Socialist ends by capitalist means

[Balog]

http://observer.com/2016/06/author-and-trump-fan-f-h-buckley-touts-socialist-ends-by-capitalist-means/

Interesting read. I look forward to the people who comment angrily while obviously having never read the article, as well as the ones who think posting a link to an article means I unreservedly endorse everything in it. 

The whole immigration debate has been a tribute, in recent years, to the extent of which a new class, composed of academics and media types and lawyers and lobbyists, determine what is permissible in the political debate. They’ve determined what the confines of the debate are.

This is a remarkable example of how weird the United States is. When you look at other countries, they have no great difficulty asking illegals to leave. Canada, for example, is 20 percent foreign-born. America is 15 percent foreign-born, so if immigration is an issue here, then it should be that much more of an issue in Canada. But the reason why it isn’t is because the immigration system up there is one that Donald Trump would love. They have a legal immigration system which is much more geared toward making Canadians better off, native Canadians. And for illegals they give them a hearing and see if they are refugees. If they aren’t, they put them on a plane. Sayonara. And nobody thinks that’s a problem.

Obamacare was an utter and complete disgrace, not the least of which was the failure to address the idea of lawyers gauging the system with their medical malpractice claims. They didn’t want to touch that because trial lawyers are a big Democratic constituency.

If you look at the rankings of economic freedom, and you start looking at the countries that are ahead of us, these ostensibly socialist countries are doing really well. We just don’t have a clue what America is. We have no idea. First of all, we take a look at a country like Norway or Holland and we say ‘They are socialist, they have this bloated welfare system.” What they don’t realize is we have a bigger one. We have a bigger welfare system as a percentage of GDP; we spend more than any other country except Sweden. This is a fabulous country to be poor in if you’re an American. But you don’t notice it because in America it’s hidden in 72 different federal programs and a host of state programs and a bunch of urban programs, not to mention private charities. It’s as if the whole point was to make sure the right hand didn’t know what the left was giving, but it’s more like trying to make sure the right-wing doesn’t know what the left-wing has done. We are fabulously generous and if we think that we must be freer than Holland because they are socialist, that just shows we don’t have a single clue about the American welfare system.

[Perd Hapley]

Not quite as ground-breaking as the article suggests (gasp! writer that's not in lock-step with one party or the other!)* but interesting.




*For example, let's set aside principles (ideology), so we can "help" people. Boy, that's not been suggested over and over and over again, and historically with sickening results.

[brimic]

Obamacare was designed to fail. Its very purpose is to make more people uninsured and drive up insurance rates so that people would clamor for a single payer system.

[MillCreek]

That was an interesting article.

[De Selby]

Those are some pretty solid points in favour of and explaining Trump 2016.

The key take away is focusing on actual results rather than what you think is a rule for good policy.  For example, if public healthcare means everyone has more money in their pockets, and is able to easily switch jobs without worrying about coverage, that provides a degree of economic freedom that would easily outweigh the oppression of a tax to sustain it (given that we already have taxes.)

[De Selby]

Obamacare was designed to fail. Its very purpose is to make more people uninsured and drive up insurance rates so that people would clamor for a single payer system.

You don't think the health insurance industry profiting handsomely from those higher rates and penalties would've had anything to do with it?

[TommyGunn]

But why should we believe that public healthcare would result in us having more money in our pockets, or more economic freedom?  
Just about every government program has cost way more than its initiators promised and America is 20 trillion dollars in debt right now.
Are our political leaders now so much more brilliant than those around in 1966?


I don't think so ........

[TommyGunn]

You don't think the health insurance industry profiting handsomely from those higher rates and penalties would've had anything to do with it?

Hmmmmm ..... MY insurance company quit doing business where I live because it was losing money .....

[MechAg94]

Those are some pretty solid points in favour of and explaining Trump 2016.

The key take away is focusing on actual results rather than what you think is a rule for good policy.  For example, if public healthcare means everyone has more money in their pockets, and is able to easily switch jobs without worrying about coverage, that provides a degree of economic freedom that would easily outweigh the oppression of a tax to sustain it (given that we already have taxes.)

Or we could go the other way and get the govt out of health insurance and get rid of the tax break for employer provided health care.  If everyone was buying their own, the insurance companies would be forced to change their business model. 

Of course, there is still the impact of medicare and govt healthcare that keeps screwing with the market. 

[BlueStarLizzard]

I'm pretty sure some form of reasonable public health care could be done that would be cheaper for everyone and most would be pretty happy with it.

I'm also pretty sure our government can not pull it off.

As with most social programs being overseen by a large group, rather than an individual or small group, it's always going to be the case of too many cooks in the kitchen.

[Balog]

A reminder for those who missed it, America already has public healthcare. Debating if we should or not is like a woman with five kids debating if she should lose her virginity.

[BlueStarLizzard]

A reminder for those who missed it, America already has public healthcare. Debating if we should or not is like a woman with five kids debating if she should lose her virginity.

in case that nitpick was directed at me, I would like to note that I said "reasonable public health care"  Unless you consider what we currently have to be reasonable?

[De Selby]

But why should we believe that public healthcare would result in us having more money in our pockets, or more economic freedom?  
Just about every government program has cost way more than its initiators promised and America is 20 trillion dollars in debt right now.
Are our political leaders now so much more brilliant than those around in 1966?


I don't think so ........

Because they are proven to be cheaper - our social programs aren't flawed because they're exensive, they're expensive because they're mostly designed with corporations and social businesses in mind, not recipients.

[Balog]

in case that nitpick was directed at me, I would like to note that I said "reasonable public health care"  Unless you consider what we currently have to be reasonable?

Not directed at you, just something that always annoys me in these discussions.

[De Selby]

Or we could go the other way and get the govt out of health insurance and get rid of the tax break for employer provided health care.  If everyone was buying their own, the insurance companies would be forced to change their business model.  

Of course, there is still the impact of medicare and govt healthcare that keeps screwing with the market.  

Can you name a place where this model has been successful?

Part of the problem with free market theories of health is free market economics.  Hugely expensive capital costs limit competition (ie, it isn't feasible to have a bunch of competing MRI machines and hospital facilities start up in response to demand as if theyre coffee shops) and the customers have little to no bargaining power in the most expensive scenarios.

Imagine haggling with the ER over what your kidney stone is worth, and threatening to go home and Google a few other hospitals if they don't charge a reasonable fee.  Totally realistic....and yet that sort of bargaining is required for an efficient market.

[De Selby]

I'm pretty sure some form of reasonable public health care could be done that would be cheaper for everyone and most would be pretty happy with it.

I'm also pretty sure our government can not pull it off.

As with most social programs being overseen by a large group, rather than an individual or small group, it's always going to be the case of too many cooks in the kitchen.

Maybe the answer then is to study how other governments pulled it off and try to do the same.  That seems a reasonable way to approach it.

[De Selby]

I'll add that if the system ever does become completely unregulated, I'm moving back and writing contingency fee agreements for hospitals.

"If we save your life we get 75 percent of your assets and 50 percent of your income for life...you're free to disagree, but call a friend soon or your heart attack will kill you"

[BlueStarLizzard]

Maybe the answer then is to study how other governments pulled it off and try to do the same.  That seems a reasonable way to approach it.

Or realize that the basis of our government and our culture does not relate well when compared others. You don't get functional democracies in the middle east and you're not going to get functional socialist style programs in the US.

Bad, good or in the middle, there are cultural constraints here in terms of how people believe things should be done. We have to work within those constraints.

Despite what the SJWs and such cry babies believe, we have an underlying cultural identity that is focused on individuality and everyone having their say in everything. That doesn't mix well with programs that everyone is going to disagree on, especially one that concerns such a private subject of personal welfare.

[brimic]

Can you name a place where this model has been successful?

Part of the problem with free market theories of health is free market economics.  Hugely expensive capital costs limit competition (ie, it isn't feasible to have a bunch of competing MRI machines and hospital facilities start up in response to demand as if theyre coffee shops) and the customers have little to no bargaining power in the most expensive scenarios.

Imagine haggling with the ER over what your kidney stone is worth, and threatening to go home and Google a few other hospitals if they don't charge a reasonable fee.  Totally realistic....and yet that sort of bargaining is required for an efficient market.

I'm almost agreeing with you on this today...
Just got a $500 invoice for minor surgery from last week that involved a dr squirting a bit of liquid nitrogen on a precancerous skin lesion on my head. Insurance, for which I pay$250/month (employerpays the roughly other 75%) is only covering $140.  I've literally have had the same thing done years ago to a planters wart on my foot at the university student clinic for no more than the minor charge that was part of my tuition fees.
Clinics and hospitals aren't competing for your business, they are competing for insurance payments

[TommyGunn]

Because they are proven to be cheaper - our social programs aren't flawed because they're exensive, they're expensive because they're mostly designed with corporations and social businesses in mind, not recipients.

Huh?  The flaw is that "they're expensive because they're mostly designed with corporations and social businesses in mind, not recipients."  THAT'S what you're really saying.
Does this include the British public Healthcare too -- because even that system winds up balancing the books at the expense of the patients, especially those who live farther outside London. 
And I have never seen any proof that they're cheaper, just your gratuitous assertion.

[De Selby]

Huh?  The flaw is that "they're expensive because they're mostly designed with corporations and social businesses in mind, not recipients."  THAT'S what you're really saying.
Does this include the British public Healthcare too -- because even that system winds up balancing the books at the expense of the patients, especially those who live farther outside London. 
And I have never seen any proof that they're cheaper, just your gratuitous assertion.

http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/life-expectancy-and-u-s-health-care-spending-an-international-comparison

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/8115071e.pdf?expires=1467353671&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=E5F7895F9BD8F06DAA59DA24B80B66B9

The United States continues to spend much more on health per capita than all other

OECD countries, but is not in the top group in terms of the number of doctors or nurses per

population.

In 2013, the United States continued to outspend all other

OECD countries by a wide margin, with the equivalent of

USD 8 713 for each US resident (Figure 9.1). This level of

health spending is two-and-a-half times the average of all

OECD countries (USD 3 453) and nearly 40% higher than the

next biggest spender, Switzerland (adjusted for the different

purchasing powers – see “Definition and comparability”

box). Compared with some other G7 countries, the United

States spends around twice as much on health care per

person as Germany, Canada and France.

Only in

Chile and the United States was the share of public spending

on health below 50%. In these countries, a great proportion

of health spending is financed either directly by

households (Chile) or by private insurance (United States).

[Firethorn]

Okay.  Let me think on this a bit. 

First, I think that a properly free market medical system would be the cheapest and most responsive.  However, what we have is NOT a free market system, but a careful mix of the worst aspects of free market and government provisioning and regulation.

Consider the typical person, covered by a healthcare program(it's not really insurance) provided by their work.  Said person goes to see a doctor in a clinic for a procedure.  Doesn't really matter what.

Who's the clinic's customer?  Believe it or not, it's not the person.  It's the health insurance company that's paying them, has the pre-existing contract, etc...  Who's the customer that the health insurance company is trying to please?  It's not the individual - it's the business employing the individual.  Thus, you're likely to get premium care if you're the CEO in charge of selecting the insurance company, but below that?  Nope.

But in any case, the insurance company doesn't want to pay money - so you get copays, deductibles, and all that.  Plus, they hire people to fight claims, rejecting them at the slightest excuse that won't get them sued.  In order to actually get money, the providers have to hire people to submit claims.  Now, competition has forced auto insurers to be efficient, but consider how many auto body shops there are compared to hospitals, and how many auto insurance companies there are compared to medical insurance companies.  And you probably visit a auto body shop less often than a medical provider.

Now, this is even before you add lawsuits and defensive medicine.  there's no competition, there's no up front billing, there's very little of anything.  You get better, cheaper, results in the clinics that have the most economic freedom - Optical, dental, etc...  Surgeons who do breast implants and tummy tucks and such can get their prices very affordable.

Anyways, consider a single payer system - There's only one 'company' to fight with, and in many cases they at least realize that they're going to pay out what they're paying out.  There's a lot less paperwork expense, and they aren't charging by the nitnoid expense like giving somebody a Tylenol in a hospital.

What really gets me is that the federal government spends enough on healthcare that, if we were paying what Germany, Canada, and France were, we could provide universal single payer healthcare for not one additional dollar.  Add in what the states pay, and we'd have quite the surplus, or be able to pay more per individual.

[Perd Hapley]

Okay.  Let me think on this a bit. 

First, I think that a properly free market medical system would be the cheapest and most responsive.

The market provide better, cheaper goods and services than government? That unpossible.

[brimic]

First, I think that a properly free market medical system would be the cheapest and most responsive.  However, what we have is NOT a free market system, but a careful mix of the worst aspects of free market and government provisioning and regulation.

Spot on.

[Pb]

I was under the impression that most of Canada's immigrants were Asians... how have very little in common with the immigrants we get from south of the boarder.  Is this correct?