Do you support the Nordic model for the US?

[Questerr]

True, but that's why healthcare needs market pressure more than almost anything else. When demand is inelastic, there's even less natural restraint on prices - so the only real discipline has to come from competition and consumer choices. IOW, the last thing you want in an inelastic market is a monopoly or government price controls. .

What are going to do? Create branding in sutures or pacemakers that compete for demand? Inelastic demand means companies can effectively charge the entirety of consumer surplus because consumers have no choice but to buy the product.

Does it matter to the person who can't afford a lifesaving surgery that the price is what the market determined it to be?

I guess in AnCapistan, they could always sell one of their kids into slavery to pay for it.

 

[aociswundumho]

What do you think Trump is already setting up right now?
AI is the new "Death Panels" or "dintcha heer?"

Don't knock AI, it's going to eventually save us from this awful healthcare system, which btw is awesome for the workers. Doctors are the highest paid profession in the country, and nurses average nearly fifty bucks an hour.

Like I said earlier, what changes is WHO PAYS the healthcare providers.
You keep going back over and over again to "government run" healthcare and single payer is not government run healthcare.
Socialized medicine is government run healthcare, where the government builds and operates all the hospitals and clinics and all medical
personnel are government employees.
That is not single payer. That is not single payer. That is not single payer. That is not single payer.

Everyone considers Canada's system to be socialized medicine, yet the vast majority of doctors are in private practice, and the majority of hospitals are not government-owned.

 

[L88]

Then increase the tax rates.

It won't happen while both parties would rather use debt.

 

[Yes_Minister]

I "think" it because I read a rather detailed article a few months ago they suggested exiles are treated like second class citizens. I've tried to find it again - no luck so far

Well, I would need to see the article to judge it. I don't doubt there are some xenophobic attitudes in those countries, but I don't think that is a negative reflection on those economic policies.

Actually, aren't those countries rather homogenous population wise? I don't think Canada is anywhere near that uniformity.

Do you think Social Democracies only work with a homogeneous population? What evidence do you have for that theory?

 

[aociswundumho]

Well, I would need to see the article to judge it. I don't doubt there are some xenophobic attitudes in those countries,

That's putting it mildly. They are closed societies, foreigners are never accepted no matter how long they live there. Immigrants end up in ghettos because the superior aryan nordic race won't hire them and won't rent to them.

 

[Yes_Minister]

That's putting it mildly. They are closed societies, foreigners are never accepted no matter how long they live there. Immigrants end up in ghettos because the superior aryan nordic race won't hire them and won't rent to them.

Again, I don't doubt there might be some truth to that, but I don't see how that is a poor reflection of their economic policies. I don't buy that you need to be xenophobic in order to have a functional social democracy.

 

[aociswundumho]

Again, I don't doubt there might be some truth to that, but I don't see how that is a poor reflection of their economic policies.

Because their economic policies require each person to financially sacrifice a lot for the common good. That's a lot easier to do when everyone looks the same and thinks the same.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Because their economic policies require each person to financially sacrifice a lot for the common good. That's a lot easier to do when everyone looks the same and thinks the same.

There is no way you could prove that. I think you can have a common goal without everyone being the same race or religion.

The US has become very xenophobic, freaking out over Canadian snowbirds and they have the least developed welfare state among the first world Democracies, it's not like the free market magically did away with xenophobic attitudes.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Everyone considers Canada's system to be socialized medicine, yet the vast majority of doctors are in private practice, and the majority of hospitals are not government-owned.

No, they do NOT.
---You just nailed the difference when you said "the vast majority of doctors are in private practice, and the majority of hospitals are not government-owned" and that's BECAUSE Canada's system is not socialized, it is single payer.
*The National Health Service in the UK
*The USA Veterans Administration healthcare system♣
Those are examples of socialized medicine.

The US Government builds, owns and operates their VA healthcare system and everyone working at VA is a government employee.
The United Kingdom, same thing....and the story with the UK was simple practicality because in 1948 much of the former "patchwork" British system had been bombed out and reduced to rubble, and most British subjects were unemployed and broke, and had been through some pretty awful parts of the war.
King George decided that his subjects had been through enough and that Clement Atlee, a Labour MP, would set it up.

Canada and the USA both have had fully built out mature systems, so there is no need to reinvent anything.
The problem is NOT quality or availability of care, the problem is all the competing private insurers all grappling for their piece of the pie so they can show profit to shareholders. The reason single payer saves money is because it eliminates all of that overhead, Uncle Sam is the PAYOR.
We pay taxes, Uncle Sam pays the healthcare system.

Nothing about it is socialized except the insurance.
Medicare A & B is single payer, although in the last twenty-five years or so we've adding ideas like Part D, an optional, federally-regulated, private insurance plan that helps pay for prescription drugs.
Thankfully as spouse/caregiver to a 100% service connected disabled veteran I get to use CHAMPVA instead of Part D, for drug coverage and as a gap policy to cover the 20 percent Medicare hole.
What a lot of people are proposing is utilizing a kind of adaptation to a Medicare For All setup.

♣ The VA healthcare system differs from the British NHS in that some veterans must pay a reduced subsidized monthly premium for their VA care if their conditions are not service-connected and their income exceeds certain limits and they are not sufficiently disabled.

VA uses a Priority Group system which is explained here.

 

[Gaius46]

There's already a huge and growing market for healthcare called medical tourism. People already shop the world for healthcare.



So you think free market reforms would make healthcare more expensive than it is now?

View attachment 67594450

I think treating healthcare as a free market has gone a long way to getting us where we are now.

 

[aociswundumho]

No, they do NOT.
---You just nailed the difference when you said "the vast majority of doctors are in private practice, and the majority of hospitals are not government-owned" and that's BECAUSE Canada's system is not socialized, it is single payer.
*The National Health Service in the UK
*The USA Veterans Administration healthcare system♣
Those are examples of socialized medicine.

The US Government builds, owns and operates their VA healthcare system and everyone working at VA is a government employee.

I understand what you're saying, but ownership and control amount to the same thing. The state doesn't have to own something in order to control it, and if the state is controlling an industry then it's socialism. You certainly can't call it capitalism, and those are the only two options.

The United Kingdom, same thing....and the story with the UK was simple practicality because in 1948 much of the former "patchwork" British system had been bombed out and reduced to rubble, and most British subjects were unemployed and broke, and had been through some pretty awful parts of the war.
King George decided that his subjects had been through enough and that Clement Atlee, a Labour MP, would set it up.

King George didn't decide policy. Labor ran on the promise of a cradle to grave welfare state and the people voted them in to get it. By a landslide. Attlee was a life-long socialist. That government is a good example of socialism which is not Marxist.

The problem is NOT quality or availability of care, the problem is all the competing private insurers all grappling for their piece of the pie so they can show profit to shareholders. The reason single payer saves money is because it eliminates all of that overhead, Uncle Sam is the PAYOR.
We pay taxes, Uncle Sam pays the healthcare system.

The bold part describes every insurance market. Property insurance, life insurance, auto insurance are all markets with "competing private insurers all grappling for their piece of the pie so they can show profit to shareholders." Why don't you want to nationalize them and reap the benefits you claim will come from nationalizing the health insurance market?

Nothing about it is socialized except the insurance.

1) Since the state is the single payer, it has enormous power to dictate prices and dictate coverage.

2) The government also controls the supply side as well. It limits the number of medical school spots, residency positions, and expensive tech like mri machines, to control costs.

3) Hospitals get yearly budgets instead of billing per patient. The amount of money they get determines the number of staff, and equipment the hospital will get, so state control over the hospital is baked in.

4) Does any of this sound like capitalism to you?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I understand what you're saying, but ownership and control amount to the same thing. The state doesn't have to own something in order to control it, and if the state is controlling an industry then it's socialism. You certainly can't call it capitalism, and those are the only two options.

No, you don't get to just make up your own lexicon.
Single payer isn't socialism.
The government doesn't take over ownership of the medical industry, and it doesn't even take over ownership of the insurance industry.
It creates a "super client" that pays for health insurance for all citizens.
It doesn't even try to rule out private insurance either. You can still purchase additional private insurance, it's just that the majority of Americans are going to take advantage of the single payer system.

So no, it is not socialism, it is the bulk of the American people asking Uncle Sam to leverage bargaining power.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

King George didn't decide policy. Labor ran on the promise of a cradle to grave welfare state and the people voted them in to get it. By a landslide. Attlee was a life-long socialist. That government is a good example of socialism which is not Marxist.

You don't get to dispute history just because you didn't study it.

When Clement Attlee's Labour Party won the 1945 election he appointed Aneurin Bevan as Health Minister. Bevan then embarked upon what the official historian of the NHS, Charles Webster, called an "audacious campaign" to take charge of the form the NHS finally took. Bevan's National Health Service was proposed in Westminster legislation for England and Wales from 1946 and Scotland from 1947, and the Northern Ireland Parliament's Public Health Services Act 1947.
NHS Wales was split from NHS (England) in 1969 when control was passed to the Secretary of State for Wales.

According to one history of the NHS, "In some respects the war had made things easier. In anticipation of massive air raid casualties, the Emergency Medical Service had brought the country's municipal and voluntary hospitals into one umbrella organisation, showing that a national hospital service was possible." Webster wrote in 2002 that "the Luftwaffe achieved in months what had defeated politicians and planners for at least two decades."

And I never said the King decided policy.
In fact I specifically mentioned Clement Atlee as the guy who set it up.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The bold part describes every insurance market. Property insurance, life insurance, auto insurance are all markets with "competing private insurers all grappling for their piece of the pie so they can show profit to shareholders." Why don't you want to nationalize them and reap the benefits you claim will come from nationalizing the health insurance market?

You sound like my daughter at age seven again.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

1) Since the state is the single payer, it has enormous power to dictate prices and dictate coverage.

2) The government also controls the supply side as well. It limits the number of medical school spots, residency positions, and expensive tech like mri machines, to control costs.

3) Hospitals get yearly budgets instead of billing per patient. The amount of money they get determines the number of staff, and equipment the hospital will get, so state control over the hospital is baked in.

4) Does any of this sound like capitalism to you?

There are reasons why some things are set up this way.
Would you prefer a free market police department or fire department?
The debate has raged for decades about healthcare, and almost every other country in the free world has managed to make something like this work.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm certainly entitled to ignore your tantrums about commies and their socialism just because the single payer system upsets you so much.

Oh gosh, the increased power to negotiate prices......OH NOOOEESSSSSSS!!!!!!

 

[Surrealistik]

A Scandinavian economist once said to Milton Friedman, ‘In Scandinavia, we have no poverty’

Milton Friedman replied, ‘That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either’

Apparently it needs to be said, but America obviously deals with a multitude of demographic, geographic, and geopolitical hurdles and responsibilities which largely irrelevant countries like Denmark don't need to deal with. The concept of applying the Nordic model to America is functionally as retarded as saying since America has oil and Qatar has oil, and Qatar subsidizes its population with oil money, we ought to subsidize our population with oil money!

Ah yes, one of many instances of Milton Friedman showcasing how being a capable economist does not exempt you from also being a nigh hopeless ideologue. Though, to his very limited credit I suppose, he at least had the presence of mind to criticize the bar in hell that was Ayn Rand for being intolerant and dogmatic, despite largely otherwise lavishing that basket case with praise.

The fundamental issue with the 'muh demography/geopolitics/cultural hemegony' issue as a necessary excluder of the Nordic model is that its proponents have never actually ever proven their case, particularly when some of the most seminal policies defining it could easily be achieved with funds that were cut from taxes largely for the benefit of the rich from Reagan, to Dubya, to Trump, or that were wasted on futile and counterproductive wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and others, like universal healthcare, would save America overall a substantial spend while constraining growth of costs, nevermind those components that cost nothing to implement, like broad union enrollment and robust workers rights/organized labour. While perhaps not every aspect of the Nordic model could be feasibly translated and transplanted, certainly enough could be that it would yield substantial improvements for the average American's standard of living.

Frankly, I would say the single greatest obstacle to the Nordic model in America lies in the constitutionally enshrined, since Buckley v Valeo 76 per Warren Burger's SCOTUS, lack of meaningful insulation between public office and private money that demonstrably steers policy away from the national benefit, and towards that of political sponsors and lobbying parties ( https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/125781/5/econpol-forum-2024-5-larcinese-us-election_2_.pdf | https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/w...ites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens.pdf ).

 

[Gozaburo]

Ah yes, one of many instances of Milton Friedman showcasing how being a capable economist does not exempt you from also being a nigh hopeless ideologue. Though, to his very limited credit I suppose, he at least had the presence of mind to criticize the bar in hell that was Ayn Rand for being intolerant and dogmatic, despite largely otherwise lavishing that basket case with praise.

The fundamental issue with the 'muh demography/geopolitics/cultural hemegony' issue as a necessary excluder of the Nordic model is that its proponents have never actually ever proven their case, particularly when some of the most seminal policies defining it could easily be achieved with funds that were cut from taxes largely for the benefit of the rich from Reagan, to Dubya, to Trump, or futile and counterproductive wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and others, like universal healthcare, would save America overall a substantial spend while constraining growth of costs, nevermind those components that cost nothing to implement, like broad union enrollment and robust workers rights/organized labour.

While I agree with most of what you say here, I don't think you actually prove Friedman wrong on this particular issue, nor am I sure of exactly what burden of proof you're demanding from him. His premise that Nords generally build high functioning, high trust societies no matter where they go seems to hold.

Frankly, I would say the single greatest obstacle to the Nordic model in America, lies in the constitutionally enshrined, since Buckley v Valeo 76 per Warren Burger's SCOTUS, lack of meaningful insulation between public office and private money that demonstrably steers policy away from national benefit, and towards that of political sponsors and lobbying parties ( https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/125781/5/econpol-forum-2024-5-larcinese-us-election_2_.pdf | https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/w...ites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens.pdf ).

Again, while I don't disagree necessarily I'd argue that the Nordic model shouldn't be something America should even be interested in emulating. We’re the eminent global empire, not some dying backwater Microstate with neat social services. I’m open to conversations about how the good can be integrated into the American liberal imperial model, but suggestions of transplanting the model entirely are as myopic as they are stupid.

 

[Surrealistik]

While I agree with most of what you say here, I don't think you actually prove Friedman wrong on this particular issue, nor am I sure of exactly what burden of proof you're demanding from him. His premise that Nords generally build high functioning, high trust societies no matter where they go seems to hold.

The fundamental issue with Milton's argument is he makes the same mistake many other, more 'market oriented' critics have made with regards to the Nordic model: 'that it simply cannot work in America because X or Y people of the Nordic sphere are uniquely capable/industrious/harmonious', and yet they ultimately never prove their assertion, or that a 'high trust society' however they nebulously and inconsistently define it, is fundamentally necessary for just about any and every element of the Nordic model.

Again, while I don't disagree necessarily I'd argue that the Nordic model shouldn't be something America should even be interested in emulating. We’re the eminent global empire, not some dying backwater Microstate with neat social services. I’m open to conversations about how the good can be integrated into the American liberal imperial model, but suggestions of transplanting the model entirely are as myopic as they are stupid.

As stated earlier, it's doubtful whether everything can be translated 1 for 1, but I do think a preponderance of the most important elements can certainly be implemented. The greatest obstacle of course, is interest groups, primarily those of and beholden to the ultra-rich, that domineer politics in this country through campaign finance and professional lobbying which would much rather hold onto their dolleros (or even loot the treasury) than spend them on the broad well-being of the country, and who have underwritten most of the biggest problems and unforced errors in American governance.

 

[aociswundumho]

You sound like my daughter at age seven again.

Hand waving isn't an argument.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Hand waving isn't an argument.

Neither is running around acting like my daughter when she was seven.
I made salient points about restructuring health insurance and you keep coming back with the equivalent of
"Oh then let's just socialize EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

You seem to have this overwhelming urge to RED BAIT anyone who isn't a John Bircher.
All the arguments about single payer have been beaten to death for years...and single payer nations have had the chance to trade it for a free market alternative.
Trump even sent "missionaries" to the UK in 2018 to try and entertain the idea of getting rid of the NHS and replacing it with something like our current model.
Guess why we never heard another word about that again...

I already know how this will turn out, and continue to turn out, and keep turning out, on and on and on ad nauseum
Welcome to another AOCISWUNDUMHO thread.



So I am outta here, go red bait the rest of the DP members, I'm immunizing myself with a shot of IDGAF what you think because you're not actually interested in
learning anything about the issue. You're only here to yell "COMMIE!!!!"

 

[aociswundumho]

And I never said the King decided policy.
In fact I specifically mentioned Clement Atlee as the guy who set it up.

Yes, you did:

King George decided that his subjects had been through enough and that Clement Atlee, a Labour MP, would set it up.

 

[Dans La Lune]

If it comes at a very steep price, it's not free.

Capitalism comes at a very steep price.

 

[aociswundumho]

There are reasons why some things are set up this way.
Would you prefer a free market police department or fire department?

1) There's no market for what police do. People want rights enforcement, not law enforcement.

2) Most firefighters in the US are voluntary.

The debate has raged for decades about healthcare, and almost every other country in the free world has managed to make something like this work.

No they haven't. For example, Canada's system is collapsing as we write. The average wait time is over 6 months from initial visit to treatment, and over 6 million Canadians can't even find a family doctor, and the system still costs a fortune to run.

That's the opposite of "success".

You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm certainly entitled to ignore your tantrums about commies and their socialism just because the single payer system upsets you so much.

Oh gosh, the increased power to negotiate prices......OH NOOOEESSSSSSS!!!!!!

 

[Dans La Lune]

That all depends on how you define it.

Um, how do you define it?

 

[aociswundumho]

Neither is running around acting like my daughter when she was seven.
I made salient points about restructuring health insurance and you keep coming back with the equivalent of
"Oh then let's just socialize EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Now hand waving along with poor reading compression. Let me break it down for you:

1) You said: "the problem is all the competing private insurers all grappling for their piece of the pie so they can show profit to shareholders."

2) I pointed out that this "problem" exists in all insurance markets, therefore shouldn't you want to fix those insurance markets as well and reap the benefits?

3) You replied with, "You sound like my daughter at age seven".

If you're just going to hand wave, maybe you should head over to /r/politics, that's seems to be more your speed.