Universal Heathcare

[Kandahar]

The same can be said for the auto industry or the home industry or the food industry...


Would they be better run if administered by the government?


Want a government car? Government home? Government food?



Yeah... that's sexy. :lol:

I think there are a couple distinctions to be made here. For one, the auto/home/food industry generally functions fine without much government interference. American consumers don't pay a lot more for autos/homes/food than do their counterparts in other developed countries. That is not the case in the medical industry. The fact that so many other countries are able to have more government intervention AND keep the costs to a much lower level than the United States is, indicates to me that they must be doing something right.

Another distinction is that those other industries are luxuries (except for a minimal amount of food, which is provided by food stamps anyway), whereas medical care is usually essential. Unless we, as a society, are prepared to completely stop paying for ANY medical care - to the point of letting an uninsured heart attack victim die in the emergency room waiting area - more preventative measures will reduce those costs.

Also, those other industries you mentioned are fairly streamlined as it is, because competition insures it. In the medical industry, on the other hand, the costs of streamlining the system (and saving lives) are generally too great for any individual doctor or hospital to bear.

I'm the first to agree that in general, more government regulation makes industries more inefficient. But it seems that medical care is an exception.

This is a problem, but the solution is to get doctors to be a bit more commerical in their business. More advertising. Price comparisons. And package deals.

I have no problem with that. It doesn't mean we can't also have universal health insurance.

Price competition is always legitimate pressure. Government fiats that declare prices to = X are not. In the first case you have OTHER doctors saying they can do it for less. That's fair. Anyone in the market has to deal with that. Government telling you can't charge more is ****ing commie bullshit.

I don't think that the government should set a price for any medical procedure, for the reasons you listed. But they can give a voucher of $X per year for people to purchase any private health insurance plan that they want, without destroying the basic market system.

 

[Diuretic]

Part of the reason why health care in the US is expensive is because of the litiginous society we live in. Some people attempt to use the court system as a get rich quick scheme.

That's probably not the case but if you have any evidence it would be good to read.

Others won't take personal responsibility for their actions and believe someone else is to blame and they sue.

Everyone owes everyone else a duty of care. Take that away and see what it looks like.

Malpractice insurance is skyrocketing. The doctors have to make up the cost of the insurance by raising their rates which the patient pays.

You must have a lot of incompetent doctors in that case. I'd want something done about that if I were you.

Tort reform is badly needed in this lawsuit happy country of ours but none is forth coming because who populates Congress? Lawyers.

The only winners out of tort reform are insurance companies.

Then health care costs also rise because of those who don't pay. The homeless and illegal aliens. Not much cazn be done about the homeless, but the illegal alien thing can be cured by showing them the door. In Mexico, if you can't pay, you don't get seen.

Illegal immigrants - I'll stay away from that.

I have talked to Canadians who despise their system and come south for their health care. Socialized medicine killed my Danish aunt. She was diagnosed with gallstones, scheduled for surgery about 8 months down the road and died of liver cancer one month later.

Which provinces did they come from? Canada's system isn't national, it's controlled by each province as far as I know.

Now I don't mean to trivialise the loss of your Aunt but how did 'socialised medicine" kill her?

 

[1069]

Not much cazn be done about the homeless, but the illegal alien thing can be cured by showing them the door. In Mexico, if you can't pay, you don't get seen.

So we shouldn't give a crap about the health of Mexican men, women, and children?
I don't know you yet, but I'll bet a chocolate chip cookie that you consider yourself "prolife".

It's ironic how the "prolife' stance never seems to extend to brown children, or to children born on the other side of an imaginary line, or even to children who were born in the US to parents who were born on the other side of an imaginary line, parents who did not say "Mother May I" before crossing the imaginary line.

:roll:

I guess, in those cases, "life" ain't worth much, is it?

 

[Mendacious]

Now I don't mean to trivialise the loss of your Aunt but how did 'socialised medicine" kill her?

Misdiagnosed, no use of diagnoses tools, just a general exam, a proclamation of gall stones and issued a scrip for painkillers, placed on a waiting list for surgery and told to go away. A general malaise is what pervades socialized medicine, especially if doctors pay is capped, no incentive to provide other than the basics of care.

It's ironic how the "prolife' stance never seems to extend to brown children, or to children born on the other side of an imaginary line, or even to children who were born in the US to parents who were born on the other side of an imaginary line, parents who did not say "Mother May I" before crossing the imaginary line.

I just pointed out what Mexico does. And why should the taxpayer foot the bill for those who violated our laws daily? And as to the born here from mothers over there, close this loophole:

Line 1 of Section 1 was written to redress the legacy of slavery and make all children of former slaves citizens to further aid in their assimilation into American society. News flash: Slavery officially ended 142 years ago in America. Line 1, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is no longer needed to fulfill its original intent. Line 1, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a loophole that is being used by illegal aliens to legitimize an intentional violation of United States law.

Do that and all those born here by parents here illegally are not citizens of this country.

 

[1069]

Misdiagnosed, no use of diagnoses tools, just a general exam, a proclamation of gall stones and issued a scrip for painkillers, placed on a waiting list for surgery and told to go away. A general malaise is what pervades socialized medicine, especially if doctors pay is capped, no incentive to provide other than the basics of care.


I just pointed out what Mexico does. And why should the taxpayer foot the bill for those who violated our laws daily? And as to the born here from mothers over there, close this loophole:

Line 1 of Section 1 was written to redress the legacy of slavery and make all children of former slaves citizens to further aid in their assimilation into American society. News flash: Slavery officially ended 142 years ago in America. Line 1, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is no longer needed to fulfill its original intent. Line 1, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a loophole that is being used by illegal aliens to legitimize an intentional violation of United States law.

Do that and all those born here by parents here illegally are not citizens of this country.

I believe the lives of those born in other countries are as important as our lives.
I'm not a nationalist.

 

[Mendacious]

I believe the lives of those born in other countries are as important as our lives.
I'm not a nationalist.

I never said that they were unimportant, just have Mexico take care of Mexicans.

 

[1069]

I never said that they were unimportant, just have Mexico take care of Mexicans.

How do we "have them" do that?

 

[Mendacious]

How do we "have them" do that?

By not providing an ambulance whenever they cross the border and demand one.

 

[1069]

By not providing an ambulance whenever they cross the border and demand one.

I don't think that will "make" Mexico do anything.
i think it will merely cause more innocent people to die.

 

[Mendacious]

I don't think that will "make" Mexico do anything.
i think it will merely cause more innocent people to die.

When I used to work on the southern border I routinely denied an ambulance unless they were bleeding copious amounts.

And nobody died.

 

[bigsmitty]

People who are comforted by thoughts of "universal" medicine, I recommend this article.

The Ayn Rand Institute: Health Care Is Not A Right

 

[Kandahar]

People who are comforted by thoughts of "universal" medicine, I recommend this article.

The Ayn Rand Institute: Health Care Is Not A Right

Ya I used to be an Ayn Rand fan. But you outgrow it when you discover that the world isn't that simple.

The article makes some good points, but the argument it's criticizing is 100% free, government-provided health care. That isn't the only approach we can take to ensure that everyone has affordable access to health care. If the government just gave every citizen a $2500 voucher (or however much it costs) to spend on any private health care plan they wanted, the basic free market mechanism would stay intact.

Of course there would be some negative consequences to this approach, but not nearly enough to outweigh all the positive consequences. I think this is proven in the fact that the US has by far the highest health care costs per capita, despite having the least interventionist policy.

 

[1069]

Ya I used to be an Ayn Rand fan. But you outgrow it when you discover that the world isn't that simple.

Exactly.
It sort of freaks me out that there are actually people beyond adolescence who still find Rand to be meaningful and relevant.

 

[Karmashock]

Thats not the point. Random Joe on the street got zero bargin power against the drug companies, but one customer that buys loads in bulk has a huge influence on the price.. but when that customer is not allowed by law to negotiate for a price, well..

Oh, and how much bargaining power do you have at a car dealership? Should the government buy all the cars for you at government prices and then issue you a new car every few years paid for through taxes? :lol:

Give me a break.

Ahh freedom to die? It has nothing to do with socialist bullshit but has everything to do with having a heart and caring for your fellow man/woman.

That's what charity is for... if you cared, you'd contribute to something that didn't demand the money. When it becomes a tax you're no longer doing it out of the kindness of anything. you either pay or the police come and take it.


And before you tell me the police don't come... tell me what happens to soemone that refuses to pay a tax? That's right... eventually the police DO come.


that is what you've done... perhaps you thought you were doing it to be nice, but in the end you're forcing people to do things.

Top 20 big pharmas represent majority of world pharma market | WTN

Oldish numbers (but newer than the ones on Wikipedia), but the idea is there. The top drugs company used 14% of its revenue on R&D.

Forgive me for not accepting "wistechnology.com" as a source. :lol:

I aint no socialist, but I belive that universal healthcare is more benificary for the country than a private system.

How are you not a socialist? You've got to be one of the biggest socialists I've run onto on this board period.

Depends what you call Europe. I admit that Sweden has untill recently had rather lax laws on downloading of stuff, but inside the EU there are strict laws. Outside the EU, in Russia.. yea thats where quite a few of the pirates hang out cause there is no laws on the subject in the area. But they also hang out in Asia, and South America.. Brazil is especially bad.

ISOhunt is still up and I believe still in europe.

Hence I said "steal". Look up the history for the jet engine.

Why don't you just man up and explain what you're talking about or shut up. I'm tired of your vague bullshit. Say what you mean or don't say anything at all.

Hog wash. The consumer can make any such decisions as its their life on the line. Doctors dont hang on trees you know.

Exactly, which is why the consumer should choose and not someone who's health IS NOT on the line.

Because a state instittution to me is run by state bureaucrats. Hospitals are run by proffessionals, not state bureaucrats. But I guess in the American mind set anything "state funded" is then owned and controlled by the state.. just not that simple.

What's the distinction when they both get their pay check from the government? When they both are told what to do by the government. When they are ultimately responsible to the government?


What's the difference? Different union? Oh you belong to a different union and you're not a government official even if your pay check and orders come from the government? :lol:

Riiiight... try again.

And hospitals could not make a bargining group to pressure the price down? Say 100 hospitals joined together to negotiate with the companies.. that would be not allowed?

If they choose to do so independent of the government, fine. But that can have ZERO ties to the government what so ever. If FREE and INDEPENDENT hospitals choose to bind with others to do that, fine... But not the government doing it for them.

Where did I say "only the feds"? There is no point in going to the extremes. The point is that negotiation can happen.. in the present system it can not.

you're right under your system you dictate prices and if anyone doesn't like it, they can hang.

Yes you would, when it comes down to it.. you would send in the troops to confiscate the medicine and distribute it.. any rational pragmatic human being would do that.

if the future of my civilization was at risk, sure... but anything short of that, no.

And you can prove this? and Canada aint the "rest of the world"

No, but it is the medical system people keep saying the US should emulate. Which is a joke.

tsk, you do have a cold heart.

No, merely a clear mind.

And the US system is so much better? Do HMO's give access to this "up to date treatment" all the time? What about the 40% of Americans that dont have health insurance?

I'd like to see your numbers on that... I'd assume it's mostly young people between the ages of 18 and 25 who are less likely to be employed and less likely to need medical treatment.

heh, sure, whatever, you live in denial.

Look up the difference in life expectancy and birth rate... I bet the difference is a close match.

Sure live in your denial, but the facts debunk that claim over and over again.

Whatever you say... remember who to call when you get cancer at 80... you can wait in line for 6 months to get treated in europe of be treated immediately in the US...


We accept all major credit cards.
=======================================================

I think there are a couple distinctions to be made here. For one, the auto/home/food industry generally functions fine without much government interference. American consumers don't pay a lot more for autos/homes/food than do their counterparts in other developed countries. That is not the case in the medical industry. The fact that so many other countries are able to have more government intervention AND keep the costs to a much lower level than the United States is, indicates to me that they must be doing something right.

The American health industry is not run like the other industries through. There are too many plans, too much government red tape, and far far too much litigation.

Furthermore, there isn't enough advertising, price competition, or other basic market forces common in other sectors.


So I would say with great credibility that capitalism hasn't really had a chance to work on much of the US health industry since the 30's when the government instituted a wage freeze to stop inflation... and thus companies started offering health insurance as a backdoor means of raising your wages.


Ever since then it's been corrupted by the government. I'd like to see what happened if it got out of it and doctors were encouraged to market themselves just like everyone else.

Another distinction is that those other industries are luxuries (except for a minimal amount of food, which is provided by food stamps anyway), whereas medical care is usually essential. Unless we, as a society, are prepared to completely stop paying for ANY medical care - to the point of letting an uninsured heart attack victim die in the emergency room waiting area - more preventative measures will reduce those costs.

Health care is typically not essential for survival actually... it improves quality of life and eventually extent of life... but only people that have a life threatening problem need it to survive and most people don't have such problems... at least not until they get so old that Age is their real disease.

Also, those other industries you mentioned are fairly streamlined as it is, because competition insures it. In the medical industry, on the other hand, the costs of streamlining the system (and saving lives) are generally too great for any individual doctor or hospital to bear.

Why?

I'm the first to agree that in general, more government regulation makes industries more inefficient. But it seems that medical care is an exception.

No, we're just choking on lawyers and bad government laws.


What you don't seem to realize is that there is already a LOT of government regulation into the medical industry. The FDA alone probably adds a good 20 to 30 percent to the cost of drugs in that it takes something like 10 years for a drug to be approved which is far more then the time it takes in europe.

I have no problem with that. It doesn't mean we can't also have universal health insurance.

The two are completely mutually exclusive.


Either have Big brother take care of you or pay the price of freedom.

Choose.

I don't think that the government should set a price for any medical procedure, for the reasons you listed. But they can give a voucher of $X per year for people to purchase any private health insurance plan that they want, without destroying the basic market system.

No, because no system is going to charge less then X once they know that everyone will spend that amount period.


It's a bad idea...

 

[PeteEU]

Oh, and how much bargaining power do you have at a car dealership? Should the government buy all the cars for you at government prices and then issue you a new car every few years paid for through taxes? :lol:

Give me a break.

So you are comparing buying a car to buying life saving or needed to survive drugs? So you expect a person needing X drug to survive, to go from drug store to drug store negotiating a better "price" in a market where prices are predetermined by the drug companies? What planet do you live on?

That's what charity is for... if you cared, you'd contribute to something that didn't demand the money. When it becomes a tax you're no longer doing it out of the kindness of anything. you either pay or the police come and take it.

And before you tell me the police don't come... tell me what happens to soemone that refuses to pay a tax? That's right... eventually the police DO come.

that is what you've done... perhaps you thought you were doing it to be nice, but in the end you're forcing people to do things.

How typical American.. self centered and egotistical. Push the burden on to "charities" who many have secondary motives, not to mention dont have nearly the organisational or monetary funds to really do things on a grand scale, which is what is needed more than often.

Forgive me for not accepting "wistechnology.com" as a source. :lol:

Not my problem, as I did also post another source wth similar numbers. Wikipedia has much older numbers but they show the same trend.

How are you not a socialist? You've got to be one of the biggest socialists I've run onto on this board period.

Anyone outside the US is a socialist in your eyes. I am a member of the Danish Liberal party. And thats liberal as in what the word actually means, not what Americans have warped it into meaning. The Danish Liberal party is presently in goverment with the Conservative Party of Denmark, and supported the Iraqi Invasion with troops. Their polices are hardly socialist, as they belive in privatisation, free market and market powers, freedom of the individual (movement, thought, speech and so on) and belive in the smaller goverment the better. However they also belive in the welfare state (as does all parties, even the radical right wing racists), but also personal responsbility to not fall in the welfare hole (so to say) and once there to do ones damnest to get out of that hole. So as you see, not exactly socialst policies.

ISOhunt is still up and I believe still in europe.

And? What country is it in? Russia? Sweden? France? There is one hell of a difference.

Why don't you just man up and explain what you're talking about or shut up. I'm tired of your vague bullshit. Say what you mean or don't say anything at all.

Not my fault that you, like most Americans are ignorant of the darkside of your own history.

Exactly, which is why the consumer should choose and not someone who's health IS NOT on the line.

So the consumer in hick town USA with 1 doctor has loadssss of choice in doctors? Of course it has to be the consumers choice in what doctor he or she wants to see, and nothing in a Universal Healthcare system prevents this.

What's the distinction when they both get their pay check from the government? When they both are told what to do by the government. When they are ultimately responsible to the government?

What's the difference? Different union? Oh you belong to a different union and you're not a government official even if your pay check and orders come from the government? :lol:

Riiiight... try again.

What orders? That there is no budget to preform X operation? Is that an order? And does that not also happen in the States?

All doctors, in the US or Europe, are bound by ethical and proffessional codes that all originate from the goverment. No doctor can do anything without having been approved by some goverment organisation. So in that sense all doctors are goverment employees under your diffinition. On top of that, US doctors that recieve payment via Medicaid or other goverment funded programs are also under goverment control per your definition.

And yes there is a union issue in Europe. Doctors can if they want be in a union or not..up to them, like it is for all Europeans. However they are not registered as civil servants, which is a HUGE difference. Being a civil servant has its priviliages and its curses, for both sides and yes those rules go back to the bad old days of the early 20th century.

If they choose to do so independent of the government, fine. But that can have ZERO ties to the government what so ever. If FREE and INDEPENDENT hospitals choose to bind with others to do that, fine... But not the government doing it for them.

Whatever, your hatred towards the goverment is close to paraniod, and yet you got no problem with greedy corporations fleecing the average american..,, but nooo there should be no accountablity or oversight by an independant organistation. This means that in the end the only way random Joe can get any justice is by sueing, and even here you and others like you, are for cutting away that right too.

you're right under your system you dictate prices and if anyone doesn't like it, they can hang.

Was talking about the US system. In Europe there is negotiation, and there is no dictating of prices (with the expection of maybe one nation), that is basicly a neo con lie.

if the future of my civilization was at risk, sure... but anything short of that, no.

Sure. Amazing that you will stick to the economic "rules" but when it comes to human rights, US civil liberties.. fek em, hang the terrorsts.

No, but it is the medical system people keep saying the US should emulate. Which is a joke.

Probally because they cant bash the French system as it will expose even bigger pitholds in the US system.

No, merely a clear mind.

Cold heart

I'd like to see your numbers on that... I'd assume it's mostly young people between the ages of 18 and 25 who are less likely to be employed and less likely to need medical treatment.

What numbers? That 40+ million Americans (% was a typo) dont have health insurance?

Whatever you say... remember who to call when you get cancer at 80... you can wait in line for 6 months to get treated in europe of be treated immediately in the US...

LOL you are saying that an HMO will give ground breaking cancer treatment to an 80 year old, when they barely give such treatment to a 30 year old?

 

[rivrrat]

I've said previously and I'll say it again. The reason for the high cost of healthcare in the US is the socialist system we already have in place. As explained more clearly in the book, Why We Spend Too Much on Health Care (1992):

The manner in which government funds are spent on health care also fuels health care inflation. For example, Medicaid beneficiaries make small payments toward their medical expenses, giving them an incentive to overuse health services and little incentive to comparison-shop for lower-cost therapies or providers. Prior to 1983, health care providers were paid the estimated cost of the service plus an agreed-upon profit. This “cost-plus” pricing encouraged providers to expand the range and volume of services they delivered and increase the prices they billed the government. With its huge market share, changes in the federal government's reimbursement policy are immediately felt by other players in the health-care field. The cost-plus payment system under Medicare forced other health care buyers, who bid against Medicare for health services, to pay higher prices. The heavy traffic of consumers for whom health care was nearly or entirely "free" made it more difficult for those consumers who were still cost-conscious to have any effect on prices.

Serious cost-containment efforts finally started in 1983, when the federal government changed Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement from cost-plus to predetermined payments for medical procedures grouped into diagnosis related groups (DRGs). Direct government financing of capital spending continued, with the federal government assuming 80 percent of capital costs....

Starting in 1986, hospitals began shifting the cost of treating Medicare and Medicaid patients onto patients with private health insurance. Jack Meyer, Sharon Silow-Carroll and Sean Sullivan describe the results- “As Medicare and Medicaid have tightened their payment policies, providers have naturally tried to shift some costs to private payers. The cost shifting may not cause total health-care spending to be any higher, but it increases the tab for many private employers and individuals.”

...Government's entry into the health care market has dramatically expanded the volume, intensity, and price of health care. By first bidding up the price of health care with a payment system that encouraged excessive utilization and spending, and then imposing cost-containment measures that led to cost-shifting, government has inadvertently increased the cost of health care to other buyers and changed the way health care is delivered. In so doing, government has contributed to a process that has priced health care and health insurance out of the reach of millions of Americans.

From the book, The Dangers of Socialized Medicine

The Declaration of Independence

The reason for the American rejection of socialized medicine for over one hundred years lies in the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Our ancestors had a radically different understanding of the words in that document than their counterparts living today.

What did the words ". . .they [men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . ." mean to our ancestors? They meant that you, as an individual, have the right to live your life the way you choose, so long as you do not interfere, in some direct way, with the rights of others to do the same. You have a right to sustain your life by producing goods and services through the exercise of talents and abilities that God gave you-and then trading these with others who are doing the same. You have a right to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth (i.e., property) through this process. And you have a right to choose what to do with your own money.

And while the political process was certainly abused (i.e., slavery, tariffs, railroad grants), the prevailing philosophy of our American ancestors was that it was the height of evil and immorality to use the political process to steal one person’s money in order to give it to someone else. This is the reason - not ignorance, but rather morality - that Americans rejected such schemes as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Unlike their modern-day American counterparts, they believed in and practiced God’s commandment, "Thou shalt not steal".
...

Thus, Americans believed that charity towards others meant nothing unless it came from the willing heart of the giver. They understood that "coerced charity" was simply disguised thievery. And while they would fight to protect the right of a person to say no to his neighbor, they had faith that most people would voluntarily help those in need.

Socialized medicine is anti-freedom, anti-individual, and anti-independence. I don't think I could loathe any notion more.

More later, I have a meeting.

 

[Karmashock]

So you are comparing buying a car to buying life saving or needed to survive drugs? So you expect a person needing X drug to survive, to go from drug store to drug store negotiating a better "price" in a market where prices are predetermined by the drug companies? What planet do you live on?

Rarely is there only one drug that will "save" someone... typically there are several from different competing companies. As to the need to have a given drug... people need all sorts of things... It doesn't mean there can't be negotiation on price by the people that need it.

How typically American..

And with that, I'm done talking to you. I don't log on to the Internet to talk to self important little twits with delusions of superiority.


Enjoy life sir... Truly... But when you presume to tell me how to run my life or how my people should live from your limited perspective... you do no one any favors. I care literally nothing for your opinion of my people. We have NOTHING to prove to the likes of you... and whatever you might think your whole ideology becomes more and more irrelevant every passing day. So enjoy life... I shall enjoy mine... and hopefully we can avoid standing in each other's sunshine.

 

[Herophant]

Personally I can not understand the stupidity of people who sees Universal healthcare as intrinsically doomed to fail, and furthermore even leading to totalitarianism. The fact that there are perfectly functioning democratic states with UH should for any reasonably sane person disprove this notion.
Sure one can find flaws. Hell maybe there are good arguments against it based on local realities in some countries. Nevertheless Universal Healthcare is not universally impossible.

 

[Karmashock]

Personally I can not understand the stupidity of people who sees Universal healthcare as intrinsically doomed to fail, and furthermore even leading to totalitarianism. The fact that there are perfectly functioning democratic states with UH should for any reasonably sane person disprove this notion.
Sure one can find flaws. Hell maybe there are good arguments against it based on local realities in some countries. Nevertheless Universal Healthcare is not universally impossible.

You're exaggerating the opposition's statements to make your own sound more reasonable by comparison.

No one said it leads to totalitarianism or that it's "impossible"... what has been said is that it is form of repression in and of itself... and that while not impossible it is very difficult to get it right.



There is no such thing as a free lunch in this world. So if you get something you have to take it from somewhere else. That's just the way it works.



I have no problem with a voluntary universal health care system. I do have a problem with one that is not voluntary. If you let people opt out of the system and have NOTHING to do with it there after... then I have no problem. In fact, I don't even mind universal health care set up on a state by state basis with each state self funding it's own system... and of course some states choosing not to have one at all.


Either of those are fine... that's in keeping with the founding principles of this country. Otherwise, you're pushing it on people... and I'm not ok with that.
I don't think anyone saying it leads to totalitarianism but is a form of repression in and of itself. What's more while no one has said it's impossible, I thin

 

[Herophant]

You're exaggerating the opposition's statements to make your own sound more reasonable by comparison.

No one said it leads to totalitarianism or that it's "impossible"... what has been said is that it is form of repression in and of itself... and that while not impossible it is very difficult to get it right.



There is no such thing as a free lunch in this world. So if you get something you have to take it from somewhere else. That's just the way it works.



I have no problem with a voluntary universal health care system. I do have a problem with one that is not voluntary. If you let people opt out of the system and have NOTHING to do with it there after... then I have no problem. In fact, I don't even mind universal health care set up on a state by state basis with each state self funding it's own system... and of course some states choosing not to have one at all.


Either of those are fine... that's in keeping with the founding principles of this country. Otherwise, you're pushing it on people... and I'm not ok with that.
I don't think anyone saying it leads to totalitarianism but is a form of repression in and of itself. What's more while no one has said it's impossible, I thin

My apologies if I seemed to harsh, I tried to make it clear that my arguments were directed at the more black and white, socialism=totalitarianism mentality. As previously stated I have no problems admitting problems with Universal Healthcare. However as I live in a nation with Universal Healthcare; the notion of it being impossible is so utterly ignorant to me.
As to the topic of optional Universal Healthcare I assume it’s meant as optional as to funding? I seriously doubt – with the exception of some cases of mental illness – you have to use the public option. One really has to look at how nation states can function. What is freedom and how can we get the most of it? Personally I can’t see any system of government – in reality not theory - providing more freedom than a democracy. Some sort of constitution to protect minority rights is a good thing. Nevertheless some people’s preferences of freedom can’t be protected as they are in total opposition of the majority. Legally being able to hunt down and exterminate marching bands – as the vermin they are - that wakes you at 7 am after a late night drinking would be a freedom I would like. (I know, im exaggerating again sorry)

 

[Kandahar]

I've said previously and I'll say it again. The reason for the high cost of healthcare in the US is the socialist system we already have in place. As explained more clearly in the book, Why We Spend Too Much on Health Care (1992):

If that is true, then the countries with even MORE socialized health care systems should get even worse health care per dollar spent, right? That is not what the facts show.

 

[Nietz1950]

We shouldn't pretend there are just a few developed countries that have universal healthcare. All developed nations - excluding the US - have some form of nationalized healthcare for all. It's rare to find any healthcare ranking in which the US isn't at or near the bottom (longevity, infant mortality, procedures avoided, physicians per capita, management waste, etc). Even US public healthcare programs are more cost-effective.

Here's why even the libertarians should find Canada more "free" than the US. In Canada, government spending to GDP is only 1.5% higher in Canada, but this includes healthcare. In the US, healthcare spending is provided mostly through private spending, but accounts for about 17% of GDP. After taxes and healthcare, Canadians have much more of their money available to them than Americans.

You might argue that the US lets you "choose" not to have healthcare, therefore that 1.5% is more freedom to you.... you would be wrong.

Nobody chooses not to have healthcare. If you need care, every country is obligated to provide it to you and nobody ever turns it down. They simply take the healthcare and "choose" not to have insurance.

 

[Nietz1950]

I know some people like sources so here is some help:

New England Journal of medicine finds Bureaucracy and overhead in US private care is 3 times higher than the Canadian public system, and much higher than Medicare. The cost of so many providers / insurers creates much clerical and administrative costs.

http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/releases/0820woolhimmel.html

The International Journal of Health Services publishes that the US could cover all uninsured Americans at no extra cost, if administrative costs could be lowered to Canadian levels.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/IJHS_State_Paper.pdf

The US Office of Technology and Assessment reviewed several models as superior. Note the Canadian case, as it is the closest to the US system and switched to a public model in the 60s. Prior to the switch, Canada had equal spending and healthcare as the US. OTA found after the switch, Canada actually had too many doctors and needed to cut graduation levels, as it had prepared for a medical exodus to the US that never happened.

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/disk1/1995/9562_n.html

The Joint Canada / US government survey of health found Americans were more likely to go without care than Canadians at any point. Those with insurance had statistically the same likelihood of receiving treatment, but the uninsured were far more likely to go without care in the US. The satisfaction survey found the same trend.

N C H S - N H I S - The Joint Canada-United States Survey of Health

These are peer-reviewed publications from medical journals and intragovernmental reports. They aren't weblogs or some opinion piece as I see make up much of this thread. I focused on Canada because it is the closest system to the US and least vulnerable to externalities. Immigration rates are higher than the US (including illegals), litigation is within 1% of the US, culture & age are similar, the system is public/private mixed, and providers remain private.

Canada's system is also much worse than most other countries. It is also one of the most expensive, and not nearly as successful as countries like France, Germany, or Japan.

 

[Karmashock]

My apologies if I seemed to harsh, I tried to make it clear that my arguments were directed at the more black and white, socialism=totalitarianism mentality. As previously stated I have no problems admitting problems with Universal Healthcare. However as I live in a nation with Universal Healthcare; the notion of it being impossible is so utterly ignorant to me.

You're doing it again... you're exaggerating the opposition to make your own statements sound more reasonable by comparision. No one said it was impossible.

As to the topic of optional Universal Healthcare I assume it’s meant as optional as to funding? I seriously doubt – with the exception of some cases of mental illness – you have to use the public option. One really has to look at how nation states can function. What is freedom and how can we get the most of it? Personally I can’t see any system of government – in reality not theory - providing more freedom than a democracy. Some sort of constitution to protect minority rights is a good thing. Nevertheless some people’s preferences of freedom can’t be protected as they are in total opposition of the majority.

The US cares about minority rights. And the most important minority is the minority of One.


It is relevant. What "universal" really means to you is "involuntary" "mandatory"... or "forced".


I have no problem with healthcare for all... it simply must have the consent of those in the system. What's more I'd be even happier if it weren't a federal but a state by state program.


that said, if it were federal but entirely voluntary, then I don't mind it.

Legally being able to hunt down and exterminate marching bands – as the vermin they are - that wakes you at 7 am after a late night drinking would be a freedom I would like. (I know, im exaggerating again sorry)

that's more then an exaggeration, that's a misrepresentation. Your freedom ends at the point where you harm another's freedom.


So you don't have the freedom to Kill people. By the same stroke however, you could probably argue that they don't have the right to make a lot of noise. They'd of course only be able to do it in public property or their own private property... and then there would be zoning issues.


Try again.
============================================

We shouldn't pretend there are just a few developed countries that have universal healthcare. All developed nations - excluding the US - have some form of nationalized healthcare for all.

Does South Korea have nationalized health care?


In any event the first world is mostly the US, Europe, Australia, and a couple countries in Asia...

It's rare to find any healthcare ranking in which the US isn't at or near the bottom (longevity, infant mortality, procedures avoided, physicians per capita, management waste, etc). Even US public healthcare programs are more cost-effective.

You're saying two different things here... one you're saying our stats are lower and then you're saying US public healthcare is more cost effective? I'm not getting the connection.


What's more our stats are different largely because the US is democraphically very different from most of the first world. Even if we had a system as hard core socialist as the French system our numbers still wouldn't be at that level.


For example, we have a higher birth rate... that brings down out longevity numbers as infant mortality is typically counted in those figures. We also have a higher percentage of immigrants... we're also more racially diverse... It's little wonder that Japan for example is always near the top of the list.


They have one of hte lowest birth rates in the world and are demographically homogeneous.

Here's why even the libertarians should find Canada more "free" than the US. In Canada, government spending to GDP is only 1.5% higher in Canada, but this includes healthcare. In the US, healthcare spending is provided mostly through private spending, but accounts for about 17% of GDP. After taxes and healthcare, Canadians have much more of their money available to them than Americans.

All the comparative studies I've seen between canada and the US disagree... What's more the Canadian system has long wait times from everything I've heard. The US makes a LOT of money selling healthcare to canada. There are in fact quiet a few hospitals in the US that do business priniciply with Canadians.

You might argue that the US lets you "choose" not to have healthcare, therefore that 1.5% is more freedom to you.... you would be wrong.

Based upon what? Upon what metric of freedom do you judge where you can say something like that?

Nobody chooses not to have healthcare.

Most people between the ages of 18 and 25 don't have healthcare. By choice...

 

[Herophant]

You're doing it again... you're exaggerating the opposition to make your own statements sound more reasonable by comparision. No one said it was impossible.

Well I think you look at my statement more generally than I intended. Its an attack against people who cant see Universal Healthcare as a viable sure, but that’s all it is.

The US cares about minority rights. And the most important minority is the minority of One.


It is relevant. What "universal" really means to you is "involuntary" "mandatory"... or "forced".


I have no problem with healthcare for all... it simply must have the consent of those in the system. What's more I'd be even happier if it weren't a federal but a state by state program.


that said, if it were federal but entirely voluntary, then I don't mind it.


that's more then an exaggeration, that's a misrepresentation. Your freedom ends at the point where you harm another's freedom.

Been reading Mill now have you? That’s exactly why I wanted to differ from government in theory from how it de facto works. The “your freedom ends at the point where you harm another's freedom” is an idea. Certainly influential and I admit it has a lot of good in it. Hell I even love it in terms of individual – excluding economical – freedoms. Nevertheless it’s never truly been the basic of any working society. People will always differ on what’s to be constituted as freedoms. So if a certain group of people in a democracy don’t have the legal rights in the said system to get all the “fruits form their labour” as they feel they deserve it’s the price of freedom. Just as the minority who want total economical equality won’t get it.

Democracy is majority rule; call it dictatorship of the majority if you will. Nevertheless democratic societies are the ones were you find most freedoms. Anyway this is turning in to same – very – old debate of the perfect society and going of topic with supersonic speed. All I wanted to say that I live in Norway, a free democratic country with Universal Healthcare. So if people agree that it is in fact a possible solution in some cases I have no problem, but if not…..