesn't.
ugh. No other entity exists that erects more barriers to entry than the state.
Kudos to moll; he is the only one who has at least attempted to address the original post in this thread. i don't agree with his points, but unlike him everyone else has just made these generic, ignorant swipes at the free market, despite lacking an even rudimentary understanding of economics.
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
do you think lives in Australia could be saved with a greater supply of medical treatment/professionals?
moll.
Learn to science.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,545
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
To a point. Law of Diminishing Returns states that eventually the extra cost of increasing supply will outweigh any benefit it will have in lives saved. When you're dealing with something as quantitative and difficult to measure as medicine and human biology, this point is just as likely to have already been past as to not.
EDIT Interesting hypothesis: Maybe this is the real reason for rising healthcare costs around the world.
mirakon
nigga
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,221
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Which is the exact problem. Free market healthcare will provide incentive for superlative quality as you put it, but this is made redundant by the fact that it would become too expensive to be affordable. A reasonable healthcare system that caters for everyone, such as one that Obama is proposing, is hands down superior to one that may have better quality but ultimately fails to provide for the majority of Americans e.g. a free market healthcare system.
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
No, on a free market health care would be far, far cheaper and of better quality
America does not have a free market health care system
if you're not to read anything that's already been posted in a thread then don't bother replying