debate on universal access to health care

If the government is efficiently providing half of the healthcare already, that leaves private healthcare costing 4X as much as it "should"? I think government rules and regulations might have something to do with the inefficiency of our "private" market.

Lets debug the code before we go about piling on more inefficiency to fix what's broken.
 
gogo said:
If the government is efficiently providing half of the healthcare already, that leaves private healthcare costing 4X as much as it "should"? I think government rules and regulations might have something to do with the inefficiency of our "private" market.
Click to expand...

No, you're assuming there's a clean separation between public US health care and private US health care. There isn't. Some of the problems that are making private health care expensive are also making public health care expensive.

gogo said:
Lets debug the code before we go about piling on more inefficiency to fix what's broken.
Click to expand...

Are you just assuming the authors of the proposed reforms haven't tried to figure out what's broken? Or do you have some information you're not sharing that makes you think so?
 
julesa said:
Are you just assuming the authors of the proposed reforms haven't tried to figure out what's broken?
Click to expand...

Yes, its been my observation that once laws are enacted, they are nearly impossible to remove. What you can count on is that politicians will take the route of least resistance, which is new legislation piled on top of old. And don't forget that the main aim of politicians, if left unchecked, is to seize power which they will dispense as favor in return for votes.

They would be puttting themselves out of business by conceding that there are tons of unnecessary and counter-productive laws gumming up the works.

We have found the enemy, and he is us. We are failing to excercise eternal vigilance over our government.
 
gogo said:
julesa said:
Are you just assuming the authors of the proposed reforms haven't tried to figure out what's broken?
Click to expand...

Yes
Click to expand...

When asserting vigilance over government, one important prerequisite is to base your opinions on facts rather than assumptions.
 
do americans spend more on JUST health care?
or are there many things we splurge on?
take cars: Do we spend more on cars? Jeans? Food? Booze? HDTV? PC's?
What if the big spending is our culture?
 
julesa said:
gogo said:
julesa said:
Are you just assuming the authors of the proposed reforms haven't tried to figure out what's broken?
Click to expand...

Yes
Click to expand...

When asserting vigilance over government, one important prerequisite is to base your opinions on facts rather than assumptions.
Click to expand...
I've sorted through enough muck caused by government largess to be confident in my assumption, thank you.

[EDIT] Matt Gruber's point is valid. Some of our spending can be attributed to the fact that we can spend more.
 
julesa said:
You didn't respond to my earlier posts. What do you think about the fact that we're spending twice what most other western nations are spending, even though most of those nations have universal coverage?
Click to expand...

Is it possible/probable those nations have universal coverage thru price controls and/or rationed health care coverage?

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1201
 
Gogo: I've sorted through enough muck caused by government largess to be confident in my assumption, thank you.
Click to expand...

You can't fault the man for honesty. That said, can you reconcile the above with:

Gogo: We are failing to excercise eternal vigilance over our government.
Click to expand...

If you have 2 minutes, please feel free to inform your assumptions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778_pf.html

This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance; we've blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess.

Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.
Click to expand...
 
Cackalacka said:
This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance; we've blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess.
Click to expand...

I agree, a simple easy to operate bureaucratic mess is not a good alternative, however. Government bureaucracy is worth avoiding.

At the time the USA was founded all the other Western powers had governments that "worked". That wasn't a good arguement to adopt their model of government and that they have a health care system that hasn't collapsed yet isn't sufficient either.

We are sliding backwards towards the crappy types of goverment they have. Take a lesson from history and please see what it is that has made the USA better. Here's a clue: its the opposite of collectivism.
 
Cackalacka said:
In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.
Click to expand...
The cost of what would be bankruptcy has been socialized. It doesn't mean their society hasn't suffered as a result.

Socialism has a cost:

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita 2008
17) United States___ 47,103
24) European Union 38,390

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita 2008
08) United States___ 47,000
27) European Union 33,400

Now, if we could rid ourselves of the encroaching disease of socialism instead of embracing it, we'd increase the margin further while simultaneously gaining real (not mixed economy) capitalism to address our healthcare needs. No amount of government coercion can do things better than real (not mixed economy) capitalism.
 
We are sliding backwards towards the crappy types of goverment they have. Take a lesson from history and please see what it is that has made the USA better. Here's a clue: its the opposite of collectivism.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of the principles and lessons of the founders. I love this country, and am well aware of where I come from.

I could try to attempt to pursuade you with the facts, but alas, it appears that the die is cast for some.

Please feel free to reconcile this quote with your advice to me, or not:

A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
Click to expand...
 
List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita 2008
17) United States___ 47,103
24) European Union 38,390

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita 2008
08) United States___ 47,000
27) European Union 33,400
Click to expand...

So... how many eastern block countries have we absorbed into the union in the past 5 years?
 
Incidentally, Gogo, in your summary, would you like to tell the folks which continent 13 out of the 16 countries listed ahead of the U.S.?

Even factoring this in, the analogy isn't even apples and oranges, not even close.
 
gogo said:
Cackalacka said:
In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.
Click to expand...
The cost of what would be bankruptcy has been socialized. It doesn't mean their society hasn't suffered as a result.

Socialism has a cost:

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita 2008
17) United States___ 47,103
24) European Union 38,390

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita 2008
08) United States___ 47,000
27) European Union 33,400

Now, if we could rid ourselves of the encroaching disease of socialism instead of embracing it, we'd increase the margin further while simultaneously gaining real (not mixed economy) capitalism to address our healthcare needs. No amount of government coercion can do things better than real (not mixed economy) capitalism.
Click to expand...

Correlation is not causation. There is no evidence socialism causes lower GDP per capita. Norway, for example, has universal health care, subsidized higher education, and comprehensive social security, and their GDP per capita was something like $58,000.

Anyway. So what's your practical, specific solution for the average American? All we've heard is a lot of criticism of the proposed plans, scaremongering about socialism, and other nonsense. You can't deny there's a problem. Do you have any suggestions for fixing it that are actually useful and/or insightful? Otherwise:

wharrgarbl5xsh0.jpg
 
julesa said:
Correlation is not causation.
Click to expand...
Oh, so all those statistics like the infant mortality rate comparisons you made are not valid?

Well then, that leaves us with the principles that our laws are derived from. The principle I chose is individual rights, which precludes forcing me to pay for anything other than the enforcement of our individual rights. The rest should be voluntarily negotiated between individuals.

julesa said:
You can't deny there's a problem. Do you have any suggestions for fixing it that are actually useful and/or insightful?
Click to expand...

The problem is government distortion of the healthcare industry. The solution is to remove all the laws and regulations that are screwing things up.
 
gogo said:
julesa said:
Correlation is not causation.
Click to expand...
Oh, so all those statistics like the infant mortality rate comparisons you made are not valid?
Click to expand...
Huh? I wasn't implying any causation when I linked to infant mortality rates. You aren't making sense.

Well then, that leaves us with the principles that our laws are derived from. The principle I chose is individual rights, which precludes forcing me to pay for anything other than the enforcement of our individual rights. The rest should be voluntarily negotiated between individuals.
Click to expand...

You are seriously over the edge here. Are you one of those people who thinks you don't have to pay taxes? Do you think we'd be better off without public education, roads, etc?

Just get rid of all regulations, huh? Sure. Thanks for contributing your highly practical solution. Obviously you gave it a lot of thought. I'm sure unregulated insurance companies would never take advantage of individuals or charge disproportionately high premiums to get rid of unwanted customers.
 
julesa said:
You are seriously over the edge here.
Click to expand...

Ya, insisting on identifying principles is irrational and over the edge. OK
 
i'd say both sides are in a hopeless quagmire.
 
Depends what you mean by quagmire. If most people saw a discussion between flat-earthers and spherical-earthers, they wouldn't say both sides are in a "hopeless quagmire." One group's opinion is based on real world data, which means they are not 'stuck.' Their position may not change, but that's because the data isn't changing. If new convincing data came around that said the earth was slightly egg-shaped, for example, it might convince a lot of them to reconsider their opinions.

I'm not saying the health care debate is equivalent to flat-earthers vs. spherical-earthers, because there are a lot of people in the world today who disagree with my position on health care, and also base their opinion on real world data. But as far as I can tell, none of them have been posting in this thread.

I'm willing to consider any viewpoints that are supported by real world data. My opinion was formed by reviewing the available real world data. I haven't seen any convincing real world data that contradicts the conclusion I came to, so I admit it's entrenched a bit. But I am open to considering any relevant facts, not unsupported opinions, that anyone would care to share, provided you also share a link to the source of that real world data. Basing your opinion on real world data means being able to admit you're wrong when you find new data that contradicts your old opinions, so I don't think that matches up well with the word quagmire, which implies being stuck in one position.

FYI - rushlimbaugh.com, keitholbermann.org, and foxnews.com are not reliable sources of real world data.
 
julesa said:
I'm willing to consider any viewpoints that are supported by real world data. My opinion was formed by reviewing the available real world data. I haven't seen any convincing real world data that contradicts the conclusion I came to, so I admit it's entrenched a bit.
Click to expand...


I haven't read every post in this thread, nor will I, so I'm not sure what "real world data" your referring too.

Are you referring to your post about the US spending twice what any other country currently spends?

I have seen that the budget deficit projection is 9 trillion which does not include health care estimated to cost 1 trillion.

Do you consider that real world data? If so, at what point does the economy implode? At what point is nothing left?
 
In 1992, they projected the 2000 budget deficit would be disastrously unsupportable. Turned out the Clinton administration was the only one in the past several decades to actually end up with a budget surplus.

Around 2000, the 2010 budget was projected to be in a surplus. Didn't exactly turn out that way, did it?

Budget projections are just projections.

The above statements are based on my memory. I'll add links if I can find them without too much trouble...
I think it would be interesting to compare the government debt load vs. GDP in the early fifties with what we have today.
 
Looks like we've survived much worse. If Obama isn't careful, our public debt as a fraction of GDP might even get as high as it was in the Bush, Sr. years. But I don't see any reason to panic yet.

Edited to add: the top image is the number that Some People are using to try to scare everyone. But the bottom image is the one that matters -- how much are we making vs. how much we owe.
514px-USDebt.png
 
I get it say no more
julesa said:
Some things work better under a capitalist structure, and other things work better under a collective structure. It's not technically socialism, because the government doesn't own the means of production, they essentially would just own a large insurance organization that pays many of the healthcare providers. Like a nonprofit health insurance company.

If you're against universal healthcare because you think it's socialism, how do you feel about:
Free K-12 education?
Social security?
Food stamps?
Medicare?
Public roads?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top