CV Rick wrote, It seems that this isn’t true. There are a lot of nations with socialized medicine ahead of the U.S....
Then why does the U.S. effectively subsidize their drugs?
...in the CIA factbook rankings for Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy.
The percentage difference is around .002%! Sometimes it is .003%! In other words: statistally irrelevant. And guess where the biggest differences abound? In the Democrat controlled inner cities where infant mortality is higher (because our "Great Society" programs pay welfare crack mothers to have babies and where life expectancy is lower.)
So how, again, are socialized health countries "ahead of the U.S."?
Maybe power should be measured in freedoms and in the standard of living.
Maybe it shouldn’t. Why would "freedoms" have such requirements as, "equitable wealth distribution"? You’re bringing your socialist requirements as an argument.
Marc said, The biggest problem is it is still a voluntary program
This is the typical liberal refrain. The problem is not that your ideas don’t work, it’s that we haven’t done enough of it yet. It’s why we hear cries of "more money!" everytime it is shown that government doesn’t work.
likwidshoe - 09:02pm on 02/16/2006
Why is it the compulsory health insurance is considered coersion by the government, while compulsory auto insurance isn’t?
If you don’t have car insurance and hurt somebody in an accident they’re taking something away from the party they hurt.
on the other hand not having health insurance should be a personal thing. If you decided not to have insurance and ultimately didn’t get medical treatment because of that you only have yourself to blame.
On the other hand that whole point breaks down when when the uninsured (but happy) person get’s sick and has the work done anyway. They either stick the hospital with the bill or the taxpayer gets hosed.
The.Whistler - 04:02am on 02/17/2006
Ok, one last try, and I’ll shut up forever. Maybe
If you decided not to have [health] insurance and ultimately didn’t get medical treatment because of that you only have yourself to blame.
First off, in this country, you don’t need insurance to get treatment. Just go to an emergency room. You are required by law to be treated.
But, to use your example, what happens if you contract a contagious disease, don’t get treatment because of a lack of health insurance, and spread that disease, knowingly or unknowingly, throughout society? Are you still the only one who gets hurt?
And likwidshoe, who’s crying for more money? I’m not! There is plenty of money available now, the bills do get paid I just want those who don’t pay for their health care to pay for it. Why are you against that?
Why should I have to pay for someone else’s health care? Why should I have to be employed to have the opportunity to purchase affordable health insurance? Why can’t I just buy the same insurance as government employees at the same price they pay? And why do I have to be healthy to purchase that insurance, or be required to pay 170% of the rate of everyone else, should I get sick?
I’m not talking about socialized medicine. And while I do believe a single payer system, structured much like medicare, will produce better results, I would have no objection to the current system as it stands provided it were made compulsory, and everyone was allowed to purchase insurance at the same cost, or at a graduated scale based on age, with no exclusions due to pre existing conditions.
And you also ask,
Then why does the U.S. effectively subsidize their drugs?
That’s an excellent question. We do that because are politicians are in the pockets of big pharma, and refuse to let us negotiate drug prices like they do in the rest of the industrialized world,
Of course if voluntary health insurance is your thing, and you don’t mind subsidizing the health care of those who refuse to pay for it, than you shouldn’t be objecting to the US subsidizing drugs to the rest of the world.
I do, but I guess that is the definition of a socialism, so my ideas aren’t worth much.
BTW Rob, I hate not being able to preview my messages before posting.
Marc - 05:02am on 02/17/2006
And likwidshoe, who’s crying for more money? I’m not!
I didn’t say that you were.
I just want those who don’t pay for their health care to pay for it. Why are you against that?
I’m not against that. Don’t put words into my mouth.
We do that because are politicians are in the pockets of big pharma, and refuse to let us negotiate drug prices like they do in the rest of the industrialized world...
Did you even read the link? It explains what tool those other countries use when they "negotiate". It’s a tool that "big pharma" wouldn’t endorse.
Of course if voluntary health insurance is your thing, and you don’t mind subsidizing the health care of those who refuse to pay for it, than you shouldn’t be objecting to the US subsidizing drugs to the rest of the world.
Doesn’t apply.
likwidshoe - 05:02am on 02/17/2006
If you guys sit down and read through the other types of government programs out there, you’ll find that Marc is right---many of these programs do not qualify as "socialized medicine". For example, the Swiss system (one of the most successful) is a "consumer-driven" health care system, in other words, generally more free-market than our own system. It’s also no surprise that the purest socialized medicine systems work the poorest, and more free-market-like systems, like the Swiss system, work better.
If people keep themselves less healthy (as a group), it affects us as individuals, because of the lost productivity. Thus, we do have a vested interest in encouraging a healthy workforce. See my comments about the effectiveness of "investing" in preventative health care, as an example of the sort of reasoning I think should be applied.
I know that Robert108 and I probably disagree on this point, but I think because of the nearly monopolistic nature of the heatlh-care system, government oversight is needed. A model along the lines of local oversight of utility companies, where hospital and doctor’s rates were reviewed on a semi-anual level, taking into consideration local market conditions, would be the best approach, rather than a centralized FEMA link bureaucracy.
Marc, thank you for your input. I think we all appreciate them. Conservatives are a very skeptical bunch of folks for the most part. Generally this is a Good Thing.
Carrick - 05:02am on 02/17/2006
Carrick, you make good points as always.
I agree that government oversight is needed, but I think you and I disagree as to the extent of that oversight. I believe that doctors (nurses, pharmacists, etc.) should have to pass certain agreed-upon standards in order to practice their profession. Above and beyond that, I don’t see much of a need for government involvement. I know I’m being sort of general here, but my point is that we can agree on a certain amount of regulation. Where I draw the line is government paying for health care.
Carlin’s point about HSA’s kind of got overlooked, but I think he’s right in that they work. I also think they’re the way out of our current predicament.
HSA’s put the citizen in charge of making day-to-day medical decisions. They can choose which doctor they see and which treatmetns they pursue. And they can ask all those important questions, as you pointed out, like "Why did you just charge me $75 for the use of a pair of scissors?"
But HSA’s also require catastrophic coverage. If you get really sick, you’re covered. Cancer. Broken legs. Stuff like that.
It is the best of both worlds, as far as I’m concerned. And HSA’s can even be set up so that employers can contribute to them just as employers now contribute to insurance plans. The only difference is that the citizen, not some insurance company, gets to keep the money if it doesn’t need to be used for care.
Talk about a great incentive for preventitive health care. You can bet many Americans are going to be taking their health more seriously if they know that they’ll get to keep the money in their HSA at some point if they don’t use it. Or pass it on to their survivors.
Rob - 06:02am on 02/17/2006
Folks it’s all about personal responsibility. Driving a car brings with it a certain amount of responsibility. Maintaining fiscal responsibility is part of being a grown up. If you are going to drive a car with the potential to kill my family in an accident, by gawd you should be required to have proof of fiscal responsibility. In healthcare, if you are indigent, the gubmint will take care of you. In most states, if you are near the poverty level, you will have subsidizes medical care, it may not be as good as what you can go out and buy, but it is medical care, and it’s gonna cover miscellaneous up to catastrophic. If you cannot qualify for employer sponsored group coverage or individually underwritten health insurance, you can qualify for state subsidized (in addition to it being insurance carrier subsidized) health insurance, guarantee issue.
Carlin - 07:02am on 02/17/2006
Yes likwid, I have read that link in the past, but have been unable to find a reference to that condition anywhere else. I also find it hard to believe that countries like Germany, France, Canada, the UK etc could get away with violating patent laws, but if you can find corroborating evidence let me know. I’ve been proven wrong many times.
Marc - 07:02am on 02/17/2006
CV Rick: I used the Soviet Union(hardly a bastion of freedom or quality of life for its citizens), because it was the longest-lasting socialist experiment. Why else? They had seventy years to get it right, starting just like Karl predicted, with a violent revolution(against an agrarian monarchy, not an industrialized capatalist system), and failed miserably, for entirely predictable reasons, if you know econ 101. While it is technically true that economic systems and political systems are separate, in practice, a political system which involves personal freedom is necessary to maximize the performance of a free enterprise economic system. That is just the way it works. Russia today is having a problem with "capitalism" because they have no cultural background of individual independence.
Marc: I don’t support compulsory anything. I believe I described the result in CA of effective enforcement of its compulsory auto insurance on the auto body repair industry, and ultimately, the consumer. Prices of such repairs have gone through the roof, which is entirely predictable, as is the skyrocketing cost of health care with the present semi-socialized system. The farther you get from the free enterprise system, the more problems you have. The law of supply and demand is a cosmic one, and cannot be repealed. The problem with socialism in general is the need for equality of outcome, which is not the human condition. We get differential outcomes for many reasons, and that cannot be changed by a political or an economic system.
robert108 - 09:02am on 02/17/2006
Rob wrote:
"Look at Canada’s system. All inefficient, bureaucratic boondoggles."
Canadians live significantly longer than Americans, have lower infant and child mortality, and do all this despite spending roughly one-half of what Americans spend.
CV Rick wrote, It seems that this isn’t true. There are a lot of nations with socialized medicine ahead of the U.S....
Then why does the U.S. effectively subsidize their drugs?
...in the CIA factbook rankings for Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy.
The percentage difference is around .002%! Sometimes it is .003%! In other words: statistally irrelevant. And guess where the biggest differences abound? In the Democrat controlled inner cities where infant mortality is higher (because our "Great Society" programs pay welfare crack mothers to have babies and where life expectancy is lower.)
So how, again, are socialized health countries "ahead of the U.S."?
Maybe power should be measured in freedoms and in the standard of living.
Maybe it shouldn’t. Why would "freedoms" have such requirements as, "equitable wealth distribution"? You’re bringing your socialist requirements as an argument.
Marc said, The biggest problem is it is still a voluntary program
This is the typical liberal refrain. The problem is not that your ideas don’t work, it’s that we haven’t done enough of it yet. It’s why we hear cries of "more money!" everytime it is shown that government doesn’t work.
Why is it the compulsory health insurance is considered coersion by the government, while compulsory auto insurance isn’t?
If you don’t have car insurance and hurt somebody in an accident they’re taking something away from the party they hurt.
on the other hand not having health insurance should be a personal thing. If you decided not to have insurance and ultimately didn’t get medical treatment because of that you only have yourself to blame.
On the other hand that whole point breaks down when when the uninsured (but happy) person get’s sick and has the work done anyway. They either stick the hospital with the bill or the taxpayer gets hosed.
Ok, one last try, and I’ll shut up forever. Maybe![]()
First off, in this country, you don’t need insurance to get treatment. Just go to an emergency room. You are required by law to be treated.
But, to use your example, what happens if you contract a contagious disease, don’t get treatment because of a lack of health insurance, and spread that disease, knowingly or unknowingly, throughout society? Are you still the only one who gets hurt?
And likwidshoe, who’s crying for more money? I’m not! There is plenty of money available now, the bills do get paid I just want those who don’t pay for their health care to pay for it. Why are you against that?
Why should I have to pay for someone else’s health care? Why should I have to be employed to have the opportunity to purchase affordable health insurance? Why can’t I just buy the same insurance as government employees at the same price they pay? And why do I have to be healthy to purchase that insurance, or be required to pay 170% of the rate of everyone else, should I get sick?
I’m not talking about socialized medicine. And while I do believe a single payer system, structured much like medicare, will produce better results, I would have no objection to the current system as it stands provided it were made compulsory, and everyone was allowed to purchase insurance at the same cost, or at a graduated scale based on age, with no exclusions due to pre existing conditions.
And you also ask,
That’s an excellent question. We do that because are politicians are in the pockets of big pharma, and refuse to let us negotiate drug prices like they do in the rest of the industrialized world,
Of course if voluntary health insurance is your thing, and you don’t mind subsidizing the health care of those who refuse to pay for it, than you shouldn’t be objecting to the US subsidizing drugs to the rest of the world.
I do, but I guess that is the definition of a socialism, so my ideas aren’t worth much.
BTW Rob, I hate not being able to preview my messages before posting.
And likwidshoe, who’s crying for more money? I’m not!
I didn’t say that you were.
I just want those who don’t pay for their health care to pay for it. Why are you against that?
I’m not against that. Don’t put words into my mouth.
We do that because are politicians are in the pockets of big pharma, and refuse to let us negotiate drug prices like they do in the rest of the industrialized world...
Did you even read the link? It explains what tool those other countries use when they "negotiate". It’s a tool that "big pharma" wouldn’t endorse.
Of course if voluntary health insurance is your thing, and you don’t mind subsidizing the health care of those who refuse to pay for it, than you shouldn’t be objecting to the US subsidizing drugs to the rest of the world.
Doesn’t apply.
If you guys sit down and read through the other types of government programs out there, you’ll find that Marc is right---many of these programs do not qualify as "socialized medicine". For example, the Swiss system (one of the most successful) is a "consumer-driven" health care system, in other words, generally more free-market than our own system. It’s also no surprise that the purest socialized medicine systems work the poorest, and more free-market-like systems, like the Swiss system, work better.
If people keep themselves less healthy (as a group), it affects us as individuals, because of the lost productivity. Thus, we do have a vested interest in encouraging a healthy workforce. See my comments about the effectiveness of "investing" in preventative health care, as an example of the sort of reasoning I think should be applied.
I know that Robert108 and I probably disagree on this point, but I think because of the nearly monopolistic nature of the heatlh-care system, government oversight is needed. A model along the lines of local oversight of utility companies, where hospital and doctor’s rates were reviewed on a semi-anual level, taking into consideration local market conditions, would be the best approach, rather than a centralized FEMA link bureaucracy.
Marc, thank you for your input. I think we all appreciate them. Conservatives are a very skeptical bunch of folks for the most part. Generally this is a Good Thing.
Carrick, you make good points as always.
I agree that government oversight is needed, but I think you and I disagree as to the extent of that oversight. I believe that doctors (nurses, pharmacists, etc.) should have to pass certain agreed-upon standards in order to practice their profession. Above and beyond that, I don’t see much of a need for government involvement. I know I’m being sort of general here, but my point is that we can agree on a certain amount of regulation. Where I draw the line is government paying for health care.
Carlin’s point about HSA’s kind of got overlooked, but I think he’s right in that they work. I also think they’re the way out of our current predicament.
HSA’s put the citizen in charge of making day-to-day medical decisions. They can choose which doctor they see and which treatmetns they pursue. And they can ask all those important questions, as you pointed out, like "Why did you just charge me $75 for the use of a pair of scissors?"
But HSA’s also require catastrophic coverage. If you get really sick, you’re covered. Cancer. Broken legs. Stuff like that.
It is the best of both worlds, as far as I’m concerned. And HSA’s can even be set up so that employers can contribute to them just as employers now contribute to insurance plans. The only difference is that the citizen, not some insurance company, gets to keep the money if it doesn’t need to be used for care.
Talk about a great incentive for preventitive health care. You can bet many Americans are going to be taking their health more seriously if they know that they’ll get to keep the money in their HSA at some point if they don’t use it. Or pass it on to their survivors.
Folks it’s all about personal responsibility. Driving a car brings with it a certain amount of responsibility. Maintaining fiscal responsibility is part of being a grown up. If you are going to drive a car with the potential to kill my family in an accident, by gawd you should be required to have proof of fiscal responsibility. In healthcare, if you are indigent, the gubmint will take care of you. In most states, if you are near the poverty level, you will have subsidizes medical care, it may not be as good as what you can go out and buy, but it is medical care, and it’s gonna cover miscellaneous up to catastrophic. If you cannot qualify for employer sponsored group coverage or individually underwritten health insurance, you can qualify for state subsidized (in addition to it being insurance carrier subsidized) health insurance, guarantee issue.
Yes likwid, I have read that link in the past, but have been unable to find a reference to that condition anywhere else. I also find it hard to believe that countries like Germany, France, Canada, the UK etc could get away with violating patent laws, but if you can find corroborating evidence let me know. I’ve been proven wrong many times.
CV Rick: I used the Soviet Union(hardly a bastion of freedom or quality of life for its citizens), because it was the longest-lasting socialist experiment. Why else? They had seventy years to get it right, starting just like Karl predicted, with a violent revolution(against an agrarian monarchy, not an industrialized capatalist system), and failed miserably, for entirely predictable reasons, if you know econ 101. While it is technically true that economic systems and political systems are separate, in practice, a political system which involves personal freedom is necessary to maximize the performance of a free enterprise economic system. That is just the way it works. Russia today is having a problem with "capitalism" because they have no cultural background of individual independence.
Marc: I don’t support compulsory anything. I believe I described the result in CA of effective enforcement of its compulsory auto insurance on the auto body repair industry, and ultimately, the consumer. Prices of such repairs have gone through the roof, which is entirely predictable, as is the skyrocketing cost of health care with the present semi-socialized system. The farther you get from the free enterprise system, the more problems you have. The law of supply and demand is a cosmic one, and cannot be repealed. The problem with socialism in general is the need for equality of outcome, which is not the human condition. We get differential outcomes for many reasons, and that cannot be changed by a political or an economic system.
Rob wrote:
"Look at Canada’s system. All inefficient, bureaucratic boondoggles."
Canadians live significantly longer than Americans, have lower infant and child mortality, and do all this despite spending roughly one-half of what Americans spend.