TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Print money to pay for healthcare. Money that does not need to be repaid.

Every government should be allowed to print free money to pay for healthcare.
Why should people pay for healthcare? Why should taxpayers pay for healthcare? Print free money to pay for healthcare. Print money to pay all expenses hospitals incur from maintenance to payrolls to medicines to equipment to everything. Money is printed and used to pay hospital bills. That money then circulates in the economy.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 10 2014: The value of money is based on our perception of its worth.
    We need to perceive money printed for the purpose of paying for healthcare as having value, as having worth.
    • Jan 10 2014: On a philosophical level, maybe.
      On a practical one however, printing money reduces its value, and healthcare in the US already has enough opposition without it increasing inflation.

      If you make "free money" to pay for healthcare, what's to stop you from printing the same "free money" to pay for anything else?
      Its in quotations because printing money isn't actually free. Printing costs aside (negligible), by printing more currency, you're de-valuing all the currency you've already got. The economy would break otherwise--if everyone has as much money as they want, what's the money good for? No one would want to trade for it.
    • thumb
      Jan 10 2014: and what our perception is based on?
      • Jan 14 2014: In response to below, by the way I loved your Bilbo Baggins statement. but....

        Did you give Adam Smith his royalty payment for use of his flawed concepts? The paradox does not describe immediate needs. In that context it falls apart.

        For the price of anything is based on the needs of the seller. What is the price of a cure for (substitute any lethal disease here) to you. If you possessed a pant load of diamonds what would you do. Donate to family and find a grave? Or start shelling out the bling?

        I would get a rash from digging for diamonds!
        • thumb
          Jan 14 2014: calm down, or you will develop heart disease, and/or present yourself as uncivilized.

          if the price is determined by the seller, why don't they raise the price to earn more money? maybe studying the law of supply and demand helps. hint: all the buyers and the sellers together determine the price.
      • Jan 14 2014: Sorry for coming across as growling dog, I will temper my passion in the future.

        I find it interesting that folks can argue economics and health in the same breath.

        My misguided point was that in life or death situations economics does not play a position to the sick or injured.

        The seller of the services brings economics into play, until the role is reversed. Then they lie in bed because their fortunes have run out.

        Why do we allow this paradox to continue?
        • thumb
          Jan 14 2014: on the other hand, i find it interesting that folks can simply dismiss an idea because boo. either you put up an actual argument why would health be any different than many other needs human beings desire, or you risk looking not very serious in the debate.

          the truth is, health is exactly like many other goals. we want shelter, heating, cloths, food, better shelter, better heating, better food, better cloths, entertainment and all sort of things. and valuations (preferences) are largely subjective and personal.

          economics is the science of allocating scarce resources. the input of the economy is the set of wants (preferences) of people. the output is a plan that starts with ores, wood, sand, coal, oil and above all, time, and builds up gradually to products and services. if you provide something, it means you don't provide another thing. if we allocate one engineer hour to build an xbox, that is an engineering hour missing from building an x-ray device. or one piece of metal used in the x-ray device is a piece of metal not used in a bridge or aircraft.

          the only one thing that can successfully control this enormous system of intertwined production procedures is money. money measures what is needed, and how badly it is needed. the price controls production by balancing the supply and demand, driving the economy toward optimum output.

          by taking money out of the picture, or messing with it, hindering its function is nothing short of blinding the economy. it will lead to overproduction of some goods, and underproduction of others. at the end, the created satisfaction is less than the destroyed satisfaction. it only looks good if you only look at the created goods, and forget about the goods forgone.
      • Jan 14 2014: I am a bit confused by your first sentences, are we not seeking common ground and meaningfull discourse?

        Then I am very amused by the "economics is a science" statement. Could you elaborate on where that comes from.

        The equivalent of tossing chicken bones on the pavement and gleaming the future, does not meet the rigours of scientific methods.
        • thumb
          Jan 14 2014: it is funny that you talked about meaningful discourse, then presented none. i, unlike you, actually studied austrian economics for a year. during this, i read thousands of pages and listened to 100+ hours of video and audio lectures. if i need to choose whether i want to rely on my economics knowledge, or your naive 99% crypto-marxist sentiments, no question what the choice will be.
      • Jan 15 2014: Beautiful! Now we are talking! I had you down for a Chicago man.

        Back to topic…… Due to a much higher self worth the individual will always choose health over wealth. We are programmed to view loss as the greater threat .

        Could you expand why you chose to lump health ( “better clothes, entertainment”) into a macro model. It appears to fall squarely into micro theories

        While you were studying Austrian economics I was developing adaptive devices and autistic learning aids. I see where we differ so much, Homo Economicus meet Homo Reciprocan not neo-Marxist
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2014: i already gave examples, but you don't seem to care, so i won't give more.

          any chance you are using other names on these forums as well?
      • Jan 15 2014: “any chance you are using other names on these forums as well?”

        Nope, those are the other voices of reason you hear.

        “on the other hand, i find it interesting that folks can simply dismiss an idea because boo. either you put up an actual argument why would health be any different than many other needs human beings desire, or you risk looking not very serious in the debate.”

        Remember your writing above, I pasted it for continuity

        As I stated health is a micro economic factor, you grouped it into macro. I asked why, you dismissed via cognitive bias so here we are.

        Examples are not reasons.

        Boo!
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2014: "As I stated health is a micro economic factor, you grouped it into macro."

          i don't recall that part :) especially because in my view, there is no distinction between the two..
      • Jan 15 2014: Yes you did not supply that distinction, priori economics, I keep forgetting. Sorry

        Now that I have reached into the back corners of my brain and dug up Hayek, I am very surprised that you are not jumping mad at the lack of market forces in health care.

        We have the right!, as the ambulance dumps are mangled bodies at the nearest hospital, to peruse the price list and walk our besodden carcass to the next available hospital. Free market forces at work!

        No economic theory can be applied when the life and death needs of people force the behavior into an irrational economic choice. You and I wish to go the least expensive yet most effective hospital, but that is not a rational choice when your life is on the line.

        Make health care a priority in society. Simple.
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2014: but market forces can be trusted to deliver food? or you want "free money" to buy food too?

          don't be too much surprised if i don't reply to one or more of your posts in the future. for example this time you just reiterated your previous points. unfortunately, repeating statements does not make them any more true.

          everything is economics. not applying economics to a problem is pretty much the same thing as not applying mathematics, physics or logic. you can, obviously, move something out of the realm of logic. but the consequences will be, as it happens from time to time, dire. for economics is a descriptive science, not a normative one. you don't decide what does it apply to.

          you also can't make something a priority. something either is a priority or not. all you can do is to ignore the priorities of the people. that strategy has many faces, socialism, fascism, corporatism, interventionism, mercantilism. the name is not important. the catastrophic consequences are.
      • Jan 15 2014: Thank goodness , I was wondering how to let you down easy.
      • Jan 15 2014: Food delivery and emergency room visits are the same from a personal economic view?
        I did not see compositional fallacy on the pyramid.
        I respect your opinions and look forward to reading from your future post. Yet on this issue we are too far apart to come to any understanding.
        I learned a little more about Austrian economic theories and for that, Thanks!
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2014: in fact, you didn't learn anything about the austrian school. i advise you against thinking you understand the tiniest bit of it.
    • Jan 10 2014: Human perception of value is directly linked to availability, the more available is a resource the less value it has, the less available resources are the most valuable ones, that is why many cultures old and current use gold to measure value and not water, gold is scarce and hard to get so it has a huge economic value, water is abundant and easy to obtain so it has very title economic value. Which means, if you print money to pay for medical care, and then that money is introduced in the global economy, you will be automatically reducing its value, depending on the amount of money you printed. If every body would do that, money would become worthless sooner than you read this.
      • Jan 13 2014: Hi Demetrius , water is by far the most valuable commodity, but you know this.Perhaps we can discuss fictionalized value?

        Taken in economic terms waters value is diminished due to the fact that it is a very difficult resource to contain and control. I think the value we place on items are due to who has control of them. Control water and you are extremely powerful.

        Control gold and you can be marginalized, unless you artificially increase its value, by making it a means of trade or a symbol of power.

        Then to maintain that power gold’s value must be constantly inflated and dispersed to a select minority.
        Hmmm history of man?
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2014: just sayin: the water-diamond paradox was solved 150 years ago. it is called "the marginal revolution". hmm. maybe contemporary history counts too?
        • Jan 13 2014: Water is indeed and undeniably the most valuable RESOURCE we have, however it is not a commodity. Don't get confused, one thing is a resource and another very different a commodity.

          Let's think a little bit about the bottling companies, if you think they are selling you water then you are absolutely wrong... why should I buy a bottle of water when I have plenty of it just by opening the faucet? they simply cannot compete with the faucet!!!... instead they put lots of money on the media in order to make you believe that if you drink from the faucet you'll get sick and that their purification process is the only way to keep you healthy, so what they really sell you is a purification process, not the water itself!!!! Now, water has no expiration date but the containers do, so if you think of water as a commodity then it is a commodity with an expiration date, which means you better sell it fast or risk to loose your investment, which implies you cannot push the price too much.

          You say: "Control water and you are extremely powerful"... Please, tell me how such a thing can be accomplished, how do you plan to prevent the rain from falling? or the rivers from flowing? how do you plan to own the lakes in order to prevent access to them?... although true, it's a silly idea, so come on, let's be realistic.

          Although I agree gold price is subject to manipulation at some degree, most of its value is subject to its availability, like I said before. Find a huge gold mine and the gold price will plunge.

          If you want to discuss more on this subject it's ok, but that is not the main issue of this conversation.
      • Jan 14 2014: Exactly as I described you would need to be very powerful indeed to control water. Has it been done yes..

        "or the rivers from flowing"
        Ever heard of damns on rivers? Wow seriously damning of the Colorado river is unrealistic LOL

        In several states in the US it is illegal to capture rainwater.

        Water is a commodity! Palisades water index strike a bell.

        And this is very relevant to the conversation, where both water and life are commodities.
        • Jan 14 2014: Certainly, only governments can do that, but if you live in a democracy and you allow the government to commoditize water, then... well... don't blame anyone but yourself.
      • Jan 14 2014: If I could change it myself, I would no longer be in a democracy. I would be king, So we debate and discuss, but foremost we must educate ourselves

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.