Say Anything Blog

Nobody is saying that America’s health care system is perfect.  Just better than Canada’s.  Even your article indicates that, Mike.  Read it again more closely.

If someone just said “America’s health care system needs to be fixed” I’d agree.  Where it goes off the rails for me is when people start saying “Let’s do what Canada’s doing!” Or, um...Cuba.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Thanks for the article, Mike.

Seems to me the problem in the US isn’t that it’s a free enterprise system, because its not.  The real problem is that over 1/2 of health care dollars go through the US government.  It is the removal of the consumer from the equation that created the current mess in this country.

Ironically, it is the loss of health insurance that is driving new low-cost treatment.  I don’t even go to a general practitioner these days.  I go to a first-come first-serve clinic, with typically less than a one hour wait… It’s about 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a regular doctors visit, and frankly the quality of care is every bit as good…

... I should mention that I have quality health care insurance BTW.  It isn’t so much the for the cost but the convenience that I go to the clinic.  The article is spot on that US general practitioners are in short supply.  Part of this is because the supply is tightly controlled by the AMA… makes one ponder the legality of this variation on “price fixing"…

Mike, all of our usual kibitzing aside, I have 2 permanent, ongoing medical conditions and no insurance. We pay for what we get. 5 years ago I nearly died from one of them. Had I been in Canada, or Cuba, I would be dead. Fact is, in America, anyone, no matter there insurance or lack thereof, can walk into any doctor’s office or hospital and be treated. That is the law. And treated to the best and highest medical standard in the world.

And to set the government provided healthcare meme in its grave, I had been misdiagnosed for 8 years by Veterans Admin doctors. Walking into a rural medical center and seeing a general practitioner placed me into a specialists office within 19 hours. He correctly diagnosed my ailment and within a week, 5 days, had me into a treatment regimen and clearly understanding what was wrong with me and how to handle it. Government doctors? Didn’t really care, just threw various pharmaceuticals at me and shoved me out the door.

Is that really the healthcare people need?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Nothing like practical experience to refute socialism.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Had I been in Canada, or Cuba, I would be dead.—2Hotel9

What makes you so sure? Where is your evidence?

All emergency surgery takes priority under nationalised healthcare systems (that I know of). If you needed immediate surgery, you would have received it (with the exception that donor organs are in tight supply in every country).

Also, for a given amount of expenditure, nationalised healthcare systems are far more efficient. Britain only spends 1.7% of its healthcare budget on administration costs, the rest is for fixing people.

People fixed per dollar in the USA is the lowest in the first world. Advocates of the current model are either ignorant, mentally deficient, or sadistic profiteers.

Carrick: You state that the system would be better if 50% of the money didn’t pass through the government, but evidence from overseas indicates the opposite. Do you have figures to back up your controversial claim?

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Britain only spends 1.7% of its healthcare budget on administration costs…

Creative accounting(lying) in a command economic system.  The Russian communists claimed that they weren’t affected by the Great Depression, but they were lying too.
It’s not “controversial” to state the fact that a system based on profit is more efficient than one in which taxpayer money can be confiscated readily, with no incentive to be efficient.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Did you see the word surgery in anything I posted AV;TFR?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

AV:

Carrick: You state that the system would be better if 50% of the moneydidn’t pass through the government, but evidence from overseas indicates the opposite. Do you have figures to back up your controversial claim?

Actually, AV, I actually didn’t say that the money passed directly through the government.  What I was in fact referring to with the “consumer” comments was that a fair percentage of US government support is through tax credits, which the government doesn’t touch of course.  These tax credits act to distort the market because they remove the consumer from the equation.  There is nothing at all controversial about that.

I would argue, by the way, that the US health care system is much better than some studies have suggested.  The WHO study in particular accounts 25% of the total points based on how socialized the system is ("where the money comes from").  To use this to argue that socialized systems are better is of course entirely circular logic.

Comparing average life spans is an other overused metric, since the raw number doesn’t correct for demographic effects.  At the least, one needs to remove non-medically related deaths from the total before doing the computation. In practice, the relatively low US mortality rate is due to a higher number of accidental deaths at a younger age.  A better metric would be median life expectancy, not average (medians are less sensitive to outliers of course), but that’s rarely done.

Probably the best way to rank health systems is simply by customer satisfaction—ultimately the consumer is the best judge of whether he or she and his/her family are getting adequate health care.  As I mentioned above, I have no complaints about the response time or the quality of care.  Studies that show otherwise are just using out-moded statistic measures, like general practitioner nonsense.

Robert108: What are you on about? First, any corporation on the planet is a command economic system (where do the orders come from?), so thank you for stating that this is inefficient. I already know this though.

Second, one of the major US medical insurance companies is a non-profit corporation. How can it then compete with for-profit corporations if profit is a driving factor for efficiency?

Thirdly, how have you deduced that a heavily audited, publicly funded institution, like the NHS, is lying about their administration costs? This information you have may be interesting to the opposition party (the Conservative Party?) in England, maybe they will pay you for it, and they’ll use it to cause a public outcry.

Or more likely, your opinions are a result of ill-informed self-indoctrination perhaps?

For people to produce an efficient system, it simply requires incentive. If profit is used as the incentive, it’ll tend to produce a system, over time, that maximises profit. To try to extrapolate this to the goal of superior healthcare would be foolish indeed.

2Hotel9: What are you rambling about hippy? Surgery (and consultation beforehand) is typically the healthcare service with the greatest waiting lists. If you are not talking about a waiting list issue what is your point? What about the US system saved your life, and have caused you to die under a more efficient system?

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

First, any corporation on the planet is a command economic system (where do the orders come from?

Real stupid AV.  Having competition for the consumers dollar between corporations is what makes the system work.

At that point the consumers decide.  The corporations operate to satisfy the consumers’ demand.  DUH!

In a command economy the government decrees that every entity do it their way.  The consumers are left to take what the government commands.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Carrick: Nationalised healthcare systems have fixed budgets (at any given time), and have to maximise people helped vs. money spent. With this being the policy selection criteria, this is why they do better at this task.

With a profit-based system, the policy selection criteria is whatever maximises profit. Helping the largest number of people may not be the most profitable model since not everyone has a lot of money.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Real stupid AV.  Having competition for the consumers dollar between corporations is what makes the system work.—The Whistler

Doesn’t negate my point. Where do the orders come from, the top of course. Consumer/public feedback affects policy, but the orders still come from top (just like the U.S.S.R.).

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

AV:

Nationalised healthcare systems have fixed budgets (at any given time), and have to maximise people helped vs. money spent. With this being the policy selection criteria, this is why they do better at this task.

As I mentioned, based on flawed metrics, such as ones that rate you higher if you are socialized.  More circular reasoning.  The best objective measure is the consumers themselves.  These rank the US highest in the world…

Helping the largest number of people may not be the most profitable model since not everyone has a lot of money.

In the free enterprise system, supply rises to meet the demand, and profit is maximized by selling the maximum amount of product.  That is why socialism can never supply the demand, because it is not demand-driven.  Supply is allocated by bureaucrats with no incentive to produce the best product at the best price, so there are always shortages under socialism.  Like most Marxists, you have no real understanding of real economics.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

First, any corporation on the planet is a command economic system (where do the orders come from?

They come from the consumers, who vote with their dollars for the products they want.  You are wrong again.  Unlike govt, companies must produce something we want, in order to get our money.  Govt, on the other hand, just reaches into your pocket and takes your money.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Second, one of the major US medical insurance companies is a non-profit corporation.

Another error on your part.  Non-profit corps do make operating profit(else they would go out of business); they just can’t distribute that profit to any of the shareholders.  They can pay their employees quite handsomely, though, and are also able to invest their profits to their advantage.  It is only necessary that they reinvest those profits in the purpose of the business.  That is why they tend to grow(evidence of profits).

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Doesn’t negate my point. Where do the orders come from, the top of course. Consumer/public feedback affects policy, but the orders still come from top

Absolutely wrong, the consumer decides where to spend their money.  The corporations have to listen to what the consumers say and provide it most efficiently.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Non-profit corps do make operating profit(else they would go out of business); they just can’t distribute that profit to any of the shareholders.  They can pay their employees quite handsomely

In fact you often see non-profits (government included) being more concerned with the employees than with the consumers.  Since they don’t have owners there to guide the balance between the consumer, the employees and the owners they often aren’t as efficient as for profit companies.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

...profit is maximized by selling the maximum amount of product.—Robert108

Completely incorrect. If you don’t understand markets I’ll explain. Profit is maximised by selling somewhere between the maximum and the minimum quantity of `product’. That is what supply-demand curves illustrate. The crossover point is at neither the maximum nor minimum quantity of goods and services sold.

With this in mind, it is obvious why a profit-based system won’t supply the maximum healthcare, only the most profitable amount of healthcare. Imagine a scenario where 15% of Americans have very little money for healthcare. How is it profitable to help them? If you can afford to help them, then the other 85% will only want to pay the same small amount that this 15% can afford to pay.

Understanding supply and demand will help you understand the problems with the current model Robert108.

Carrick: With a nationalised healthcare system, it is up to some bureaucrat(s) to decide which health measures to aim at. Fuzzy measures like `consumer satisfaction’ may not be as important (as they are free to go to private clinics if they wish).

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Absolutely wrong, the consumer decides where to spend their money.  The corporations have to listen to what the consumers say and provide it most efficiently.—The Whistler

Again you have missed the point. A corporation is a command economic system simply because the commands come from the top (and a corporation is an economic system). I would be interested if you could disprove this, but rambling about consumer dollars doesn’t change that orders come from the top. Even the U.S.S.R. listened to the public to some extent, or else the Communist Party would still be in control.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

AV: Profit is expressed as a percentage, called “the profit margin”.  You are confused by your ignorance of real economics.  At any given profit margin, the amount of profit is maximized by selling the maximum amount of product at that margin.  It’s simple arithmetic.  Your confusion comes from a misunderstanding of the profit available at a given size of a business.  However, when the business can only produce so much product at the desired margin, more capital is applied, the capacity of the business is increased, and more product can be sold at the profit margin.  Of course, with a free market(freedom of entry and exit), the inefficient producers fail and the efficient ones succeed and grow, supplying more and more of the demand.  It’s not dependent on the efficiency of any single business.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

AV: To repeat, the “orders” come from the consumers, in that if they don’t vote with their dollars for the products the corp sells, they go out of business.  Duh.
You are confusing administration with economics, which is typical for a Marxist.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Businesses supply value to the consumers.  Now if someone doesn’t value healthcare but does value cocaine, or a new car, or a vacation that health care cannot be very valuable.

There is a consensus to help those who are unable to help themselves.  There is not a consensus to help those unwilling to help themselves.

And really if someone cares so little for their health that they are unwilling to pay for it themselves why should I be forced to?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

AV a command system is where the government commands the economy.

A demand system (free enterprise) is where the market competes to provide the best service to the consumer.

You know, maybe you are really that dense.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

AV;The Fucking Retard, you can screech and wail all you wish, no country on the face of this planet provides the same quality of healthcare to as many people as the US. Period. You can quote all the surveys and polls you want. No body. Period.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

AV:

A corporation is a command economic system simply because the commands come from the top (and a corporation is an economic system).

You really need to educate yourself before you repeat nonsense like this.  From Wiki:

economy: A system of human activities related to the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services.

Companies by definition aren’t consumers, they’re producers. That means, by themselves, they are not an economy.

command economy (aka “planned” economy): An economic system in which the state or government controls the factors of production and makes all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income.

Quite obviously, you are completely ignorant of the issues you are trying to argue about.

AV:

Carrick: With a nationalised healthcare system, it is up to some bureaucrat(s) to decide which health measures to aim at. Fuzzy measures like `consumer satisfaction’ may not be as important (as they are free to go to private clinics if they wish).

There’s nothing fuzzy about “consumer satisfaction”. It is after all the basis of all modern democracies!

Once again you demonstrate a remarkable lack of grasp of the issues that you attempt to argue about.

Carrick, thus its usename, AV; The Fucking Retard.

‘Nuff said.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Carrick: Britain seems to treat healthcare as a right to which all citizens are entitled, and sets its policy accordingly. So polling `consumer satisfaction’ may be less important to them than other efficiency metrics. (And who is foolish enough to claim that Britain is a democracy? Most British didn’t want the war in Iraq for example. Democracy my ass.)

By describing a corporation as an economic system, I meant system in an entity sort of way, much like a solar system is an entity, not an ideology. And I never claimed that a corporation was an entire economy, simply an element of, so your wiki obtained definition of `command economy’ is pointless.

AV: To repeat, the “orders” come from the consumers, in that if they don’t vote with their dollars for the products the corp sells, they go out of business.  Duh. —Robert108

Since I cannot tell if you are being dishonest, or simply foolish, I’ll give you an example. About two years ago, Sony included `rootkits’ on audio CDs they were selling. These rootkits are basically trojans (what the technologically illiterate often call computer viruses). When this happened, it wasn’t the Public that ordered this, it was some Sony executive. A simple example of a top-down decision.

Sure there was some public outrage over this, but even the U.S.S.R. and China (Tienanmen Square anyone?) have these. Yet no one would say the orders/decisions in these countries come from the public. Since I don’t think you are smart enough to successfully deceive anyone (as you don’t even understand markets), I guess your beliefs are a result of foolishness.

2Hotel9: You are entitled to your opinions about the quality of healthcare. Hopefully you are objective enough to realise that is all they are, simply opinions.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Since I don’t think you are smart enough to successfully deceive anyone (as you don’t even understand markets), I guess your beliefs are a result of foolishness.

Apparently you don’t understand the difference between a business protecting itself from the threat of piracy and a command economic system.  Too bad.  I believe that consumer demand has decreased since they started doing that, btw, but most of the record labels made what they considered a cost/benefit decision, in that the cost of the lost business was less than the cost of the piracy.  Whether or not that was a good business decision will be decided by market forces.  You just don’t get it, AV.  Your premises are socialist premises, so you are fundamentally unable to understand what a real market is, and how it functions.  You prove that with every comment you make on this thread.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

AV:

Britain seems to treat healthcare as a right to which all citizens are entitled, and sets its policy accordingly. So polling `consumer
satisfaction’ may be less important to them than other efficiency metrics.

That’s completely illogical.  If the best metric for the measure of the performance of a health care system were consumer satisfaction, and healthcare were a ``right’’ (or more properly an ``entitlement’’, then the best way to ensure that people were properly receiving their entitlement would be through consumer satisfaction.

Certainly the least meaningful measure would be a metric that counted 25% for the fact that the money comes through the government rather than through private hands…

As to the rest of your argument… simply because a particular system isn’t a full democracy doesn’t mean that a democratic measure such as public satisfaction isn’t the best way to measure it…

AV, you really need to hush on your theories of economics.  At least until you learn something about economics.

An organization may have top-down decision making, but even if it were 100% so, that still wouldn’t make it a planned economy.  Because there is a big difference between a producer and an economy.  Really, you are really showing an embarrassing lack of understanding here!

Carrick: Right on!  Only the govt can “command"(confiscate) our dollars.  Businesses have to give us something we want in return for our money.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Fact. Best healthcare on the planet. My opinion means naught. The facts speak for themselves.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

AV,

About two years ago, Sony included `rootkits’ on audio CDs they were selling. These rootkits are basically trojans (what the technologically illiterate often call computer viruses). When this happened, it wasn’t the Public that ordered this, it was some Sony executive. A simple example of a top-down decision.

The difference is that if Sony makes a decision to install a rootkit on my system with their music CD’s, I can make a decision not to buy Sony CD’s.

I can’t make that decision when the government decides that I should pay for everyone else’s health care.  Or if they decide that I should have to go to a government hospital instead of finding a private care giver.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I can’t make that decision when the government decides that I should pay for everyone else’s health care.  Or if they decide that I should have to go to a government hospital instead of finding a private care giver.

Good point, Rob, but too nuanced for some.  You actually state facts and use logic.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

On the other hand the outrage when Sony did it made them pull it immediately and it hurt their business.

If the government does something unpopular with a large minority of people they don’t care what that minority thinks.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

TW: Unbeknownst to some, bad business decisions are not the same as totalitarian govt control.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

The difference is that if Sony makes a decision to install a rootkit on my system with their music CD’s, I can make a decision not to buy Sony CD’s.—Rob

The problem was that consumers weren’t given the option since they weren’t given the information. It took months or work to find this rootkit (the primary goal of a rootkit is to conceal itself). Sony PR spinners lied about its existence for months after it had been discovered. The CDs weren’t labelled as posing a risk to the security and stability of computer systems that these disks were inserted into.

These actions are more akin to that of a totalitarian institution, not a consumer-centric organisation. (And these sorts of corporations rely upon government enforced regulations to provide them with a profitable business model, much like the healthcare corporations.)

If the government does something unpopular with a large minority of people they don’t care what that minority thinks.—The Whistler

You think I am pro-government? If not, why bother comparing one non-democratic organisation with another.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Sony PR spinners lied about its existence for months after it had been discovered. The CDs weren’t labelled as posing a risk to the security and stability of computer systems that these disks were inserted into.

And the people who revealed that they were there weren’t thrown into prison by Sony Government.

T

hese actions are more akin to that of a totalitarian institution, not a consumer-centric organisation.

No the consumer has a choice not to deal with them.

(

And these sorts of corporations rely upon government enforced regulations to provide them with a profitable business model,

I would agree that’s wrong because in that case that’s a government controlled section of the economy.  Nice to see that you’re aware of that going on.  But the blame goes to the government jerks that set it up, not the business that asked for it.  After all the government has the public trust.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

The Whistler, by not disclosing information an organisation is preventing people from making an informed decision. The people who reverse engineered the Sony rootkit could have been thrown in prison had they been US citizens (thanks to the DMCA).

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell