Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on June 30, 2016, 03:14:25 PM
-
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. :lol:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
That was an interesting article.
-
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.)
-
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?
-
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 ........ [barf]
-
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 ..... ???
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 ........ [barf]
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
Not exactly on point, but living in Seattle, I am exposed to the local news of the Vancouver BC area. It is my impression that in recent years, much of the immigration to Vancouver is affluent Asians, especially from Hong Kong, the Peoples' Republic and South Korea. I know that you get expedited immigration to Canada or residential status if you bring X number of dollars into Canada with you, and I think that figure is at least $ 500,000.
-
Yep, I was right- Canada's immigration is overwhelmingly Asians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada#Sources_of_immigration
Is it not relevant that importing Asians- typically the groups that have very low murder rates, poverty, divorce, and illegitimacy- produce vastly different results than America's immigrants- where are geared towards the exact opposite of these characteristics???
-
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
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
DeSelby, I never trust statistics gathered in other countries as compared to either America ... or even between those countries. Different countries have different methods of gathering stats and correlating them.
One example I've heard recently was in Japan, police investigators delving into a "murder/suicide" in which one person has, say, killed three people and then offed himself, will chalk it down as four suicides. This may mean that while the Japanese can understand the stats (though I question that) the cumulative result is relatively meaningless when compared to U.S. stats.
And so on for medical stats. It is noted fact for example that in some countries, babies that survive birth but die shortly after are called "stillborn," while in America only those who are, indeed, born dead, are still born.
This also is an example of how countries' different methods of gathering stats can skew realities.
So please forgive me if I an unimpressed by long lists of articles and links to stats telling me how superior the world is to America. I don't believe anything I hear ...and only 50% of what I read.
I will say one thing, from family experience; in the mid 1980s my parents, and my maternal grandmother, spent three years living in southern Scotland, where both my father and grandmother had need of medical services in the government-provided healthcare system.
Let me get the one truly positive thing I will say about their medicine out of the way first: My grandmother at the time was in her late 80s to early 90s, and had been prescribed a whole boatload of medicines by her American doctor. One of the first things her Scottish doctor did was eliminate possible 3/4ths of those prescriptions as "unnecessary." This had no effect on her physical health, but her mental acuity improved greatly. We were left with the impresion her American doctor had over-medicated her.
Now for the rest:
The beuracracy is horrid. The paperwork was an aggravating factor to my father, beyond anything he'd ever had to put up with.
Save for a specialist when he had liver problems he was never able to see the same doctor twice. You go into a large room, fill out paperwork, que up, and when your name is called, you see which ever doctor is available at that moment.
You saw Doctor Smith two weeks ago?
Tough, today you see Dr. Norwich -- 'cause THAT'S where you are in line.
In America, if you need an ambulance, they come equiped with paramedics, radio, lots of medical gear, defib equipment, bags of Ringer's Lactate, saline solution, and other stuff. Some treatments can be applied en route under radio supervision from the doctors.
In Scotland?
Well, they actually DO have ambulances, so that's the good news.
They are panel trucks with a cot inside.
Literally.
I ain't shittin' ya.
Oh, and if you're diagnosed with cancer, as some of my parents' Scottish friends related.....you get to wait even months to see a cancer specialist. I hope its not a fast-growing malignant type of cancer because if it is, that diagnosis was a death sentence.
Sorry, I will take good ol' U.S. of A. medicine everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.
There are things that can be done to improve American medicine, but it won't be done by President Obama, it won't be done by President Hillary Clinton, and I am amazingly dubious that a President Trump will do anything positive, either.
On a brighter note ....we only have to die once. =D
-
Is it not relevant that importing Asians- typically the groups that have very low murder rates, poverty, divorce, and illegitimacy- produce vastly different results than America's immigrants- where are geared towards the exact opposite of these characteristics???
Send me your Asian, your law-abiding, your affluent, your family-oriented...
-
Let’s start with the idea that what’s really important is making people better off, and not fidelity to some set of abstract principles. There are a whole bunch of people on the conservative side that think of politics as a kind of geometry, a political geometry. In other words, you start with some kind of locked-in axiom, and you build it up from there. And that’s not how politics should be played.
This video is a good, concise defense of principle in politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_rBxHxaco
(I hope the sound is not garbled. I think it is just my wonky system.)
-
In other words tommy, you don't care about hard numbers because this one time your had a lot of paperwork in Scotland.
Not sure that's the best way to choose your stance on health policy. Do you have competing figures maybe?
Note that success against cancer is extensively measured between countries. The US overall has no better outcomes.
-
In other words tommy, you don't care about hard numbers because this one time your had a lot of paperwork in Scotland.
Not sure that's the best way to choose your stance on health policy. Do you have competing figures maybe?
Note that success against cancer is extensively measured between countries. The US overall has no better outcomes.
I told you why I was dubious of foreign derived stats, if you don't wish to listen, but make up asshat strawman arguments, you only come off as another dishonest shyshter mouthpiece.
-
I told you why I was dubious of foreign derived stats, if you don't wish to listen, but make up asshat strawman arguments, you only come off as another dishonest shyshter mouthpiece.
So you think the OECD countries are cooking their books - that's no problem, but do you have some indication that this is so?
-
Note that success against cancer is extensively measured between countries. The US overall has no better outcomes.
I didn't have time when I read DeSelby's little story - it might have been just that one area for a brief period of time.
I know that there are lots of fully equipped ambulances in Europe, and talking with people there, waiting a year to see a cancer doctor would be an extreme anomaly that would result in news coverage similar to what we see for a spree killing in the USA.
I told you why I was dubious of foreign derived stats, if you don't wish to listen, but make up asshat strawman arguments, you only come off as another dishonest shyshter mouthpiece.
Feel free to be 'dubious', but mere doubt shouldn't allow you to completely dismiss all data that doesn't jive with your world-view.
-
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)
I remain unimpressed and unconvinced by the "high capital cost" argument. Some medical equipment is sophisticated, but so is most industrial equipment nowadays. I buy sophisticated industrial equipment for a living. Most medical equipment is mature technology. Even MRI machines. If it's outrageously expensive, it's because of the same "market" forces that restrict supply of doctors.
-
So you think the OECD countries are cooking their books - that's no problem, but do you have some indication that this is so?
:facepalm:
How did you manage to pass your bar exam with the reading comprehension of a dimwitted gerbil?
I never said anyone was "cooking their books." I said different countries gather and correlate statistics using different methodologies, making comparisons between countries at best problematic, at worst, nearly impossible.
-
..........
Feel free to be 'dubious', but mere doubt shouldn't allow you to completely dismiss all data that doesn't jive with your world-view.
I don't completely dismiss it, I am merely dubious of it. As the say, "figures don't lie, but liars figure."
Plus, for some bizarre reason, I've acquired a deeply ingrained distrust of politicians who promise great things to us if we merely allow them to gain govt.control of health care.
Gofigure.....whoda thunk that 'D happen?
-
I remain unimpressed and unconvinced by the "high capital cost" argument. Some medical equipment is sophisticated, but so is most industrial equipment nowadays. I buy sophisticated industrial equipment for a living. Most medical equipment is mature technology. Even MRI machines. If it's outrageously expensive, it's because of the same "market" forces that restrict supply of doctors.
Except that you don't exactly get to stock Walmart with the product, and I suppose if you think of IP as a restriction on supply that would be a major one.
-
I remain unimpressed and unconvinced by the "high capital cost" argument. Some medical equipment is sophisticated, but so is most industrial equipment nowadays. I buy sophisticated industrial equipment for a living. Most medical equipment is mature technology. Even MRI machines. If it's outrageously expensive, it's because of the same "market" forces that restrict supply of doctors.
Have you ever worked in a facility with an MRI? I have, and there's a lot more to it than just "buy the machine and set it up."
-
"IP" is caused by government too.
The volume of the healthcare market is relatively enormous. I imagine every city in the US could use an MRI machine, maybe multiples, certainly every large city. Compare that with, say, machines for ion-implanting semiconductors. Companies might sell 1 every 5 years, each one custom. Even those only cost a million or two each.
-
This video is a good, concise defense of principle in politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_rBxHxaco
(I hope the sound is not garbled. I think it is just my wonky system.)
The real question is what principles one adheres to, innit?
-
:facepalm:
How did you manage to pass your bar exam with the reading comprehension of a dimwitted gerbil?
I never said anyone was "cooking their books." I said different countries gather and correlate statistics using different methodologies, making comparisons between countries at best problematic, at worst, nearly impossible.
So, in the absence of evidence you trust you've decided our system is best because Murica? Alrighty then, compelling argument.
-
Have you ever worked in a facility with an MRI? I have, and there's a lot more to it than just "buy the machine and set it up."
Wah. So some engineering is needed? Engineers are available, and they aren't that expensive; doctors make more in fact, as any salary survey will show. MRI has been around long enough I wager what is really needed is skilled technicians trained on the tools, and those probably come with the tool, at least during install and startup. Not like some of the analytical tools which basically come with a ph.d to babysit them forever.
Its a matter of perspective. I never said cheap or easy. I said relatively cheap and easy. I remain unimpressed by the supposed capex requirements of health-care, at least when it comes to people blaming it for high consumer costs. I work in high-tech manufacturing and R&D, so I see expensive equipment, and then I go to hospitals, and I see some pretty modest stuff. I work with ion implanters that are the size of an apartment, that kill you with kV power supplies and run fun things like arsine and phosphine gas, totally custom systems that cost only a few million. Giant RF induction furnaces, first and only ones made in the world. Excimer lasers. ALD systems that run gases that cost $30,000/bottle and are so new and nasty nobody knows how to regulate them, processes so expensive that one process run costs more than my salary. High-vacuum systems that pump down to a millitorr that are so big you can climb into them. We consume kilograms of gold per quarter. I don't have direct experience with MRI, but I do with NMR, and I once bought a 1T magnet with a gap almost big enough to crawl in. This stuff is expensive, but such is industry. MRI machines? The fundamentals say that the MRI machines are not what's making your healthcare expensive.
If medical equipment is expensive, it's due to the same market failures that we all discuss over and over. The capex requirements of advanced medicine, in light of the relatively enormous and standardized market, are not fundamentally high. To stick with MRI example, MRI is ancient technology by now. The consumables and labor to run them should swamp the capital by this point, if the market for medical devices were healthy and functioning. So saying medical care is expensive because the capital is expensive is like saying that medical care is expensive because doctors' salaries are high and there is a shortage of doctors. True, but just a restatement of the problem.
-
So, in the absence of evidence you trust you've decided our system is best because Murica? Alrighty then, compelling argument.
Another whacko strawman argument.
-
Lengthy arglbargl
I'm sure we're all very impressed with the stuff at your job. Cherry picking a single item, making some points that are not directly related to the argument presented to you, and then portraying that single cherry picked item as the only factor in that argument is mendacious in the extreme.
-
Another whacko strawman argument.
You should listen to less talk radio, your arguments would be better.
-
You should listen to less talk radio, your arguments would be better.
You should tell me how you derive "MURICA!" from me stating that different countries gather & correlate statistics differently.
Your arguments would be better. ;)
-
I'm sure we're all very impressed with the stuff at your job. Cherry picking a single item, making some points that are not directly related to the argument presented to you, and then portraying that single cherry picked item as the only factor in that argument is mendacious in the extreme.
If you cherry pick the right stats, you can look good no matter what reality is. It is pretty silly to discount one version of cherry picking with more cherry picking. This entire thread as full of it. IMO, especially from those who seem to hate any free market solution no matter what topic.
-
We have a lot of problems with our current system, but most of those problems are not because of market forces. They are because the govt has set up a quasi-govt healthcare system that is idiotic and encourages all the wrong behavior. It may have started with Medicare back 30 more more years ago. Maybe it started with the income tax and allowing health care as a tax break to get people used to not paying the bill. If a single payer health system would be cheaper it would only be because our current system is so screwed up, if we scrapped ALL the current laws in favor of a new single system it might improve things (but only until the bureaucrats screw it up again). I really doubt any attempt to go to a single payer system would get rid of all the screwed up stuff that exists now so any attempt is only going to make things worse.
Another thing to remember is that employer provided healthcare is a combination of healthcare and insurance. If it was just insurance, everything we spend would be out of pocket which would encourage everyone to shop around. I do like the comparison to vision and dental care. My lasic surgery was pretty simple. I shopped around. I visited two different places for an exam. I paid the fee at one. The surgery got done.
-
Mech,
Those stats don't appear cherry picked. Do you have any data that might show a different view?
Also, do you think insurance company and health industry consolidation might have anything to do with rising prices? How does government regulation of health force them to increase prices?
-
How does government regulation of health force them to increase prices?
:rofl:
-
How does government regulation of health force them to increase prices?
Seriously, you even have to ask this question?
-
Seriously, you even have to ask this question?
Yes. It's reasonable to ask when literally no government healthcare system in the world is more expensive than the US system. If regulations increase price how come more regulated versions aren't more expensive?
-
Yes. It's reasonable to ask when literally no government healthcare system in the world is more expensive than the US system. If regulations increase price how come more regulated versions aren't more expensive?
Do you have any data to back that up which is normalized for level of care and speed of care provided? You keep saying all this stuff and asking others to back up their assertions. Back at ya.
-
Do you have any data to back that up which is normalized for level of care and speed of care provided? You keep saying all this stuff and asking others to back up their assertions. Back at ya.
Yes, that's exactly what I posted. There's an extensive set of comparisons.
-
This discussions sounds like a lot of the past discussions. Too many people just love more govt.
-
Yes. It's reasonable to ask when literally no government healthcare system in the world is more expensive than the US system. If regulations increase price how come more regulated versions aren't more expensive?
You come across as one who takes pride in ignorance. Or you're just trolling. It's hard to tell.
-
You come across as one who takes pride in ignorance. Or you're just trolling. It's hard to tell.
And yet no data or facts get supplied to make out the "it's the government!!!! Rahhhhhh!!!" Hysteria.
I posted sources for what I said. I haven't seen any data that even purport to refute it, and yet I'm trolling?
-
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.
Which model would you emulate
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
And yet no data or facts get supplied to make out the "it's the government!!!! Rahhhhhh!!!" Hysteria.
I posted sources for what I said. I haven't seen any data that even purport to refute it, and yet I'm trolling?
Link battles are not discussion and you aren't communicating your side very well IMO.
Honestly, I don't care to waste my time on it. This subject just doesn't interest me enough to go chasing your links. I have done so before and never found them to be all that great. As I said above, this health care discussion is heading the same direction as they have before.
I want to go shoot a White Oak Armory upper and a 10/22 with a new KIDD barrel on it today. You have fun.
-
It is nice to put rounds down range on Independence Day!
Thinking of this topic some more, I think I agree with what bluestarlizard said earlier. A Govt run system just isn't going to work in the US. There are too many politicians, bureaucrats, and freeloaders who will screw it up on purpose or with idiotic good intentions. I am sure the lawyers will make sure the liability issues are not resolved also. Even if the law creating the system was set up very well, it would still end up a flawed system. IMO, the high cost De Selby mentioned are largely caused by govt trying to make part of it public and some private. IMO, the only way we would have an efficient system in this country is to take the government out of it and make sure the consumer is getting the bill.
There are some other issues that need to be dealt with such as requiring hospitals/emergency room to give free care and the ever present liability issues. I think they can be dealt with in one way or another, but I bet many would not like the solution.
-
Which model would you emulate
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
France. They seem to have the best combination of efficient funding and private choice.
-
Yes. It's reasonable to ask when literally no government healthcare system in the world is more expensive than the US system. If regulations increase price how come more regulated versions aren't more expensive?
Which nations have more highly-regulated healthcare systems than ours, and what are their costs like?
According to the Atlantic, "it has often been said that the United States has the most heavily regulated health care system in the world." (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/neither-public-nor-private-a-health-care-system-muddling-through/257123/) They don't give their source, and so far I've not seen anyone else saying that. There are a lot of sources calling healthcare the most regulated industry in the United States, for what that's worth.
For those interested, here's a write-up on the French system.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1504547#t=article
edited for clarity
-
FYI, wife has worked the trauma floor (and some other floors, too) of the metro county Level 1 trauma hospital as well as pool/temp/agency/whatever nurse for several of the hospital systems in the metro area. She has made a few observations and come to a couple of conclusions.
1. County hospital, where most of the funding comes from county sales tax, has been the most cost-conscious and focused on getting the patient out of bed, well, and out the door so they can get on with their life. Private hospitals, not so much.
2. Quality of care was highest at the county hospital and she would rather be treated there for just about anything (save pregnancy). Despite the much less pretty and less comfy physical plant.
3. Patient-contact personnel (nurses, docs, techs) were of higher quality at the county hospital, despite lower pay relative to private hospitals. Admin were worse, however, as they were political graft jobs for the local dominant NAM.
============================
We discussed this a bit.
A. In the case of trauma, it is no great mystery. Most traumas are NAMs doing stupid NAM tricks: GSW, knifings, beatings, driving while drunk/high/stupid and similar dumbassery. Many of these are rather catastrophic and Medicaid will cover only a fraction of what it truly costs to get Ghetto Joe out the door on crutches with a colostomy bag after a rival crack dealer gut shoots him...after 6-12mo of intense and costly treatment. Private hospitals want no part of these.
B. In many of the other cases we speculate it is a function of who pays the bills. For the county hospital, local folks who live and buy in the county pay a large proportion and put pressure on the hospital to be efficient. Medicaid and insurance companies are smaller players.
C. CMS is of the Devil. The private hospitals worship CMS and the patient satisfaction surveys. Those surveys have an impact on Medicaid reimbursement. A drug-seeking patient at the county hospital is dealing with nurses and docs who know the score and will keep him out of pain, but will not get him high out of his mind. Nurses and docs will also risk patient ire in order to get them out of bed and moving, so they recover faster. The same patient at the private hospital will be catered to and kept in a state of drooling bliss for fear of negative CMS survey results. These patients are generally not particularly severe and taxing, med problem-wise. They can be costly PITA to the personnel but cost the hospital less than the severe trauma cases. Risk patient ire by calling them on their drug-seeking and insisting they get out of bed to walk? Heh.
D. Private hospitals cut costs on quality of personnel. LOTS of foreign-born and taught docs. The typical case is the Indian woman who could not give a damn about her patients and pretty much hates doctoring altogether. But family back in BFI and the ticket to America required a MD and a job as a doc. Then there is the female doc from the USA who realizes she would rather be doing almost anything else...but has student loans to pay, pay, pay. My wife is of the mind that she wants no female, foreign, or NAM doctor treating her or those she loves. [Nursing & techs are another matter.]
E. County hospital can have a sense of mission the private hospitals lack. The former top dog of the county hospital was a big name in the oldest S Baptist church around town. He liked getting paid, but he burned with a sense of mission that pay can not provide. That permeated management through to the docs & nurses. [After he retired and was replaced with a typical health care mgt professional from back east, that sense of mission has suffered. Especially as racial cliques were allowed to develop for fear of race-grievance allegations. The old guy would have none of that crap and had a ZFG attitude WRT race-hustling in the patient-contact personnel.]
F. American-born docs and doc students working in a team. Greater proportion of docs were American-born and the local med schools had them train at the county hospital. Each patient had several docs, ranging from baby-docs to ancient docs who had to ride scooters to/from surgery to patient bed. When patients had difficulties, there were several docs who knew the score, not just one foreign-born doc who went to med school in Lower FGM-istan who doesn't really like doctoring or patients.
============================
I think cost-pressure is at the heart of the issue when it comes to health care spending. The county hospital has pressure imposed on it from local folks, whereas the private hospitals have pressure imposed only from insurance companies and more distant gov't entities. Neither has pressure from patients, as the better-off have insurance and the indigent live their lives subsidized from cradle to grave by fed.gov and its more diffuse taxpayers. Even disregarding the massive web of regulations, there is now no real market pressure to bear from the end-user of health care to keep costs down.
============================
And as far as cost & outcomes vs other first-world countries, get back to me when Australia has 30%+ NAM patient population with the attendant violence and poor lifestyle habits.
-
You should tell me how you derive "MURICA!" from me stating that different countries gather & correlate statistics differently.
Your arguments would be better. ;)
Your argument: "All the available data says X. But I don't trust that data, and believe we don't have any reliable data on X vs Y. Therefore, Y is true."
Tell me if you see the logical flaw here.
-
If you cherry pick the right stats, you can look good no matter what reality is. It is pretty silly to discount one version of cherry picking with more cherry picking. This entire thread as full of it. IMO, especially from those who seem to hate any free market solution no matter what topic.
I love the free market. But I don't pretend it's a magical fairy wand that you can wave at any problem and it will instantly make everything better.
-
Your argument: "All the available data says X. But I don't trust that data, and believe we don't have any reliable data on X vs Y. Therefore, Y is true."
Tell me if you see the logical flaw here.
The flaw is your statement does not reflect what I said.
I said that different countries compile statistics differently, thus making comparisons either very difficult or even impossible.
I don't understand why it should be so hard to understand......did my autocorrect change it into Yiddish?
-
The flaw is your statement does not reflect what I said.
I said that different countries compile statistics differently, thus making comparisons either very difficult or even impossible.
I don't understand why it should be so hard to understand......did my autocorrect change it into Yiddish?
The paper covers how statistics are gathered. Worth reading.
-
The flaw is your statement does not reflect what I said.
I said that different countries compile statistics differently, thus making comparisons either very difficult or even impossible.
I don't understand why it should be so hard to understand......did my autocorrect change it into Yiddish?
So, in the absence of reliable data, you base your conclusion that "We're #1!" on what again?
-
And, again, if you want to argue that the free market leads to better results America is not a real great case study since our medical system is not free market. The only place private free markets come in is when the fed.gov cheese gets spread around. Privatize the profit, socialize the loss. It's the American way!
-
So, in the absence of reliable data, you base your conclusion that "We're #1!" on what again?
If all you are going to do is lead this increasingly puerile argument around in circles, I won't even bother responding.
You damned well KNOW what I said. You don't have to believe it if you choose, that's on you.
-
If all you are going to do is lead this increasingly puerile argument around in circles, I won't even bother responding.
You damned well KNOW what I said. You don't have to believe it if you choose, that's on you.
I know exactly what you said. "I don't trust the data, here is an anecdote that charicitures one specific country's medical system, therefore Murica is the best!"
-
:facepalm:
Good grief. DO YOU REALLY THINK OTHER COUNTRIES COLLECT AND ANALYZE STATISTICS THE WAY WE DO IN AMERICA?
The fact that you seem to think that means our stats are any better is an idea that solely exists inside your skull, bouncing from one of the two working brain cells to another in a feeble attempt to achieve intelligent thought. Many organizations within America compile stats, and some of those are suspect, some are pretty good. Many don't even speak for what the Murica(!) :-* government's policy is. Other countries gather statistics on crime differently than we do, and their methods may or may not be better than ours. The simple fact they are DIFFERENT means it is hard to glean meaningful information from them in comparison to ours.
:mad:
Ok, clearly you don't comprehend the English language.
If you don't like what I say, PLEASE ignore me.
Now, either understand what I've said or bug off. :-*
-
And, again, if you want to argue that the free market leads to better results America is not a real great case study since our medical system is not free market.
This is why I asked DeSelby which countries he's thinking of that have more regulation on health care than we have in the states.
-
:facepalm:
Good grief. DO YOU REALLY THINK OTHER COUNTRIES COLLECT AND ANALYZE STATISTICS THE WAY WE DO IN AMERICA?
The fact that you seem to think that means our stats are any better is an idea that solely exists inside your skull, bouncing from one of the two working brain cells to another in a feeble attempt to achieve intelligent thought. Many organizations within America compile stats, and some of those are suspect, some are pretty good. Many don't even speak for what the Murica(!) :-* government's policy is. Other countries gather statistics on crime differently than we do, and their methods may or may not be better than ours. The simple fact they are DIFFERENT means it is hard to glean meaningful information from them in comparison to ours.
:mad:
Ok, clearly you don't comprehend the English language.
If you don't like what I say, PLEASE ignore me.
Now, either understand what I've said or bug off. :-*
Wow, you really don't see the logical contradiction in your own argument do you?
I'm not saying the data is or is not reliable. I am granting (for the sake of argument) that your point is correct and that the comparative data is not reliable, and then questioning how (in the absence of reliable data) you are arriving at your conclusion that care in America is superior. Feel free to keep dancing around that. I'm sure if you make your font larger that'll prove your point.
-
This is why I asked DeSelby which countries he's thinking of that have more regulation on health care than we have in the states.
I don't think it's a question of regulation, or at least not fully. The larger distortion that fed.gov introduces into the market is via spending not regulations. A lot of healthcare regulations are driven by fear of private litigation more than by legislation.
-
Yes. It's reasonable to ask when literally no government healthcare system in the world is more expensive than the US system. If regulations increase price how come more regulated versions aren't more expensive?
I think you're mixing up the difference between regulation and "single payer".
The USA has massively more regulation than most other countries when it comes to healthcare. Consider, we have not only regulations for managing the actual healthcare, but we have regulations managing how health insurance companies are to operate, regulations on what services they can and will provide, and the insurance companies have their own regulations that healthcare providers must follow in order to be paid.
In single-payer countries, the government produces regulations on how healthcare providers are to operate, as well as how they manage paying said healthcare providers. No insurance companies(in most cases) get involved.
The end result is, like I've said before, worse than both free-market medical care(present in many of the poorest countries), and government-single payer systems.
DO YOU REALLY THINK OTHER COUNTRIES COLLECT AND ANALYZE STATISTICS THE WAY WE DO IN AMERICA?
First, I'd suggest calming down. Second, Yes, I do think other countries collect and analyze statistics the same way we do in America. Not for every metric, and sometimes their internal use metrics are different, but generally speaking, they're capable of taking the raw data and producing comparable statistics, even if occasionally they need a disclaimer.
It's something to be careful about.
I don't think that minor differences in statistical collection is enough to counter our drastically higher medical costs. Especially in light of generally equal to improved patient satisfaction and outcomes.
I don't think it's a question of regulation, or at least not fully. The larger distortion that fed.gov introduces into the market is via spending not regulations. A lot of healthcare regulations are driven by fear of private litigation more than by legislation.
I think regulation has more to do with it than you think. It's the regulation that, in most cases, are preventing competitors from being able to provide superior service for less money. The cost for entry into the medical field is ridiculous.
-
I think regulation has more to do with it than you think. It's the regulation that, in most cases, are preventing competitors from being able to provide superior service for less money. The cost for entry into the medical field is ridiculous.
No, greed is the problem. GREEEEEEEEEEEED!
-
I think regulation has more to do with it than you think. It's the regulation that, in most cases, are preventing competitors from being able to provide superior service for less money. The cost for entry into the medical field is ridiculous.
Setting aside insurance (which is obviously related to but separate from medical care) what specific regulation are you thinking of that prevents competitive behavior?
-
Wow, you really don't see the logical contradiction in your own argument do you?
I'm not saying the data is or is not reliable. I am granting (for the sake of argument) that your point is correct and that the comparative data is not reliable, and then questioning how (in the absence of reliable data) you are arriving at your conclusion that care in America is superior. Feel free to keep dancing around that. I'm sure if you make your font larger that'll prove your point.
:facepalm:
I DID NOT REACH THAT CONCLUSION. PERIOD. THAT IS IN YOUR MIND, tiny as it is.
And you're the jackwagon who's dancing -- with yourself.
-
First, I'd suggest calming down. Second, Yes, I do think other countries collect and analyze statistics the same way we do in America. Not for every metric, and sometimes their internal use metrics are different, but generally speaking, they're capable of taking the raw data and producing comparable statistics, even if occasionally they need a disclaimer.
It's something to be careful about.
I don't think that minor differences in statistical collection is enough to counter our drastically higher medical costs. Especially in light of generally equal to improved patient satisfaction and outcomes.
First, I wasn't talking to you.
Second, as example, in England, if one person robs, say, 5 drugstores in one day, this is counted as one crime when Scotland Yard is accumulating their yearly crime data. In America, the same thing would count as 5 crimes. If you were comparing crime stats between Britain and America, and did not (or could not) account for this difference, could you not see how the comparison would be skewed?
In other realms of statistical comparisons, in some countries newborn babies aren't counted until their some months old. If they're stilborn they are not counted at all. In America we count as stilborn all babies who are -- in fact -- stilborn. Can you see how this would skew comparisons if you didn't know it?
And if it appears I am pissed it's because I am. I'm tired of 'splainin' to another website member that I did not do something he insists I did do...over......and over.....and over.... again. So deal with it.
.....Or not......
-
:facepalm:
I DID NOT REACH THAT CONCLUSION. PERIOD. THAT IS IN YOUR MIND, tiny as it is.
And you're the jackwagon who's dancing -- with yourself.
You are just adorable. Let me quote it again as you seem to be having some selective amnesia regarding what you said earlier in this thread.
Sorry, I will take good ol' U.S. of A. medicine everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.
-
You are just adorable. Let me quote it again as you seem to be having some selective amnesia regarding what you said earlier in this thread.
Ya, so? I don't want to have my appendix removed in Rwanda.
I also said THIS about the British system:
Let me get the one truly positive thing I will say about their medicine out of the way first: My grandmother at the time was in her late 80s to early 90s, and had been prescribed a whole boatload of medicines by her American doctor. One of the first things her Scottish doctor did was eliminate possible 3/4ths of those prescriptions as "unnecessary." This had no effect on her physical health, but her mental acuity improved greatly. We were left with the impresion her American doctor had over-medicated her.
I suppose if I wanted to be properly medicated I ought to go there, which would make some people here very happy, as they probably think I ought to be medicated. ;/
However, I really wasn't praising the British Government's healthcare system. Just saying that not everything is bad there.
-
Ya, so? I don't want to have my appendix removed in Rwanda.
Lol. Sooooo intellectually dishonest, do you work for the FBI by any chance?
Let me recap.
TG: "I don't believe the statistics showing the US is inferior, and here's a personal anecdote, and the US is way better than that strawman, and I would totally take the US medical care!"
Me: "Why do you believe the US is superior?"
TG: "I NEVER SAID THAT YOU'RE AN IDIOT!"
Me: "Here's the quote where you said that."
TG: "So what?"
Like I said, just adorable.
-
Redacted....see next post
-
"Sorry, I will take the good ol' U.S. of A medicine everyday of the week...."
:facepalm:
Okay.....I think I get what got screwed up in translation--- and we're both guilty , me, of not being more clear on what I intended to mean by that.....and you for infering something I did not intend to say.
I certainly WILL take American medicine every day of the week, because we do have a good medical capability here....and I do not wish to have to go to Belize for an appendectomy, or to England, France or elsewhere. This doesn't mean that ours is truly the best in the world, only that there is also a degree of practicality involved in making decisions that means there are other considerations.
For example, a Cadillac may be a better car than a Honda, but the Honda ---assuming both cars in good condition --- will get you there too.
I suppose if faced with a truly catastrophic diagnosis, a consideration of the possibly superior capabilities of another country's medical capabilities may be be taken into account; circa 1990 my father was diagnosed with a very rare form of liver cancer. In trying to locate a good surgeon, he looked into a place in Japan he'D heard had done some very advanced surgery on liver cancers.
He would later, however, locate a good surgeon in Pittsburgh who knew about this type of cancer and agreed to do surgery. Ironically this surgeon was Japanese....but that was only a coincidence.
The treatment gave my father maybe a year of life he would not have had otherwise.
However, in what I said in that quote at the top of this post, I was not intending to mean that American Healthcare was unquestioning superior, just that I would truly prefer to refer myself to local experts should I require life saving medical help.....I do believe we have a good system, and, that it could be a lot better if the government wouldn't keep trying to fix it.
I apologize for my earlier insulting manner and intransigence.....we were truly talking past each other.
-
"Sorry, I will take the good ol' U.S. of A medicine everyday of the week...."
:facepalm:
Okay.....I think I get what got screwed up in translation--- and we're both guilty , me, of not being more clear on what I intended to mean by that.....and you for infering something I did not intend to say.
I certainly WILL take American medicine every day of the week, because we do have a good medical capability here....and I do not wish to have to go to Belize for an appendectomy, or to England, France or elsewhere. This doesn't mean that ours is truly the best in the world, only that there is also a degree of practicality involved in making decisions that means there are other considerations.
For example, a Cadillac may be a better car than a Honda, but the Honda ---assuming both cars in good condition --- will get you there too.
I suppose if faced with a truly catastrophic diagnosis, a consideration of the possibly superior capabilities of another country's medical capabilities may be be taken into account; circa 1990 my father was diagnosed with a very rare form of liver cancer. In trying to locate a good surgeon, he looked into a place in Japan he'D heard had done some very advanced surgery on liver cancers.
He would later, however, locate a good surgeon in Pittsburgh who knew about this type of cancer and agreed to do surgery. Ironically this surgeon was Japanese....but that was only a coincidence.
The treatment gave my father maybe a year of life he would not have had otherwise.
However, in what I said in that quote at the top of this post, I was not intending to mean that American Healthcare was unquestioning superior, just that I would truly prefer to refer myself to local experts should I require life saving medical help.....I do believe we have a good system, and, that it could be a lot better if the government wouldn't keep trying to fix it.
I apologize for my earlier insulting manner and intransigence.....we were truly talking past each other.
Huh, I very literally would never have guessed that was what you intended there. I believe we are discussing the relative merits of various systems for the citizens who live under them. I certainly wasn't thinking about cross border care. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
You can't be blamed; I did a remarkably poor job of expressing myself --- just an arbitrary statement that was very clearly open to multiple interpretations.
20-20 hindsight ..... I really ought to have simply left that statement out. Mea maxima culpa.
-
I hope this does not change the widely-held opinion of TG being adorable.
-
=D In order to solidify -- once and forever -- my reputation as APS's most adorable member, I have included a self portrait:
-
I hope this does not change the widely-held opinion of TG being adorable.
We may need to upgrade him to cuddly.
-
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/KevinMD/59040
An interesting opinion piece by a physician who has worked in the UK, Australian and US medical systems.
-
At the end, he says "civilized society" shouldn't refuse anyone coverage for pre-existing conditions. Can someone explain this one to me? Doesn't that refer to a health insurance provider declining to start an insurance policy for someone who already has a chronic health condition that would make him a poor risk for a policy? If so, why do otherwise reasonable people think that insurance companies are morally bound to insure such? Wouldn't that be a good way to increase health care costs for everyone?
Or is he talking about some other kind of situation?
Or is health insurance not really insurance?
-
Or is health insurance not really insurance?
Ding ding ding ding ding!!
As evidenced by Obama, the left doesn't understand what "insurance" means. They think it means "someone else pays if anything bad happens."
-
Agreed. With car insurance, the insurance doesn't pay you if your car is an unreliable junker. It only pays to fix it after an accident or the fix medical/mechanical costs for other parties in an accident.
Asking insurance to pay for preexisting medical conditions is not insurance. That is just health care or charity. You are asking someone else to pay for a high medical cost for a lower monthly payment which doesn't make any economic sense.
-
At the other end of the spectrum, is the idea of caring for peoples' health from cradle to grave a noble one? Yes, it is. Should anyone be refused coverage because of a pre-existing condition or go bankrupt and lose sleep because of unforeseen medical bills? No, they shouldn't in any civilized country. Do many of the socialized healthcare systems produce better outcomes than us? Yes, they do. Is the high-cost system we currently have sustainable over the long term? No, it isn't.
Perhaps something in-between the two extremes would be best, like Australia, which gives tax breaks for people who take out private insurance, but still offers a public system as backup to anyone who needs it?
I think his conclusions are a bit flawed.
1. It isn't noble or at least that is in your own head.
2. Asking the second question misses the point. Making the person pay for it is the only way where everyone has a choice. The other way someone is forced to either pay or provide a service.
3. How does he define outcomes and for who? I think his answer only focuses on certain people based on his own message above.
4. The current system is sustainable, just painful for the people paying bills.
5. Calling each side he doesn't like an extreme is just him framing the argument to suit his conclusions. The current system is probably as extreme as anything.
Last, people tend to ignore the fact that many if not most hospitals in the US were built with private/charitable money not government dollars. A lot of the hospital expansions and new wings are built with private donations. If we went to a free market system, there would be quite a bit of charitable money out there looking for a place to go. I don't think there would be any need for a govt safety net.
I guess I could have numbered his quote, but no will misunderstand what I am saying on this forum. =D
-
I wouldn't argue against it being noble. I'm not a Randian. It can be noble enough, when done voluntarily. Done at gunpoint is less than noble.
-
http://www.heraldnet.com/business/new-peak-for-u-s-health-care-spending-10345-per-person/
I incur less than $1000 per year in medical costs, with my annual visit to the internist, labs thereto and $ 10/month for simvastatin. So some of you must be really running up the bill, to reach a figure of $10,345 of healthcare spending for each man, woman and child in the USA.
-
http://www.heraldnet.com/business/new-peak-for-u-s-health-care-spending-10345-per-person/
I incur less than $1000 per year in medical costs, with my annual visit to the internist, labs thereto and $ 10/month for simvastatin. So some of you must be really running up the bill, to reach a figure of $10,345 of healthcare spending for each man, woman and child in the USA.
Most people pay more than that just for insurance cover - not to mention actual costs of treatment on top.
My total bill with private cover is about 1100, including dental, vision, and routine sports massage.
-
My total bill with private cover is about 1100, including dental, vision, and routine sports massage.
Is THAT what they are calling it, now?