Health Care -- To each his own or an entitlement?
Quote: EvenBobCost, what else...
So how does, on a per capita basis, having a larger population make public health care in the US more expensive than public health care in the UK or Canada? Please remember that the GDP of the country in question is larger than the other two, and the country already spends more, per capita, on health care. If the US spent what they did know on health care but through a public system, socialized, single supplier system, it'd be the best in the world. It may reduce the standards of health care for some, and there's a fair argument to be had there.
Your argument also fails, in that it leads us to the conclusion that public, state-based health care would work as the cost would be cheaper, and therefore affordable. You don't support a socialized health care system in Michigan (or do you?) Saying "the cost to the nation is too high, and the US government shouldn't pay it" is a reasonable argument too, as then you can get into what the government should spend your tax dollars on. But it's specious to say the bigger the population, the bigger the cost per head. And facile to say the bigger the population the bigger the total cost (well, duh).
A far better argument is on the who pays and who supplies, and while I don't agree that healthcare is not a public good, if you start from that basis, AZ's chain of though seems logical.
Quote: NareedMaybe for now. In Canada you can't. In other countries with socialized medicine you can't, either.
Incorrect. I have private health insurance as well as my public Medical Insurance payments. I could also purchase private health care insurance in the UK.
Note that health care is not "free" in British Columbia (it is free at the point of usage, more or less), and prescription drugs are also not free.
Quote: NareedMaybe for now. In Canada you can't. In other countries with socialized medicine you can't, either.
What are you talking about? Certainly, you just misspoke ...
In any event, even if there is a country with such an Orwellian system somewhere, that is not a system I advocate for. What I want is a government-run insurance company, providing basic coverage for everyone for free. Everything else stays the same it is now. Health care providers are still private, you can choose your own doctors, you can pay out of pocket if you can, you can buy your own private insurance if you prefer, etc.
Quote:I know slippery-slope can be a falalcy, but the ultimate purpose of middle-class welfare is to have the middle-class dependent on government.
Blanket statements like this make no sense at all. is the purpose of public schools to have you depend on government? Is that the purpose of the police? Firefighters?
What criteria do you use to distinguish welfare from non-welfare? Public good? Health care is good for the public, I have already explained it earlier.
Quote:So for now there are options, yes, but those will be done away quickly. There is a provision in Obamacare that forces people into the public option if they lose their insurance already. Why do you think that is?
First of all, I am not advocating for Obamacare, I think it will actually make things worth, not better.
But the answer to your question "why that provision" is quite obvious - because the purpose of the whole thing is to make everyone be insured.
Quote: weaselmanWhat are you talking about? Certainly, you just misspoke ...
I've read that in some provinces in Canada, you can only get or pay for drugs and treatments through the government. Thats' the whole point of having a "single payer."
Quote:In any event, even if there is a country with such an Orwellian system somewhere, that is not a system I advocate for.
Even when it's not directly palced into law, and when there are nominally other means of payment, the fact is that "free" healthcare has to be apid for somehow. Whether this means higher taxes, higher prices for other things, higher fees for services, etc, it leave smost people unable to pay for medical expenses in suh ways. Also by limiting prices and fees, you can easily create a shortage of medicla professionals, which doens't quite drive up prices, but does limit treatement and quality.
Quote:What I want is a government-run insurance company, providing basic coverage for everyone for free. Everything else stays the same it is now. Health care providers are still private, you can choose your own doctors, you can pay out of pocket if you can, you can buy your own private insurance if you prefer, etc.
Why "for everyone"? Can't youa fford health isurance? Can't Bill Gates or Bill Clinton afford it either?
Quote:Blanket statements like this make no sense at all.
They make perfect sense. Get people dependent on government, and they'll keep voting ever more power to the government, the better to keep receiving their "benefits." More so if the other party advocates lowering, controlling or eliminating the "entitlements."
Did't you just say you want government-paid "free" health insurance for everyone?
Quote:is the purpose of public schools to have you depend on government? Is that the purpose of the police? Firefighters?
Schools, police and the fire department are three different things. ideally government should get out of schools, too. Police is a matter of the state monopoly in the use of force, and necessary for any country to remain civilized. Fire departments can be public, if no laws prevent complementary services to eb offered by private business.
Quote:What criteria do you use to distinguish welfare from non-welfare?
When you take from some people and give their wealth to others, that's welfare.
Quote:Public good? Health care is good for the public, I have already explained it earlier.
"The public good be damned"
Quote:First of all, I am not advocating for Obamacare, I think it will actually make things worth, not better.
Well, there's that at elast.
Quote:But the answer to your question "why that provision" is quite obvious - because the purpose of the whole thing is to make everyone be insured.
But by the government, yes?
When you give the governemtn the power to things for you, you also grant it the power to do things to you.
Please don't start nitpicking sentences. ok?
Quote: weaselmanWho said that? If you can afford better care, you can buy better care, what is stopping you?
Under socialized medicine the government will.
Quote: AZDuffmanUnder socialized medicine the government will.
No, it won't.
Quote: boymimboHealth care in the United States is great!
-45.7 million uninsured Americans.
Incorrrect. This number comes from people without coverage if even for a short time. For example, since I am in good health and it is a matter of just a few weeks I have chosen not to buy insurance for this brief period. I will be covered again next month. There are tens of millions of people like this. The real number is closer to 13 million, less than 5% of the population.
Quote:16% of GDP spent on health care, highest in the world.
Yes, becuse Americans prefer to pay more to get more. Quality of care keeps going up, with that price goes up as well.
Quote:-All health statistics are middle of the road (life expectancy, mortality, cancer rates, compared to all western countries with socialized medicine. Name a health category where the United States is #1 in health care besides expenses.
Correlation <> causation. Infant mortality is counted different in the USA than other nations. US Life Expectancy is lower in part because in the USA we lead higher risk lives than other places.
Quote:So go ahead, keep your health system. Try to compete with the rest of the world. Spend that extra 6% of GDP on health care. Let me know how it works out for you.
Seeing as how the USA has blown away most western nations in growth and unemployment since 1980; along with being the leader in medical innovation I would say it has been working pretty well.
And once again, please, PLEASE tell me what on earth is wrong with earning a profit? As the said in "The Godfather"--"We are not communists."
Quote: Wavy70Doc on the open market what do you think your subsidized Medicare would cost monthly?
I'm not sure, and here is a big reason why. Since I became self-supporting at 22, there have only been a couple of years (when I returned to student status) that I did not have group health insurance as an employment benefit, or more recently as a retirement benefit. As a result, I have had little to no idea what an equivalent, individual health policy would cost; I was always drawing both the benefit of a group policy and the employer subsidy.
Here is one piece of information that I think is relevant. When I became Medicare eligible, my total medical insurance benefits (Medicare plus retiree BCBS) remained essentially unchanged. There has been a lot of change in how the paperwork is handled, but I really haven't been able to figure out a notable change in total benefits. At that time, I started paying Medicare premiums, and my share of the premiums for BCBS went down. However, the reduction in BCBS premiums was less than the additional premium paid for Medicare. After contributing to Medicare for decades, once I was eligible to draw benefits, my total cost for medical insurance increased.
Without studying that effect in detail, my impression is that the government-managed program is less cost-effective than the BCBS insurance program. My former employer is still putting up money, I'm paying more money than before, and the total medical benefits have not increased. If the government is contributing additional funds, then their money must all be going down a hole somewhere while they also squander the additional premium that I am paying now.
Quote: NareedI've read that in some provinces in Canada, you can only get or pay for drugs and treatments through the government. Thats' the whole point of having a "single payer."
It's not the whole point. The whole point of having it is providing access to health care for everyone.
If some places are asinine enough to implement it in a way that takes away your other options, let's just note that we both agree, that it is stupid, and move on, ok?
Quote:
Even when it's not directly palced into law, and when there are nominally other means of payment, the fact is that "free" healthcare has to be apid for somehow. Whether this means higher taxes, higher prices for other things, higher fees for services, etc, it leave smost people unable to pay for medical expenses in suh ways.
Nope. Not any more than public education system leaves people unable to pay for private schools and colleges.
Quote:Why "for everyone"? Can't you afford health isurance? Can't Bill Gates or Bill Clinton afford it either?
Because it is fair, logical and humane.
And no, I can't afford it currently. My employer can, but if I loose my job (or get seriously sick), I am screwed, and so is my family.
Quote:They make perfect sense.
Let me check again .... Nope. No sense at all.
Quote:Did't you just say you want government-paid "free" health insurance for everyone?
Yes, that's what I said.
Quote:Schools, police and the fire department are three different things.
Thanks for pointing it out! That must be what I was missing! :)
Quote:Police is a matter of the state monopoly in the use of force,
There is no such monopoly. Private security firms can use force. But even if there was (the monopoly), it would not mean much as an argument for your side. "Government monopoly" is not some God-given unquestionable rule of the Universe, it is simply a policy, established by the government. If government wants a monopoly in the use of force, and it justifies having public police, then government wanting a monopoly in medical insurance should be enough to justify a single payer system.
Quote:and necessary for any country to remain civilized.
That was exactly my question. How do you figure that police is necessary, and health care is not?
Quote:Fire departments can be public, if no laws prevent complementary services to eb offered by private business.
"Can be public"? Well, thank you for permitting it, but that's not what we were talking about.
The question is whether or not the purpose of public fire departments is to make people depend on the government.
Quote:When you take from some people and give their wealth to others, that's welfare.
Right. So, police is welfare, and so are the firefighters. The question remains - is their sole purpose to increase the people dependence on the government or are there some forms of "welfare" that are exempt from that rule in your view?
Quote:But by the government, yes?
No, by whoever you want. If you can't or won't get insured privately, then the government will insure you.
Quote:When you give the governemtn the power to things for you, you also grant it the power to do things to you.
It already has all the power it needs to do things to you. If you believe otherwise, you must be leaving in some imaginary universe populated by pink ponies.
Quote:Please don't start nitpicking sentences. ok?
What does that mean?
Quote: weaselmanWhat does that mean?
It means your response is way to fractured to read, much less to reply to.
Quote: NareedIt means your response is way to fractured to read, much less to reply to.
Well ... my response is ... well ... a response :) To you ...
If you made fewer different points requiring a response in your last post, them my response to it would not have to be as fractured. Try being more focused and staying on point next time.
Quote: AZDuffman
"Equitable" usually ends up meaning most are worse off.
Why do so many people think everything should be "equitable?"
They tried that in the Soviet Union for 70 years,
its called communism. It doesn't work. It drags
everybody down to a common level so everybody
is equally miserable. Its only fair....
less than 5% of the population has no access to
health care, and the 95+% of us who do are
supposed to give up the best health care in
the world because of that 5%? Not even the
boobs on the Supreme Court are falling for it,
its a very very bad deal.
Quote: DocI have had little to no idea what an equivalent, individual health policy would cost; I was always drawing both the benefit of a group policy and the employer subsidy.
Go on Cobra for a while and you find out what it costs. Ouch [anymore if in that situation I immeditately get high deductible catastrophic to tide me over]
Quote: Doc
Without studying that effect in detail, my impression is that the government-managed program is less cost-effective than the BCBS insurance program. My former employer is still putting up money, I'm paying more money than before, and the total medical benefits have not increased.
Your employer must be be paying significantly less then they were before, that's why (if they weren't, you would be able to simply opt out of Medicare, and get back on you original policy you had with the employer).
Quote: odiousgambitGo on Cobra for a while and you find out what it costs. Ouch [anymore if in that situation I immeditately get high deductible catastrophic to tide me over]
COBRA is actually a relatively cheap option. Wait till it expires, and you have to shop for an insurance plan on your own to see what it really costs.
possibly happen in a country, as some here
seem to be saying, why is the very idea of
it so unpopular here? Why do the vast majority
of people say they're happy with the insurance
they currently have?
Quote: EvenBobwhy is the very idea of
it so unpopular here?
Propaganda. Why else?
Why do you think some people keep asserting, despite the facts, the statistics, the evidence, the testimony of people with first-hand knowledge, despite even their own experience sometimes, that "us has the best health care system in the world", that all people from all other countries receive crappy care unless they come to US, that pharmaceutical research everywhere would halt if Americans stopped paying their outrageous prices for drugs, that "vast majority" is happy with their health care, that only 5% do not have insurance, etc., etc?
Same reason. There is a lot of money involved. It is more than 17% of GDP, more, than anywhere else in the world.
Think about it.
Quote:
Why do the vast majority
of people say they're happy with the insurance
they currently have?
They do? Do you have some kind of data to confirm that or is it just your gut feeling?
Because what I see is exactly the opposite - most (if not all) people I know are unhappy with the insurance they have. Many are extremely unhappy. I am yet to meet one who says he is happy with it.
Quote: weaselman
They do? Do you have some kind of data to confirm that
Look it up, I did. I'm sick of doing your
research for you.
Quote: EvenBobLook it up, I did.
Give a reference then. You don't get to just claim something outrageous, and use it as an argument for whatever ridiculous point you want to argue. If you want a discussion, you have to make arguments, not claims.
Quote:I'm sick of doing your
research for you.
You are doing research for me? That's just priceless.
Quote: weaselman
They do? Do you have some kind of data to confirm that or is it just your gut feeling?
Because what I see is exactly the opposite - most (if not all) people I know are unhappy with the insurance they have. Many are extremely unhappy. I am yet to meet one who says he is happy with it.
Just check the polling on those who want Obamacare repealed. The OWS-crwod types want government-run health care because they think "profit" is somehow evil.
The rest of the USA likes what they have and knows how inconvienient and inefficient any governmnet process turns out to be and wants no part of it. We also have no problem with "profit" because we know that the profit-motive actually lowers costs.
And you source for this bit of data ??
Quote: AZDuffmanJ The OWS-crwod types want government-run health care because they think "profit" is somehow evil.
I don't think that. I like profit.
The difference between your opinion and mine is not the view of profit, but simply that I believe that basic health care in a civilized society should be accessible unconditionally by anyone, and you think that it should not. I believe it is unbecoming to (figuratively speaking) leave people die in the streets, while you believe it is ok. I think, that health of the citizens is more important to the society than many things, traditionally considered to be government's domain - like education, communications, rail roads, fire protection, police, and many others, while you believe that it is not.
In short, I believe access to health care should be a basic right (just like it is everywhere in the Western world), and you think that it should not, and everybody should rely on their own means, just the way it is in the jungle.
it has nothing to do with profit. The only reason the question of profit ever comes up in this discussion is when you ask why government-run insurance should be less expensive, and the answer is because it does not have to make profit, which is the truth.
Does it mean profit is evil? No, but it is one of the reasons for things to be more expensive than they could otherwise. Most of the time it is not a problem, even the opposite, because it promotes competition (what you need to realize is that it does not apply to health care, because there is no competition here, and no supply-demand curve, only the profit).
But when a product or a service in a particular place becomes significantly more expensive, than anywhere else in the world, while not being substantially better (and in fact, worse in many respects), when people start dying because they cannot afford staying alive ... that's when it might be time to start noticing, that something is wrong.
The bottom line is that most (all?) civilized countries in the world, except for the US have some sort of universal health care system, and spend less on the health care per capita than the US, yet the opponents of it keep claiming that "the government cannot run things efficiently" and "profit reduces costs" as their main (and only) argument. This is getting old ...
Quote: buzzpaff" The OWS-crwod types want government-run health care because they think "profit" is somehow evil. "
And you source for this bit of data ??
Walking thru their camps and listening to what they say on the news and online. How can you miss it?
Quote: weaselman
In short, I believe access to health care should be a basic right (just like it is everywhere in the Western world), and you think that it should not, and everybody should rely on their own means, just the way it is in the jungle.
You are confusing the word "right" with "entitlement." In other countries health care is a BASIC ENTITLEMENT. "Rights" come from your creator, whoever or whatever you think that means, and do not require something be taken from someone else to provide it to you. Right to free speech, bear arms, pursuit of happieness, due process, etc. These are natural rights and do not impose a burden on others. Free Health Care, OTOH, imposes a burden on society in the form of taxes and fees to provide.
Quote:it has nothing to do with profit. The only reason the question of profit ever comes up in this discussion is when you ask why government-run insurance should be less expensive, and the answer is because it does not have to make profit, which is the truth.
This is totally incorrect. You are going under the assumption that if the government takes over the price will be reduced by the amount that is now "profit." No reason to believe this would happen. And even if it did, you miss an important part. The drive for profit drives efficiency. Wal-Mart has made one of the best distribution systems ever known. When there is a natural disaster, who gets more needed stuff there first--FEMA or WMT? Who does it cheaper?
Health Insurance providers will always try to make things work more efficient in the drive for profit. Now, as a customer you do not get all of that gain as it is first reserved for shareholders, as it should be. But if Porvider "A" can reduce paperwork costs for a 5% savings, that is 5% they do not need to raise their rates. Meanwhile the government running it has no incentive to save money or work better. Heck, the USPS is so bad they hire FedEX to move their parcels!
So please, knock it off about "things are less expensive when there is no need for profit." The real evidence is just not there.
Quote:The bottom line is that most (all?) civilized countries in the world, except for the US have some sort of universal health care system, and spend less on the health care per capita than the US, yet the opponents of it keep claiming that "the government cannot run things efficiently" and "profit reduces costs" as their main (and only) argument. This is getting old ...
Both things are true, so expect to keep hearing them. Along with the point that health care is not supposed to be a government function. The US Government has expanded into too many things where they do not belong, last thing we need is to add another.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou are confusing the word "right" with "entitlement."
No, I am not confusing anything. I am saying exactly what I mean to say. Access to health care should (in my opinion) be a basic human right in any civilised society.
Quote:In other countries health care is a BASIC ENTITLEMENT. "Rights" come from your creator, whoever or whatever you think that means, and do not require something be taken from someone else to provide it to you.
Right to free speech, bear arms, pursuit of happieness, due process, etc. These are natural rights and do not impose a burden on others.
Don't they? Take due process for example. If I cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to me, right? Who is going to pay for it?
And yes, I do believe that my "creator" wants people to take care of their sick, so, in a way, yes, this is a right, provided by the creator (unlike due process, or bear arms, about which, I am pretty sure, he does not give a damn).
Quote:This is totally incorrect. You are going under the assumption that if the government takes over the price will be reduced by the amount that is now "profit."
No, I am not. I never said this, please do not put words in my mouth.
Quote:And even if it did, you miss an important part. The drive for profit drives efficiency.
Yes, but only in the presence of competition and flexible demand. I am not missing this part, I have commented on it earlier, it is you who has missed that.
Quote:Health Insurance providers will always try to make things work more efficient in the drive for profit.
That's where you are wrong. No, they won't, and they do not now. They do not need to care about efficiency, because they can simply raise prices if they are looking to increase profit ... or decrease coverage. You can stop buying bagels in Dunkin Donuts if they get too expensive, but you won't economise on your own health and the health of your family unless you are either stupid or totally broke.
Quote:So please, knock it off about "things are less expensive when there is no need for profit." The real evidence is just not there.
The real evidence is that US spends more on health care per capita than any country with a universal health care system. Is it because universal health care does not need to make profit? I think, that fact plays its part, yes. If you think, it is exclusively for some other reason, fine, it does not really matter. What matters is that any existing universal heath care system is less expensive than what US has. You can repeat that government-run things are inefficient all you want, but it does not change this simple fact - yes, it could be done even more efficiently in theory, but they way they actually do it is de-facto more efficient than the way we do it.
Nobody is advocating for prohibition of private insurance. If private companies can find ways to run it more efficiently than the government, I'll be the first to applaud to them. So far, they have not however, so, what I am saying is that we should stop arguing ideals, and start using the approach, that is known to be more efficient than our current one, even though we all know that it is not the absolute best.
Quote:The US Government has expanded into too many things where they do not belong, last thing we need is to add another.
This is a fallacious argument. If the government has expanded into the areas it should not have (and I agree completely, that it has), then it should pull out of there, but in no way, it can serve as an argument against it getting into another area, where it can and should make a lot of good.
Quote: weaselmanNo, I am not confusing anything. I am saying exactly what I mean to say. Access to health care should (in my opinion) be a basic human right in any civilised society.
As Nareed already pointed out, a 'right' cannot depend on the career choices of other people.
Quote: progrockerAs Nareed already pointed out, a 'right' cannot depend on the career choices of other people.
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. What career choices?
Quote: progrockerPeople that choose to be doctors, nurses, EMTs, office workers in hospitals, pharmaceutical researchers, medical technology researchers, etc. etc. etc.
Ah, I see ... How about the right to due process then?
Quote: progrockerIs that a basic human right?
That's what AZ said ... It is also guaranteed by the US constitution.
So, yes, in a way, it is. If you insist, I am ok with a correction to my statement to say that health care should be a government-guarateed right (like due process) rather than "basic".
Quote: progrockerGovernments don't grant rights, they take them away.
Governments do what they are required to do by the Constitution, and by people, who hire them.
Unless you are talking about North Korea or 1984, or are just being paranoid.
And, btw, I never said that governments grant rights. Now you are trying to put words in my mouth. Or was that remark just an unrelated side-note?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_right
Quote: weaselmanThat's what AZ said ... It is also guaranteed by the US constitution.
So, yes, in a way, it is. If you insist, I am ok with a correction to my statement to say that health care should be a government-guarateed right (like due process) rather than "basic".
Due process isn't a right as much as it is a limitation on government power. It means that the government cannot arbitrarily throw people in jail, for example, or confiscate their property, or deport them, or execute them, without first proving to a judge and jury, at least, that such people broke a given law and deserve the punishment prescribed for such a transgression. And such proof must be offered withing the strictures of other laws, following set rules and procedures to do so. menaing, for example, that the police can't just randomly or systematically search houses looking for evidence of a crime.
But unless you're accused of a crime or suspected of one, you aren't part of any due process of the law at all.
Quote: progrocker
Sigh ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
(if you have a point, please try and make it yourself. There are plenty of links on internet, no need to post them all here.)
Quote: NareedBut unless you're accused of a crime or suspected of one, you aren't part of any due process of the law at all.
yeah ... also, unless you are sick, you don't really need health care. That's a very insightful observation.
Quote: Garber and Skinner, Is American Healthcare Uniquely Inefficient, Journal of Economic Perspectives
% Chronic ill skipping care because of costs: USA 42% Canada 14% UK 9%
Administrative Costs per capita: USA $465 Canada $131 UK $57
Acute Hospital Beds (per 10,000) USA 2.7 Canada 2.8 UK 3.1
Practicing MDs (per 1,000) USA 2.4 Canada 2.1 UK 2.1
MRIS (per million) USA 26.5 Canada 6.2 UK 5.6
Generalist MD Renumeration ($1,000) USA 161 Canada 107 UK 118
% who felt MD recommended treatment without benefit USA 20% Canada 12% UK 10%
% waiting >6 months for elective surgery USA 4% Canada 14% UK 15%
...
The U.S. healthcare system also spends more on administrative or overhead costs related to health care. One study has estimated administrative costs to
comprise 31 percent of healthcare spending in the United States compared to 16 percent in Canada (Woolhandler, Campbell, and Himmelstein, 2003), leading
some to infer that administrative waste could be reduced drastically by a singlepayer health insurance system and that the savings could be used to finance
universal coverage in the United States. Presumably, much of the savings would come from reductions in the net revenue of private health insurance firms. But
other estimates suggest such potential savings are modest relative to total expenditures.
According to OECD data, expenditures for administration by private insurers and central and local authorities were $465 per capita in the United States,
compared to $265 in France, $131 in Canada, and $52 in Japan (Peterson and Burton, 2007).
This measure of administrative cost may be too restrictive, as it does not reflect the internal administrative costs of hospitals and physician groups. The cost of
organizing a complex (and fragmented) healthcare system is substantial; U.S. administrative costs in legal firms are 24 percent, not far below those in health care
(Glied, 1998; p. 39). Himmelstein, Lewontin, and Woolhandler (1996) suggest a major cause for higher administrative costs in the United States is the much larger
share of nonclinical staff, whether managers or office staff who make appointments or call patients. But cross-country comparisons of healthcare administrative costs are especially suspect (Aaron, 2003), precisely because we know so little about what these nonclinical workers do. Indeed, some of the cost differential in the United States likely reflects expenditures for information technology, the reporting of patient outcomes for internal quality improvements, and other efforts intended to improve the quality of care. Finally, although the United States likely spends more on administrative activities than other wealthy nations, the growth in health expenditures cannot be readily attributed to growth in administrative costs.
Actually, the whole article's a really good read.
Quote: weaselman(if you have a point, please try and make it yourself. There are plenty of links on internet, no need to post them all here.)
Basically, that Locke is right and Hobbes is not. The founding fathers were correct that the basic human rights are life, liberty and property. You can see universal health care as extension of 'life' (that no one can own you or rule you), but it comes at the expense of liberty (would require people to provide healthcare) and property (via taxation to pay for it).
Quote: weaselman
Don't they? Take due process for example. If I cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to me, right? Who is going to pay for it?
And yes, I do believe that my "creator" wants people to take care of their sick, so, in a way, yes, this is a right, provided by the creator (unlike due process, or bear arms, about which, I am pretty sure, he does not give a damn).
It is called a public defender, and is paid thru the court system. A system that as you said, gives a right to due process. And if you want public defender quiality in your health care, good luck!
Quote:This is totally incorrect. You are going under the assumption that if the government takes over the price will be reduced by the amount that is now "profit."
No, I am not. I never said this, please do not put words in my mouth.
Yes, this is exactly what you and every person demanding a single-payer system or so-called "public option" is implying. You are yelping that "The real evidence is that US spends more on health care per capita than any country with a universal health care system." What else is one to think you are saying.
Quote:That's where you are wrong. No, they won't, and they do not now. They do not need to care about efficiency, because they can simply raise prices if they are looking to increase profit ... or decrease coverage. You can stop buying bagels in Dunkin Donuts if they get too expensive, but you won't economise on your own health and the health of your family unless you are either stupid or totally broke.
You need to go into business and see how hard it is to "simply reaise prices." Raising prices is not as easy as you think. Competition can steal your customers. You get bad press. People buy things nearer the lower end of your price scale.
BTW: People can and do make decisions to economize on their health all the time, and that is a good thing. If you have a cold that will go away you can spend $50 to go to the clinic or tough it out, use the money for something else. You can get a knee replacement but it might not be the solution so you wait it out. The idea that "you can't economize on your health" is a big reason why America spends most--people here want the best. Thanfully we have a system where you can choose than socialized medicine like in Canada where your dog can get an MRI faster than you can, or in Britan where people pull their own teeth due to the wait time.
Quote:The real evidence is that US spends more on health care per capita than any country with a universal health care system. Is it because universal health care does not need to make profit? I think, that fact plays its part, yes. If you think, it is exclusively for some other reason, fine, it does not really matter. What matters is that any existing universal heath care system is less expensive than what US has. You can repeat that government-run things are inefficient all you want, but it does not change this simple fact - yes, it could be done even more efficiently in theory, but they way they actually do it is de-facto more efficient than the way we do it.
A BMW costs more than a Yugo. The USA would spend less money on cars if we all had to drive Yugos. That doesn't make thing more efficient--it just means everyone has to take the lowest cost option and innovation slows to a crawl.
Quote:Nobody is advocating for prohibition of private insurance. If private companies can find ways to run it more efficiently than the government, I'll be the first to applaud to them. So far, they have not however, so, what I am saying is that we should stop arguing ideals, and start using the approach, that is known to be more efficient than our current one, even though we all know that it is not the absolute best.
Yes, you are advocating for that in saying you want a government-run system. Prohibiting private insurance is the definition of a govenrment run system. "Public Option" is nothing but the camel's nose under the tent to get a single-payer system.
Quote: weaselman
You are doing research for me? That's just priceless.
Whats priceless is, you're always waving your arms
around demanding links and references and never
doing them yourself. Then when somebody provides
the link that proves they were right, you never comment,
you're never heard from again on the subject. So why
bother.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is called a public defender, and is paid thru the court system. A system that as you said, gives a right to due process.
I know. I was just refuting your point that something that requires payment cannot be a "right".
Quote:And if you want public defender quiality in your health care, good luck!
I actually do have some first-hand knowledge about public defenders, and, you know, I don't really mind getting health care of comparable quality. In fact, I think, I would prefer that quality to what I am getting currently.
Quote:Yes, this is exactly what you and every person demanding a single-payer system or so-called "public option" is implying.
Seriously? You are going to argue with me about what I think?
Quote:You are yelping that "The real evidence is that US spends more on health care per capita than any country with a universal health care system." What else is one to think you are saying.
"One" does not need to think anything else. What I am saying is literally what you quoted.
Quote:You need to go into business and see how hard it is to "simply reaise prices." Raising prices is not as easy as you think. Competition can steal your customers.
What competition?
Quote:You get bad press.
Yeah ... we have enough of that about insurance companies. Somehow, it does not seem to deter them very well from raising prices and cutting benefits year after year ...
Quote:People buy things nearer the lower end of your price scale.
Sure. The funeral service is going to be cheaper than the treatment, so the customers will jump on the opportunity.
Quote:If you have a cold that will go away you can spend $50 to go to the clinic or tough it out, use the money for something else.
Yeah ... and then get pneumonia and die of stupidity. Sure, why not?
Quote:The idea that "you can't economize on your health" is a big reason why America spends most--people here want the best.
People everywhere want the best. The problem is that people in America (supposedly, the best country in the world) cannot actually have it, and not because it is impossible, but simply because they are used too much to the political mantras and stereotypes that prevent them from thinking straight and seeing clearly.
Quote:A BMW costs more than a Yugo. The USA would spend less money on cars if we all had to drive Yugos. That doesn't make thing more efficient
US health care is not a BMW. It is a myth. Americans go to Europe and Israel to get get better treatment just as much, if not more as Canadians and Europeans come to the US. There are a few world-class surgeons here (as well as in other countries, we are not unique), a few state-of-the art facilities, but overall level for routine everyday care, and boring common procedures, treatments and diagnostics simply sucks. There is nothing about US health care deserving the title "best in the world", it's a myth. It used indeed to be one of the best 30 years ago or so, but those times are long gone.
Quote:Yes, you are advocating for that in saying you want a government-run system. Prohibiting private insurance is the definition of a govenrment run system.
No, it is not the definition. US postal service does not prohibit UPS, does it? Public education system does not prohibit private and charter schools. If a private entity can compete with government, kudos to them, if it cannot ... well, then somebody should stop talking about how private enterprise is the best for efficiency and innovation.
Quote:What competition?
Other medical insurace providers.
Quote:Yeah ... we have enough of that about insurance companies. Somehow, it does not seem to deter them very well from raising prices and cutting benefits year after year ...
Benefits are rarely cut. One reason costs are so high is govnermnet mandates to increase benefits (eg: Obama mandating "free birth control.") Co-Pays and maximums may change, but they should as inflation and other changes dictate the need.
Quote:If you have a cold that will go away you can spend $50 to go to the clinic or tough it out, use the money for something else.
Yeah ... and then get pneumonia and die of stupidity. Sure, why not?
Uh, how many people do you know who died of pneumonia from a cold instead of just getting over it? If you even know one chances are they were elderly and bedridden. A healthy adult knows they will get over a cold and thus often will simply decide no reason to spend the money.
Quote:People everywhere want the best. The problem is that people in America (supposedly, the best country in the world) cannot actually have it, and not because it is impossible, but simply because they are used too much to the political mantras and stereotypes that prevent them from thinking straight and seeing clearly.
*SIGH* Yeah, we don't have it better because we refuse to embrace socialism, right?
Quote:US health care is not a BMW. It is a myth. Americans go to Europe and Israel to get get better treatment just as much, if not more as Canadians and Europeans come to the US. There are a few world-class surgeons here (as well as in other countries, we are not unique), a few state-of-the art facilities, but overall level for routine everyday care, and boring common procedures, treatments and diagnostics simply sucks. There is nothing about US health care deserving the title "best in the world", it's a myth. It used indeed to be one of the best 30 years ago or so, but those times are long gone.
Not sure where you are getting your figures. Americans that go overseas for treatment seem to mostly go for treatments that the FDA has not approved here. And it would nice if you could explain how things were better 30 years ago. My guess is you are using the liberal line that all good things in the USA stopped on Jan 21, 1981 with a brief respite 1992-2000. Operations that put you in the hospital for days 30 years ago are now virtually outpatient procedures. You can now transplant lungs without bothering the heart. But heck, heart transplants made the news in the late 1970s, now they are done many times a day in a hospital near me alone.
Quote:No, it is not the definition. US postal service does not prohibit UPS, does it? Public education system does not prohibit private and charter schools. If a private entity can compete with government, kudos to them, if it cannot ... well, then somebody should stop talking about how private enterprise is the best for efficiency and innovation.
The USPS does indeed prohibit the delivery of first class mail and prohibits delivery of parcels to PO Boxes. Government is not supposed to compete with private entities, it is supposed to set rules for competition, and as few of those rules as possible.
Quote: AZDuffmanOther medical insurace providers.
How many providers are available to you?
Where I live, there are three companies that are allowed to write medical insurance (and this is actually a pretty good variety - many other places I heard about just have one company, period). Two of them only do group policies, the third one is the only choice for individual insurance. Now, the two group providers aren't really a "choice" - you get to have whatever your employers tells you to have.
Quote:Benefits are rarely cut.
Really? What is your insurance provider?
Quote:
Uh, how many people do you know who died of pneumonia from a cold instead of just getting over it?
I actually know one. And it is one too many.
I also know one who died from appendicitis because he was trying to tough out a mild stomach ache.
Quote:If you even know one chances are they were elderly and bedridden.
No, the pneumonia case was actually a teenager, the appendicitis was, I believe, around 45.
Quote:A healthy adult knows they will get over a cold and thus often will simply decide no reason to spend the money.
Yes. And that is exactly the problem. It is simply outrageous and plain idiotic, that one has to pay in the neighbourhood of $150 for a five minute nurse exam, and an antibiotic prescription. They will charge you that because they can. And good luck looking for "competition". The competition is not stupid - they know they can charge that too, so why wouldn't they?
Quote:*SIGH* Yeah, we don't have it better because we refuse to embrace socialism, right?
No, not really. If you call anything being run by government "socialism", then we *have* embraced it long ago.
So, no, that's not the reason we don't have it better. I said earlier what the reason was.
Quote:Not sure where you are getting your figures. Americans that go overseas for treatment seem to mostly go for treatments that the FDA has not approved here.
Not really.
Here, for example:
up to 29% of Americans would consider traveling abroad for medical procedures such as heart bypass surgery, hip or knee replacement, plastic surgery, cancer diagnosis and treatment, or alternative medical care, even though all are routinely done in the United States.
Quote:And it would nice if you could explain how things were better 30 years ago.
They weren't. They were about the same quality, except much cheaper. But they were much crappier everywhere else, so US was rightfully considered a leader. Since then, the quality of health care in other countries went up significantly, and costs stayed under control, while in the US, prices sky rocketed, but the quality remained about the same.
Quote:Operations that put you in the hospital for days 30 years ago are now virtually outpatient procedures.
Yes, but this is true everywhere in the (civilized) world. it's just natural scientific progress. Compared to itself 30 years ago, US medical science and practice has, of course improved significantly. But so (actually, more so) did other countries. US used to be significantly ahead of them, now it is about the same level, some things are a little better, others somewhat worse, but all of them are a lot more expensive.
Quote:The USPS does indeed prohibit the delivery of first class mail and prohibits delivery of parcels to PO Boxes.
I don't know what that even means. If I have a piece of mail, that I want delivered to you, I have a choice between using the government or a private carrier. That's not prohibited. And I don't give a damn if they call it "first class" or "square butterfly".
The PO Boxes argument is ridiculous. PO Box is owned by the postal service, why in the world do you expect it to allow somebody else use it? You can get a box at a UPS store or FedEx if you want, there is no prohibition for that.
Quote:Government is not supposed to compete with private entities,
That's just another meaningless mantra you keep reciting.
Government is supposed to do whatever is necessary for the good of the society, and its people. If that means competing with the private entities, why the hell not?
Either way, whether you think it is "supposed to" or not, is irrelevant. The fact remains that it does compete with them all the time, thus refuting your earlier claim that government-run enterprise must automatically mean prohibition of the private option.
% Chronic ill skipping care because of costs: USA 42% Canada 14% UK 9%
Administrative Costs per capita: USA $465 Canada $131 UK $57
Acute Hospital Beds (per 10,000) USA 2.7 Canada 2.8 UK 3.1
Practicing MDs (per 1,000) USA 2.4 Canada 2.1 UK 2.1
MRIS (per million) USA 26.5 Canada 6.2 UK 5.6
Generalist MD Renumeration ($1,000) USA 161 Canada 107 UK 118
% who felt MD recommended treatment without benefit USA 20% Canada 12% UK 10%
% waiting >6 months for elective surgery USA 4% Canada 14% UK 15%
My interpretation:
- a very high percentage of Americans avoid seeing their practitioners because of the cost (which is the deductible for insured).
- admistrative costs (at 31% of total costs) are the highest by a factor of 2 over most other westernized countries, so no, it is not more efficient. Insurers charge what they want because they have a near-monopoly in some areas (example: Blue Cross Blue Shield in Alabama) and can afford the administrative cost -- it gets transferred to their customers. Alot of that cost is in getting more business.
- American doctors get paid the highest.
- There is not a surplus of MDs, Beds, or nurses as a result of the spending.
- Many Americans feel that their MDs are giving them treatments they don't need.
- Some socialized medicine results in longer waits for elective procedures.
The study goes on and states that a contributing factor to health care costs is malpractice, administrative costs, doctor salaries, and a propensity for Americans to have expensive technologies with marginal benefits.
So, you can go on and quoth that American healthcare is the best in the world. Statistically, by any measure, it's not. It is middle of the road care, with problems, just like every other country.
What's clear is that statistics show there is alot of waste in private health care. When you run amok with little competition and the ability to dictate your costs and still meet your revenue target, there is no incentive to cut waste, just like government. You make the claim that health care is efficient because it's run efficiently and there's open competition. There's not. I've worked in insurance before. Their technology is archaic, their staff aged, their organizational hierarchy and business processes inefficient. They get away with it because they pass costs to their consumers, because of little competition, and because they can negotiate the prices that they pay their suppliers, just like WalMart.
And, just like oil companies, cell phone providers, and cable companies, there is consolidation in the health care industry with fewer providers which means less competition and a greater ability to fix prices.
According to the Kaiser foundation, Americans who have coverage are paying 27% of the premium, or about $1,840 per person. And these are the folks who are covered. Quite a tax.
So perhaps health insurance would be alot better if the government (who is deeply into this mess, likely or not) deregulates the industry and allows open competition across all states. True capitalism might drive efficiency and lower prices.
Quote: boymimboSo perhaps health insurance would be alot better if the government (who is deeply into this mess, likely or not) deregulates the industry and allows open competition across all states. True capitalism might drive efficiency and lower prices.
Amen.
A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care; the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).
About 10 times more Americans go abroad to get care than foreigners come to the US.
Canadian health care system----- I work in a trauma hospital just over the border from Canada--- for a few months out of the year head trauma patients are put in a helicopter and brought to my hospital because the neurosurgeons in Canada have gone to vacation in Long Boat Key.... We used to do lithotripsies for kidney stones (previous job) and would get Canadians who would pay cash rather than wait MONTHS to get their turn in line in Canada. We get many physicians fed up with Canadian system who are begging to work in our hospitals. Please, NO THANKS to me having such a system. That being said, our government systems, which include Medicare, Medicaid, Workman's Compenasation, and No- Fault, are TEN times as difficult to deal with than any private insurer, or HMO. Give me a patient with Blue Cross or Aetna anyday.
All patients do have access to health care, regardless of whether they have insurance or not. They just come to my hospital's clinics, or emergency room, and they are taken care of. They are sent bills which they routinely ignore. I believe that I collect around FOUR cents on the dollar from patients that come in with no insurance. They will have no problem using their new 4g Iphone to change their premium cable service while hospitalized, but pay a bill? Nah...
I am not inherently against 'nationalized health care', so long as the bozo politicians say upfront... "I will raise taxes 12% to pay for it" The sham is that they want it but don't want to pay for it... That is the legacy of Obama...
Quote: SOOPOOWe used to do lithotripsies for kidney stones (previous job) and would get Canadians who would pay cash rather than wait MONTHS to get their turn in line in Canada. We get many physicians fed up with Canadian system who are begging to work in our hospitals... our government systems, which include Medicare, Medicaid, Workman's Compenasation, and No- Fault, are TEN times as difficult to deal with than any private insurer, or HMO. Give me a patient with Blue Cross or Aetna anyday.
All patients do have access to health care, regardless of whether they have insurance or not.
A real doctor who actually deals with the real
system. Not pie in the sky liberals who think
gov't health care the answer. As I keep saying,
my sister law would be DEAD if she didn't come
here for treatment. And that seems just fine to
the Canadians.
