::hugs Gilly::
Yeah, what you said.
::hugs Gilly::
Yeah, what you said.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
One thing that I've noticed from a few years of reading these debates on-and-off is how many Americans frame health care as a business model right of the hop even before they start making their case. They are primarily concerned with efficiency and choice.
Effeciency is important, but efficiency is not the end goal where health care is concerned; at least that's how many people living with socialized medicine view it.
Choice is also a tricky subject. The idea that the greater the choice, the better the service or result is also an idea especially prevalent among Americans. But it's not always true - if you need to buy a car to drive to work, and the only dealer in town is Ferrari, sure, maybe you have a 'choice' between 10 great cars, but as you could never afford them, you are effectively stripped of choice. Seeing as how you only want to be able to get to work, for practical purposes, wouldn't you rather have a normal dealer that sells four-banger econoboxes at an affordable price?
The analogy isn't airtight, but the general gist is there. Choice and efficiency have their place, but in the context of healthcare where the commonwealth is concerned - the collective welfare of the nation - it's a limited paradigm, evidenced by the fact that few countries with socialized healthcare would ever abolish it outright (though Americans, having never tried it, feel safe with the status quo).
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
They are pretty brain washed by paid shills like this Stossel dude. Big Money owns the Mainstream Media in the US and actual debate or critical thinking is banished from the airwaves/pages of the MSM.
I've debated issues such as this before with Americans and the counterargument usually regresses to some kind of social darwinism. If somebody cannot pay for their healthcare/whatever it is because they have made the wrong choices in the past and it's their own fault they are not earning enough money/don't have the education/don't have a good enough job etc.
INFp
If your sea chart does not match reality, go with reality (Old mariner saying)
Okay then. If only some doctors are getting their pay evaluated by an inefficient bureaucracy, the effect on the system would be minimal, but that also means no nationwide social health care.Not if doctors were still paid well. Personally I don't think doctors should be paid for by the government except if it is proven that a person can't afford one for themselves; if you can afford a better doctor, good for you. If not, well, you should at least be helped in affording one.
Oh, you know you'd do it? Oh, all right then. I guess that means the tens of millions of people who wouldn't do it actually would do it.Hey, I know I'd do it, and I would make damn sure my loved ones did it, and I'm sure that you and Joy would do it...I don't think it's wishful thinking at all.
If you think people are actually going to go through all that trouble just because you would, you're being naive.
The consequences of full on socialized health care (which you admittedly seem to be against) fair outweigh any economic benefits.Besides, I'm sure someone could make money (private enterprise, anybody?) by offering services to help keep people informed. There's another opportunity for competition created by socialization; probably only one of numerous possibilities.
Besides, there are better, more practical ways of creating the same kinds of informational companies. Think of all the sites that list the cheapest air fares, or that compare premiums and benefits on car insurance. These sites have caused a dramatic increase in the quality and affordability of car insurance, because such disclosure has forced insurance companies to become price competitive.
Of course, that wouldn't work out entirely with health insurance, since current policies often include benefits for petty expenses, like checkups, whereas very few people purposely get into car accidents. Therefore, the risk is higher, and the costs more difficult to negotiate, when it comes to health insurance. The current system definitely needs to be reformed, but that doesn't mean making the situation worse with nationwide social medicine.
Because capitalism constantly penalizes inefficiency by putting it out of business, companies that compete are under constant pressure to offer the most they can afford of whatever is in demand. If it gets out that one company is making cut backs at the expense of the consumer, that company will lose business unless it quickly moves to solve the problem, and even then it's reputation may have been irreparably damaged. This means vastly improved reliability over what you'd ever be able to expect from a non-competing government program that is never in danger of going out of business.Again I guess this leaves more up to the consumer in terms of keeping themselves informed and acting in their own best interests. If you want capitalism to work, you have to assume that people are going to do this in the first place, so why should it be any different than?
You might say that politicians are the ones who would "go out of business" by not getting reelected, but the problem is that that still doesn't mean that the millions of government employees ever need to worry about losing their jobs, since they don't compete.
Another thing you might say is that some type of performance based evaluation system could be setup that would fire government employees for poor customer satisfaction, etc., but that would cause immediate, widespread public outcry and would quickly be overturned, as the main reason people work for the government is job security.
Those wonder pills are often very effective medicines that are only met with such skepticism because people put too much trust in the FDA. As to over-diagnosis of various mental conditions, you're right, that could theoretically help, but a better way to solve the problem would be to ban drug companies from paying doctors to promote their medicine.On the flip side, it might lead to a decrease in doctors dramatizing the possibility of severe conditions, as is seen today in psychiatry, in order to make their cut of whatever a pharm company might be paying them to promote a certain kind of medication. Ever notice those posters and signs you see up in a psychiatrist's office for this and that "wonder pill of tomorrow?"
Okay, but then you're not talking about socialized health care as it exists in any other country. What you're talking about is a socialized "emergency" care plan for people to pay for expensive, lifesaving treatment that they can't afford, or that their insurance policy won't pay for, but even that would cost too much unless we got rid of medicare, (meaning millions of poor people will need to pay for their medications somehow) because insurance companies would simply refuse to cover any such treatment, (and forcing them to would make the government program redundant, as well as make everyone's premiums prohibitively expensive) since the government would be footing the bill.Well, personally I don't think that they should pay for EVERYTHING; asking the government to pay for little Johnny's Ritalin because he has trouble concentrating is a bit of a stretch, IMO. However when it comes to things like heart transplants and treatment of potentially debilitating or life-or-death diseases/injuries, I personally think it's a sham to pretend that we, as a country, "can't afford" it.
Like I said, I don't believe in totally socialized healthcare; just "help" for people who can't afford grandma's heart transplant or little 6-year old Suzie's diabetes medication. Doctor's WOULD still have to worry about their job security if people continue using their services beyond the bare minimum need which, as I'm sure you'll agree, will continue to happen as it does now.
Again, as long as EVERYTHING isn't socialized, and drug companies still have to compete for the government's business (as well as that of people who want more than they need), I'm sure there will still be plenty of competition. There's a difference between government assisted health care and socializing all medically related industries.
It's not in the least bit rhetoric. Politicians know that people have short attention spans, so they make sure to take greatest care in the months before their 2-4 year election, and often compromise their positions in between these periods.This is pure rhetoric.
But even that is unimportant when you consider that most politicians are independently wealthy people who are spending other people's money in ways that often look good at the time to the uninformed voters, but also have negative longterm effects that go overlooked and misidentified when they finally begin to appear.
This is a really good example that I did not write (it's in my words, but only because I can't find on google):
Say a city's bus system is going to need repairs and expensive maintenance--not right now, but in the next few years--and the people in charge of the buses know that there won't be enough money to pay for the repairs at the current fare, so they raise it in anticipation of the future repair work. This is met by public outrage at the "unfairness" of having to pay more to ride the bus, so a opportunistic politician swoops in and promises to overturn the fare hike as long as he gets voted into office. He does, and lowers the fare.
Years later, the buses are in disrepair, and many of them are taken off the line, meaning less buses, and less buses on time, since existing buses must now take on bigger routes, and bigger routes mean less reliable service, since more things can delay the bus the longer the route is.
By now, no one remembers the price cap placed on the bus fare, and most people are blaming the decline in quality on the government for "not doing its job," even they only have themselves to blame for causing the problem by moronically voting to keep prices down out of an undeserved sense of entitlement.
In the meantime, the politician who placed the cap on the bus fare has moved on to a higher public office, and sees the situation in the city and says, "ROFL, when I was in charge, things were never this bad!" And he gets away with it, because things were only better when he was in charge because the problem he created didn't manifest until after he had moved on.
This happens all the time. Politicians, only having to worry about keeping their jobs every few years, rely on our collective ADD to make decisions that seem good to us at the time, but which only end up causing problems down the road, after the actions that caused the problem are long forgotten. Whatever gets them elected is what's important. Not longterm consequences of their actions that they won't get blamed for.
It doesn't work this way with companies, because they are spending their own money. A politician wouldn't cap prices on bus fare if it meant that the difference would come out of his own pocket, and his own buses would fall into disrepair (which both amount to the same thing). But he doesn't have to worry about it, because he's spending taxpayer money, so he can afford to tell lies and look good to people who don't understand the economics of the situation.
If companies weren't concerned with making money, but needed only to tell lies and look good to stay in business, we'd see them doing all sorts of economically unwise things with the goal of looking good in mind. The fact that companies must be constantly vigilant to any inefficiency (i.e., waste of money) or risk going out of business means that they are infinitely more reliable, since other companies force them to meet the demand for reliability and safety that the government doesn't have to efficiently meet.
Basically, we can't trust politicians to be truthful with us if it isn't in their interest to do so. Their only interest is in looking good, since that's what gets them the votes they need to stay in business. Sure, it would be nice if the majority of voters weren't morons who shouldn't be allowed to vote, who took the time to learn about these issues and not lap up rhetorical BS, but that's not a very helpful solution, since it's never, ever going to happen. We can talk about it all we want, but that doesn't make it so.
Last edited by discojoe; 07-27-2008 at 05:07 PM.
These are the words of someone unfamiliar with the real life consequences that economic inefficiency has on the everyone's standard of living.
You've only gotten away with it so far because your country gets new medicine from the supposedly "unfair" American system.
No, that's incorrect. For Canada, our standard of living has proven to be sustainable over the short-term. Given that standard of living is not a long-term economic given - a reality applicable to all states - I can be justified in saying Canada works. Therefore, despite not being an economics guru, my point stands valid.
So American drug companies, from the goodness of their hearts, are shipping underpriced drugs to Canada? Get real. 1) Americans aren't the only ones producing and developing drugs, and 2) we pay market price for them. The difference is that Canadians enjoy a buffer; and so too did thousands, if not millions of Americans who bought drugs from Canada before other Americans starting crying about it. Where's the competitive 'choice' for those Americans now?You've only gotten away with it so far because your country gets new medicine from the supposedly "unfair" American system.
Your ideology is based on your own self-interest, not the logical confines of the system itself; free markets and choice are dropped for protectionism as soon as you stop benefiting.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Your "sustainable" shortage of doctors, crowded hospitals, and waiting lists sounds Utopian.No, that's incorrect. For Canada, our standard of living has proven to be sustainable over the short-term. Given that standard of living is not a long-term economic given - a reality applicable to all states - I can be justified in saying Canada works. Therefore, despite not being an economics guru, my point stands valid.
Lol, no wonder thousands of Canadians come to America for medicine every year.
Stupid much? The cheap Canadian drugs are generic versions of drugs invented in America. The bottom line is that without the financial incentives created by the US market, you wouldn't have most of those drugs, since you can't cheaply manufacture something that hasn't been invented.So American drug companies, from the goodness of their hearts, are shipping underpriced drugs to Canada? Get real. 1) Americans aren't the only ones producing and developing drugs, and 2) we pay market price for them. The difference is that Canadians enjoy a buffer; and so too did thousands, if not millions of Americans who bought drugs from Canada before other Americans starting crying about it. Where's the competitive 'choice' for those Americans now?
If wanting millions more people having food, shelter, jobs, and medicine than otherwise would have means that I'm self-interested, then I guess you're right.Your ideology is based on your own self-interest, not the logical confines of the system itself
If you're saying that consumerism is often dropped by the disadvantaged minority who want free things, then you're right, which is why those people shouldn't be able to dictate the economy.free markets and choice are dropped for protectionism as soon as you stop benefiting.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
What do you know about the shortage of doctors, crowded hospitals, and waiting lists in Canada. Wasn't it in an American hospital that just recently a woman died and no one noticed for an hour? I am not saying these aren't issues, as they are common across the board no matter what system is in effect. You propose that socialized medicine creates an unfounded demand for health services, and that a free market system keeps it in check when all that's really happening is that millions of Americans are denied access.
During the liberal years of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, healthcare was framed as an ongoing crisis and was the number one issue for Canadians. Since Harper took the reigns in 2005, the environment has supplanted healthcare as the number one issue in Canada. Does that mean: a) healthcare is fixed, b) the Conservatives are enacting a massive coverup, or c) the issue was blown out of proportion in the first place? You're about 5-7 years behind in Canadian politics.
LOL, no wonder millions of Americans receive no care at all.Lol, no wonder thousands of Canadians come to America for medicine every year.
Where does it matter where the drugs are 'invented'? 1) Canadians pay market prices for them, and do not get a free ride as you're attempting to portray. 2) American drug companies run factories in Canada, which we buy from, so how are they 'generic versions' when they are the exact same product? 3) What the hell do drug companies have to do with the debate anyway? All of the supplies used in healthcare are manifactured by private companies - I doubt there is any liberal democracy on this planet whose universal healthcare system is autarchic, and that's completely missing the point. The interets of socialized medicine is in providing affordable healthcare to everyone, so therefore, you aren't making a point at all.Stupid much? The cheap Canadian drugs are generic versions of drugs invented in America. The bottom line is that without the financial incentives created by the US market, you wouldn't have most of those drugs, since you can't cheaply manufacture something that hasn't been invented.
This is not what I meant at all, and you know it. Americans such as yourself pride yourself on your libertarian ideals, but duck and run as soon as the ideology's inherent flaws appear. Most other nation states are aware of the flaws within their system, and are actively trying to make peace with it. To the rest of the world, Americans seem lacking in self-awareness, and it's a justified criticism.If wanting millions more people having food, shelter, jobs, and medicine than otherwise would have means that I'm self-interested, then I guess you're right.
If you're saying that consumerism is often dropped by the disadvantaged minority who want free things, then you're right, which is why those people shouldn't be able to dictate the economy.
When resources are flowing into the US to its citizens' benefit, all is well. As soon as their ideology breaks down and free trade means they are no longer benefiting, so-called ideals are dropped and the bullying begins. You may not be aware of oil, softwood lumber, and subsidized farming with respect to NAFTA, but you are probably familiar with outsourcing to Asia. The unregulated free market is Randian utopia until some Chinese or Indian worker has your job.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Offering one example of a woman dying because of neglect in a hospital is far from a persuasive argument that the levels of inefficiency between Canadian and American health care are in any way comparable. The reality is that you have too few doctors to meet the ongoing demand caused by "free" health care, meaning that many Canadians come to America to actually get taken care of.What do you know about the shortage of doctors, crowded hospitals, and waiting lists in Canada. Wasn't it in an American hospital that just recently a woman died and no one noticed for an hour? I am not saying these aren't issues, as they are common across the board no matter what system is in effect. You propose that socialized medicine creates an unfounded demand for health services, and that a free market system keeps it in check when all that's really happening is that millions of Americans are denied access.
I'll be 5-7 years behind in Canadian politics when it's been 5-7 years since thousands of Canadians came to the US for medical care annually. It's not me who's behind, apparently, but you Canadians who are getting ahead of yourselves.During the liberal years of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, healthcare was framed as an ongoing crisis and was the number one issue for Canadians. Since Harper took the reigns in 2005, the environment has supplanted healthcare as the number one issue in Canada. Does that mean: a) healthcare is fixed, b) the Conservatives are enacting a massive coverup, or c) the issue was blown out of proportion in the first place? You're about 5-7 years behind in Canadian politics.
LOL, no wonder your health care system is so fucked up. You think that 35 million (not 47 million, since illegal immigrants don't count) people without health insurance is something that is best solved by socialized medicine.LOL, no wonder millions of Americans receive no care at all.
It matters because socialist governments often penalize drug companies, because it's "unfair" they make so much money. Drug companies can afford to spend so much on research because they can actually sell their products in the US at prices high enough to stay in business. Try looking up how many new drugs are invented in France.Where does it matter where the drugs are 'invented'?
If the US starts giving free health care to its citizens, don't be surprised when there are fewer and fewer medical advancements.
Depending on where they live. And you're actually paying more for generic drugs because your government insulates generic drug manufacturers from competition.1) Canadians pay market prices for them, and do not get a free ride as you're attempting to portray.
This is irrelevant. The point I was making was about how these drugs wouldn't exist without the US market to sustain the drug companies.2) American drug companies run factories in Canada, which we buy from, so how are they 'generic versions' when they are the exact same product?
The problem is that socialized medicine essentially amounts to price capping, and price capping always results in shortages, which means rationing and less incentive to maintain quality standards. So the goal of socialized health care--to provide affordable care to everyone--is incompatible with its methods.3) What the hell do drug companies have to do with the debate anyway? All of the supplies used in healthcare are manifactured by private companies - I doubt there is any liberal democracy on this planet whose universal healthcare system is autarchic, and that's completely missing the point. The interets of socialized medicine is in providing affordable healthcare to everyone, so therefore, you aren't making a point at all.
Oh that's not what you meant? So you're just willing to put up with these terrible conditions because of "fairness"?This is not what I meant at all, and you know it. Americans such as yourself pride yourself on your libertarian ideals, but duck and run as soon as the ideology's inherent flaws appear. Most other nation states are aware of the flaws within their system, and are actively trying to make peace with it. To the rest of the world, Americans seem lacking in self-awareness, and it's a justified criticism.
The bottom line is that socialized health care is an emotionally satisfying solution whose problems further down the road are less visible and less apparent. While it's nice to see the sick people getting care in the first few months, we seem oblivious to the thousands of people waiting in line and looking for black markets to help them.
Suffering is suffering, and all this amounts to is caring about the suffering of people with less money more than the suffering of people with more money, even at the expense of making everyone miserable in the long run. It's about envy and self-entitlement.
I'm not defending the majority of Americans, who I agree are generally stupid and uninformed people who vote with their emotions (like the rest of the world). So don't try to lump me into a group with them.When resources are flowing into the US to its citizens' benefit, all is well. As soon as their ideology breaks down and free trade means they are no longer benefiting, so-called ideals are dropped and the bullying begins.
Yes, it's unfortunate that resources are scarce and that there are not enough of them for everyone to have as much of them as they want. People losing their jobs because of changes in the market is just a reality of life, and it's neither fair nor unfair, and it has no bearing on the well-documented fact (fact, not opinion) that people living in free market, price-coordinated economies are always far better off than people in socialist, centrally planned economies, because prosperity is all about efficiency, and efficiency can only be achieved when prices are in place to measure demand, and when businesses are allowed to manage their own prices.You may not be aware of oil, softwood lumber, and subsidized farming with respect to NAFTA, but you are probably familiar with outsourcing to Asia. The unregulated free market is Randian utopia until some Chinese or Indian worker has your job.
Central planners simply can't keep track of the tens of millions of daily transactions, and then adjust prices accordingly. The same applies to socialized medicine. We would see large surpluses of equipment sitting in warehouses with no demand for them, and scarcity in other items that weren't produced in sufficient quantities. This inefficiency costs money, which means more and more cutbacks. All of this can be avoided by letting the market run itself, which means accepting that the best way for people to get health care is to let them pay for it.
INFp
If your sea chart does not match reality, go with reality (Old mariner saying)
The fact of the matter is that the US health system, as superior as you believe it to be, failed in a very inefficient manner. Sure, this is one example. Is it the only example? No. Is that the only way it is possible to fail? Again, the answer is no.
Where are you getting the idea that we have such a shortage of doctors? Is there an official report you've read indicating there is a disasterous shortage? Is that simply what your idol Stossel has told you? Or is that something you've decided for yourslef based on ideology alone?
In all honestly, there probably is a shortage of doctors in Canada, but then again, depending on your metrics, it can easily be argued there is a shortage of doctors in the US. The fact of the matter is that the general consensus among Canadians at this point is that there isn't a massive shortage, and by far we are content with the level of care we receive. Our level of happiness and life expectancy reflects that.
Family doctors are indeed restricting their client lists, but that doesn't mean a person cannot use any walk-in clinic or emergency and receive the exact same care. It just means you don't see a familiar face every time you need care. We also have many medical doctors immigrating to Canadian to take up practice. I don't feel arsed to dredge up numbers, but it's considerable.
In that same time thousands of Americans have come to Canada to use our system. What's your point? MY point is that first and foremost you lack any contextual understanding of the political climate here, and mislead by conservative pundits, you've developed a skewed perspective of your place in the world.I'll be 5-7 years behind in Canadian politics when it's been 5-7 years since thousands of Canadians came to the US for medical care annually. It's not me who's behind, apparently, but you Canadians who are getting ahead of yourselves.
Our system is not 'fucked up' as you put it. It's functional, modern, well-funded, and ranked higher than the United States' system by the WHO. If that's not what's really LOL-worthy, I don't know what is.LOL, no wonder your health care system is so fucked up.
If 10 people are starving and cannot afford to buy food, do I think the best way to solve the problem is to buy it for them? Of course - what else would I - as a practical, responsible, and rationally self-interested person - think would be more effective? The reality is far more forgiving than my anology at that - people who receive care are healthy people, productive in society, and off the EI payroll. Plus, they feel secure in knowing they will not get left behind on account of the almighty $, and it creates much better national morale for the populace.You think that 35 million (not 47 million, since illegal immigrants don't count) people without health insurance is something that is best solved by socialized medicine.
If not socialized medicine, what do you propose - that they just 'get better jobs'?
Who cares about France? Since you seem to know everything, perhaps you can describe to me in detail how the Canadian government penalizes American drug companies?It matters because socialist governments often penalize drug companies, because it's "unfair" they make so much money. Drug companies can afford to spend so much on research because they can actually sell their products in the US at prices high enough to stay in business. Try looking up how many new drugs are invented in France.
You have absolutely no data or argument to back up this absurd notion, so don't even bother. It's pure speculation because in the end, no more money will be spent on healthcare than there is now, it will just be directed through different channels at the benefit of those millions of Americans currently without insurance. That is fact, and the per capita comparisons between the United States and countries with socialized medicine prove it.If the US starts giving free health care to its citizens, don't be surprised when there are fewer and fewer medical advancements.
Oh, is that why every Canadian can afford their prescription, and is that also why Americans supported a multi-billion dollar industry of importing drugs from Canada? Either you're incorrect, or thousands if not millions of Americans cannot perform a simple price comparison.Depending on where they live. And you're actually paying more for generic drugs because your government insulates generic drug manufacturers from competition.
How is this irrelevent? You stated that we ared subjected to 'generic' drugs, in effect saying they are of inferior quality, when they are the exact same thing. That's not me being irrelevent, that you being incorrect.This is irrelevant. The point I was making was about how these drugs wouldn't exist without the US market to sustain the drug companies.
The US market is extremely important. Was that ever in contest? Without the US, very many technologies wouldn't exist. Without China, you might not have all electronics you enjoy. Without Columbus, you'd be living in Europe. Oh wait - no you wouldn't because someone else would have discovered the Americas. And oh, gee, I guess it also follows that if the US market didn't exist, with six billion people on the planet and thousands of researchers, thos same drugs would have still been invented, just by someone else. Maybe later, maybe earlier - unless you have an alternate universe handy, you can't say, and therefore, have no point.
Not really, because you got a non-sequitur going on there. Price-capping is not inherent to universal healthcare, and in fact, should have nothing to do with it. Whether price-capping 'always' leads to shortages is also likely debateable, but that an economic argument and not related to the point I'd like to make, which is that unless I've been living under a rock, there are no shortages of drugs in Canada. Are you saying the US will experience such shortages if you introduce universal healthcare? I can't respond to that, but would advise you to look around the world at other successful healthcare system that have not experienced said problem.The problem is that socialized medicine essentially amounts to price capping, and price capping always results in shortages, which means rationing and less incentive to maintain quality standards. So the goal of socialized health care--to provide affordable care to everyone--is incompatible with its methods.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
LMAO, what terrible conditions? Longer life span, higher level of happiness, less crime, affordable AND effective healthcare... yeah, it's sure terrible dude. Can't wait to escape the gulag that consisentantly ranks better than the US in standard of living.Oh that's not what you meant? So you're just willing to put up with these terrible conditions because of "fairness"?
Agreed, it's largely about national values, which I made reference to in my original post (which I'm thinking you as never because we cross posted). Where we disagree is in sustainability and quality. The statistics show quality favours socialized medicine; sustainibility will only be resolved in time, but as reformed liberalism is the wave of the future, I'm inclined to think it will prevail.The bottom line is that socialized health care is an emotionally satisfying solution whose problems further down the road are less visible and less apparent. While it's nice to see the sick people getting care in the first few months, we seem oblivious to the thousands of people waiting in line and looking for black markets to help them.
If that's not you, then I apologize for that. But would you not consider yourself a libertarian as opposed to liberal?I'm not defending the majority of Americans, who I agree are generally stupid and uninformed people who vote with their emotions (like the rest of the world). So don't try to lump me into a group with them.
Absolutely no argument whatsoever there. I believe that liberalism is the best way to go because it's what has worked consistently thus far. Where I disagree is the contention that the entire fundamental structure of the system will change or be corrupted just because money is channeled from private to public hands....and it has no bearing on the well-documented fact (fact, not opinion) that people living in free market, price-coordinated economies are always far better off than people in socialist, centrally planned economies, because prosperity is all about efficiency, and efficiency can only be achieved when prices are in place to measure demand, and when businesses are allowed to manage their own prices.
As a side note, I don't consider myself an ideologue - a few years ago Manitoba's public telecommunications company was sold to private interests. The company went from losing money to making money on account of increased efficiency, and I applaud that. (On the other hand, Manitobans saw no improvment of services that wouldn't have followed the normal technological curve, AND our prices increased when adjusted for inflation.)
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I support private companies running things, but not when it comes to health care. Luxuries that I enjoy mean nothing if I am sick or dying, and cannot receive the help I need. I don't think it's right to barter with human life within the context of economics; especially where I can effect power, no matter how limited it may be, with my vote. That's one of my values as a Canadian, and it will require a very difficult economic situation to change it.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
blah
Last edited by Rocky; 11-28-2009 at 04:27 PM.
Hardly. No more than your skepticism of big government or socialized health care is " paranoia FTL." Would you have said the same about " paranoia FTL" if I had agreed with you about being skeptical towards government? If not, then you clearly fail and are wearing filters that impair your critical thinking. Entertain me though. Why should we trust big business? I do not elect them. I do not know them. I have little control or power over them. How are businesses more truthful than governments? Do businesses not have lies of their own to cover? Do you know how easy it would be to rewrite that paragraph of yours to apply to businesses and still be perfectly legitimate?
Basically, we can't trust businesses to be truthful with us if it isn't in their interest to do so.Their only interest is in looking good for shareholders, since that's what gets them the money they need to stay in business. Sure, it would be nice if the majority of consumers weren't morons who shouldn't be allowed to invest, who took the time to learn about these issues and not lap up rhetoric BS, but that's not a very helpful solution, since it's never, ever going to happen. We can talk about it all we want, but that doesn't make it so.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
You take a survey asking people how happy they consider themselves.
"if u don't like the way we do things..." No you're not, so quit posing. You're addicted to Canadian oil, so in that respect the US is Canada's bitch. Also, that has nothing to do with what I've said, as this is a thread about private vs public healthcare, and my defence of what I see to be the benefits of the latter.And I love it when people say things bad about America and how the capatilism is a bad thing, but you keep on taking our products. Our medicines, our computers, our movies, our sodas... if you don't like the way we do things, then we're taking all those things away from you.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
By that logic, the government should control all airlines too, because some people have died in plane crashes, and therefore the system has failed.The fact of the matter is that the US health system, as superior as you believe it to be, failed in a very inefficient manner. Sure, this is one example. Is it the only example? No. Is that the only way it is possible to fail? Again, the answer is no.
You are totally mistaken. Canada does in fact have a shortage of doctors. I don't know what to tell you if you don't want to believe this fact.Where are you getting the idea that we have such a shortage of doctors? Is there an official report you've read indicating there is a disasterous shortage? Is that simply what your idol Stossel has told you? Or is that something you've decided for yourslef based on ideology alone?
I wonder if the illegal for-profit clinics opening up at a rate of one per week has anything to do with the influx of doctors you're talking about.Family doctors are indeed restricting their client lists, but that doesn't mean a person cannot use any walk-in clinic or emergency and receive the exact same care. It just means you don't see a familiar face every time you need care. We also have many medical doctors immigrating to Canadian to take up practice. I don't feel arsed to dredge up numbers, but it's considerable.
It doesn't matter if Americans go to Canada for certain things, because they're probably just doing it to save money on poorer quality care, whereas Canadians come to America to get treated, period. Your Utopian system where everyone gets the care they need sounds laughable at this point.In that same time thousands of Americans have come to Canada to use our system. What's your point? MY point is that first and foremost you lack any contextual understanding of the political climate here, and mislead by conservative pundits, you've developed a skewed perspective of your place in the world.
As said before, your "stats" will start to decline once Americans are no longer allowed to pay drug companies to research your medicine.Our system is not 'fucked up' as you put it. It's functional, modern, well-funded, and ranked higher than the United States' system by the WHO. If that's not what's really LOL-worthy, I don't know what is.
Just as if there were ten people starving, the government would not have to buy their food, the current health care problems don't need to be addressed by socializing health care. If we can avoid economic stagflation, we should.If 10 people are starving and cannot afford to buy food, do I think the best way to solve the problem is to buy it for them? Of course - what else would I - as a practical, responsible, and rationally self-interested person - think would be more effective? The reality is far more forgiving than my anology at that - people who receive care are healthy people, productive in society, and off the EI payroll. Plus, they feel secure in knowing they will not get left behind on account of the almighty $, and it creates much better national morale for the populace.
There are all kinds of ways. The truly poor can be given local state aid, but for middle class, I think insurance should stop covering petty medical care, and mainly cover accidents and calamitous diseases. That way, less people visit the doctor for sniffles, and more people can afford to not worry about getting cancer or breaking their back (though people with insurance are more likely to get injured, ironically). This would also reduce physician costs, because they'd be doing a lot less paperwork (the difference in costs would actually be significant).If not socialized medicine, what do you propose - that they just 'get better jobs'?
Doctors would start competing with each other, instead of relying on insurance payments to earn a living, meaning prices would get lower and lower, and care would get better and better.
By protecting generic drug manufacturers from competition (which ironically raises the price of generic drugs).Who cares about France? Since you seem to know everything, perhaps you can describe to me in detail how the Canadian government penalizes American drug companies?
Right, it's "pure speculation" that there won't be less medical innovation when drug companies aren't getting as much money. You just run me in circles.You have absolutely no data or argument to back up this absurd notion, so don't even bother. It's pure speculation because in the end, no more money will be spent on healthcare than there is now, it will just be directed through different channels at the benefit of those millions of Americans currently without insurance. That is fact, and the per capita comparisons between the United States and countries with socialized medicine prove it.
Let me explain it so even you can understand:
It is impossible to pay for every American's health care at the same per capita rate as Canada, because our equipment is newer, better, and more expensive. In order to eventually pay what Canada pays, we'd have to use old equipment, much of which no longer exists. So for now, we're stuck with having to pay high prices for high quality care, except now we're not only paying for those who didn't have care before, but for the massive increase in demand for care by the people who did have insurance. We can't afford to pay this much and at the same time pay drug companies for new medicine.
You're able to afford your medicine because most of price controls that limit drug companies' ability to market and sell their products.Oh, is that why every Canadian can afford their prescription, and is that also why Americans supported a multi-billion dollar industry of importing drugs from Canada? Either you're incorrect, or thousands if not millions of Americans cannot perform a simple price comparison.
You don't know what "generic" means in regard to medicine? What are you, like five?How is this irrelevent? You stated that we ared subjected to 'generic' drugs, in effect saying they are of inferior quality, when they are the exact same thing. That's not me being irrelevent, that you being incorrect.
Using China as an example is silly, given the capitalistic nature of its economy. And saying that even without America, it follows that most of these inventions would still have been made, is a ridiculous piece of futile conjecture.The US market is extremely important. Was that ever in contest? Without the US, very many technologies wouldn't exist. Without China, you might not have all electronics you enjoy. Without Columbus, you'd be living in Europe. Oh wait - no you wouldn't because someone else would have discovered the Americas. And oh, gee, I guess it also follows that if the US market didn't exist, with six billion people on the planet and thousands of researchers, thos same drugs would have still been invented, just by someone else. Maybe later, maybe earlier - unless you have an alternate universe handy, you can't say, and therefore, have no point.
Your lack of shortages (and for the record, Canada doesn't keep shortage records, as far as I know, and you have run low on vaccines before) is because you are able to export drugs to free markets. If you think undercutting higher prices by selling cheaper versions of American drugs is a sustainable business model, what would happen when Americans started getting "free" medicine?Not really, because you got a non-sequitur going on there. Price-capping is not inherent to universal healthcare, and in fact, should have nothing to do with it. Whether price-capping 'always' leads to shortages is also likely debateable, but that an economic argument and not related to the point I'd like to make, which is that unless I've been living under a rock, there are no shortages of drugs in Canada. Are you saying the US will experience such shortages if you introduce universal healthcare? I can't respond to that, but would advise you to look around the world at other successful healthcare system that have not experienced said problem.
Also, your government often talks about restricting exports in order to prevent shortages. That wouldn't be necessary without price controls.
Yes, black people in the ghetto are more likely to get shot, (and they stay in these ghettos because of the welfare state) thus creating warped statistics that don't reflect the actual standard of living in the country.LMAO, what terrible conditions? Longer life span, higher level of happiness, less crime, affordable AND effective healthcare... yeah, it's sure terrible dude. Can't wait to escape the gulag that consisentantly ranks better than the US in standard of living.
Last edited by discojoe; 07-27-2008 at 10:21 PM.
You'd have to show me those statistics before convincing me that they're not politically warped and misleading.Agreed, it's largely about national values, which I made reference to in my original post (which I'm thinking you as never because we cross posted). Where we disagree is in sustainability and quality. The statistics show quality favours socialized medicine; sustainibility will only be resolved in time, but as reformed liberalism is the wave of the future, I'm inclined to think it will prevail.
No. I consider myself a conservative republican who leans libertarian.If that's not you, then I apologize for that. But would you not consider yourself a libertarian as opposed to liberal?
I'd be in support of social health care too if there weren't better ways to do it. You can't say that the free market doesn't work when all the bad examples you can think of involve things that are interfering with a competitive market. Insurance needs to be reformed so drug companies have more incentive to bring costs down, (after all, why bring costs down when the insurance company will eventually have to start paying the claims no matter the cost?) allowing premiums to go back down.Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I support private companies running things, but not when it comes to health care. Luxuries that I enjoy mean nothing if I am sick or dying, and cannot receive the help I need. I don't think it's right to barter with human life within the context of economics; especially where I can effect power, no matter how limited it may be, with my vote. That's one of my values as a Canadian, and it will require a very difficult economic situation to change it.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Ummmm...whatever "nationwide social health care" means...I just think people should have access to absolutely necessary health care needs even if they can't afford them. A person's right to live should not be ultimately determined by his/her income IMO.
It's not JUST because I know I would; I guess I just have a higher estimation of people's capacity for acting in their best interest than you do, which seems surprising, given our opposing stances on what kind of an economy would be optimal for our country.Oh, you know you'd do it? Oh, all right then. I guess that means the tens of millions of people who wouldn't do it actually would do it.
If you think people are actually going to go through all that trouble just because you would, you're being naive.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.Besides, there are better, more practical ways of creating the same kinds of informational companies. Think of all the sites that list the cheapest air fares, or that compare premiums and benefits on car insurance. These sites have caused a dramatic increase in the quality and affordability of car insurance, because such disclosure has forced insurance companies to become price competitive.
I'm talking about health care for people who can't afford insurance; if they can, they obviously their emergency needs are going to be covered.Of course, that wouldn't work out entirely with health insurance, since current policies often include benefits for petty expenses, like checkups, whereas very few people purposely get into car accidents. Therefore, the risk is higher, and the costs more difficult to negotiate, when it comes to health insurance. The current system definitely needs to be reformed, but that doesn't mean making the situation worse with nationwide social medicine.
[qupte]Because capitalism constantly penalizes inefficiency by putting it out of business, companies that compete are under constant pressure to offer the most they can afford of whatever is in demand. If it gets out that one company is making cut backs at the expense of the consumer, that company will lose business unless it quickly moves to solve the problem, and even then it's reputation may have been irreparably damaged. This means vastly improved reliability over what you'd ever be able to expect from a non-competing government program that is never in danger of going out of business.[/quote]
I'm aware of how capitalism works.
Another thing you might say is that some type of performance based evaluation system could be setup that would fire government employees for poor customer satisfaction, etc., but that would cause immediate, widespread public outcry and would quickly be overturned, as the main reason people work for the government is job security.[/quote]You might say that politicians are the ones who would "go out of business" by not getting reelected, but the problem is that that still doesn't mean that the millions of government employees ever need to worry about losing their jobs, since they don't compete.
Well then I guess they would have to find other reasons to work for the government, like, say, comprehensive health care Statistical performance evaluation would obviously be a must.
Fair enough.Those wonder pills are often very effective medicines that are only met with such skepticism because people put too much trust in the FDA. As to over-diagnosis of various mental conditions, you're right, that could theoretically help, but a better way to solve the problem would be to ban drug companies from paying doctors to promote their medicine.
What makes you so sure it would be unfeasible if we just made richer people pay higher taxes? :wink:Okay, but then you're not talking about socialized health care as it exists in any other country. What you're talking about is a socialized "emergency" care plan for people to pay for expensive, lifesaving treatment that they can't afford, or that their insurance policy won't pay for, but even that would cost too much unless we got rid of medicare, (meaning millions of poor people will need to pay for their medications somehow) because insurance companies would simply refuse to cover any such treatment, (and forcing them to would make the government program redundant, as well as make everyone's premiums prohibitively expensive) since the government would be footing the bill.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
No one has the "right" to live if that means forcing people to help them without repayment. It comes down to charity, nothing more. Anything else is communism.Ummmm...whatever "nationwide social health care" means...I just think people should have access to absolutely necessary health care needs even if they can't afford them. A person's right to live should not be ultimately determined by his/her income IMO.
It wouldn't happen, and I think it's completely ridiculous and embarrassingly naive of you to think it would, but you can think what you want, because I can't prove how stupid what you're saying is.It's not JUST because I know I would; I guess I just have a higher estimation of people's capacity for acting in their best interest than you do, which seems surprising, given our opposing stances on what kind of an economy would be optimal for our country.
But apparently not how human nature works, and they're both related.I'm aware of how capitalism works.
No politician is going to touch government job security. It just won't ever happen.Well then I guess they would have to find other reasons to work for the government, like, say, comprehensive health care Statistical performance evaluation would obviously be a must.
Because the government collects more tax revenue the lower taxes for the rich are. The whole idea with low taxes for the rich is to encourage rich people to take their money out of tax-free securities and invest it elsewhere, resulting in more jobs and more revenue. Obama knows that people don't understand this, which is why he wants to double the capital gains tax, even though doing so would reduce the amount of money collected from the tax. Facts are less important than being seen as "sticking it to the rich".What makes you so sure it would be unfeasible if we just made richer people pay higher taxes? :wink:
I guess we just have different ideas about human rights. I, for one, find the idea of a person dying for lack of medical treatment when others have private jets and could afford the necessary treatment out of pocket completely abhorrent and amoral; you apparently find intrusion on personal wealth similarly distasteful.
Why is it embarrassingly naive? Like you said, people do it for airline tickets, car insurance, hotel reservations and plenty of other things; why wouldn't they do it if the quality, or even continuity, of their lives depended on it? I doubt people would keep themselves updated on the totality of new medicine, but expecting them to inform themselves about things that are relevant to their lives is not unrealistic if you look at what lengths people go to for, say, saving money on traveling costs.It wouldn't happen, and I think it's completely ridiculous and embarrassingly naive of you to think it would, but you can think what you want, because I can't prove how stupid what you're saying is.
Not sure what you are referring to here.But apparently not how human nature works, and they're both related.
It all depends on public appeal. You're probably right that it's not there now, but in the future, who knows; all depends on what happens to our economy and how it affects who can afford to get what they need to stay alive.No politician is going to touch government job security. It just won't ever happen.
This is interesting.Because the government collects more tax revenue the lower taxes for the rich are. The whole idea with low taxes for the rich is to encourage rich people to take their money out of tax-free securities and invest it elsewhere, resulting in more jobs and more revenue. Obama knows that people don't understand this, which is why he wants to double the capital gains tax, even though doing so would reduce the amount of money collected from the tax. Facts are less important than being seen as "sticking it to the rich".
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
No, by that logic, practical problems need to be sorted out on a institutional basis. The point I'm trying to make is that it's not a public vs private issue.
How about some statistics, or an offical report not provided by a conservative American ideologue? I assume you have one - prove me wrong, it's easy.You are totally mistaken. Canada does in fact have a shortage of doctors. I don't know what to tell you if you don't want to believe this fact.
One per week?? I have no idea where you're getting this from. To my knowledge this has happened three times since we switched to universal healthcare, and I believe this is still be wrangled out in the courts. That a minority of Canadian doctors feels its their right to work outside the accepted system is not the scathing indictment of our system that you want it to be.I wonder if the illegal for-profit clinics opening up at a rate of one per week has anything to do with the influx of doctors you're talking about.
No, it sounds very nice, and is backed up by the weight of many developed nations who have instituted similar systems and are seeing success. And indeed, Americans still come up here for care they cannot and do not receive in the US.It doesn't matter if Americans go to Canada for certain things, because they're probably just doing it to save money on poorer quality care, whereas Canadians come to America to get treated, period. Your Utopian system where everyone gets the care they need sounds laughable at this point.
If US drug manufacturers weren't getting a fair shake, they wouldn't be selling to us - don't kid yourself.As said before, your "stats" will start to decline once Americans are no longer allowed to pay drug companies to research your medicine.
If you think this is a viable option, then more power to you. I'm not sure how this reflects on the idea of socialized medicine, beyond the general unwillingness to front money for your fellow citizen through taxes.Just as if there were ten people starving, the government would not have to buy their food, the current health care problems don't need to be addressed by socializing health care. If we can avoid economic stagflation, we should.
I don't really see much of a problem with this, really.There are all kinds of ways. The truly poor can be given local state aid, but for middle class, I think insurance should stop covering petty medical care, and mainly cover accidents and calamitous diseases. That way, less people visit the doctor for sniffles, and more people can afford to not worry about getting cancer or breaking their back (though people with insurance are more likely to get injured, ironically). This would also reduce physician costs, because they'd be doing a lot less paperwork (the difference in costs would actually be significant).
Again, I don't know how else to explain to you to it's not a given that drug companies will be fucked with universal healthcare. They set their prices, and public insurance pads the transition between producer and consumer, eliminating the private insurance middlemen who are taking their cut and screwing over people who need those prescriptions.Right, it's "pure speculation" that there won't be less medical innovation when drug companies aren't getting a much money. You just run me in circles.
First, you expect me to believe the richest nation in the world cannot afford to provide what will soon be a standard service throughout all liberal democracies? Give me a fucking break.It is impossible to pay for every American's health care at the same per capita rate as Canada, because our equipment is newer, better, and more expensive. In order to eventually pay what Canada pays, we'd have to use old equipment, much of which no longer exists. So for now, we're stuck with having to pay high prices for high quality care, except now we're not only paying for those who didn't have care before, but for the massive increase in demand for care by the people who did have insurance. We can't afford to pay this much and at the same time pay drug companies for new medicine.
Second, your assertion of higher quality equipment may be true but:
a) It doesn't mean that Canada's or any other nation with socialized medicine is therefore not up to the job, or falling apart. The statistics do not reflect such a proposed reality.
b) The bulk of Americans will likely never be in a financial position to buy access to those technologies. It's unlikely that middle-class Americans enjoy anything more than, say, Canadians do. The majority of health services don't require it.
It's like you guys have an 'all or nothing' attitude and don't see how much further you could be ahead if you were just reasonable.
The Canadian government negotiates with US drug manufacturers for reasonable pricing. That's called 'business', if you're seeking to understand the concept at hand. It's smart, practical, and efficient. Too bad you guys don't have your shit together enough to do the same thing.By protecting generic drug manufacturers from competition (which ironically raises the price of generic drugs).
You're able to afford your medicine because most of price controls that limit drug companies' ability to market and sell their products.
I'm familiar with the term, but thought you were making a different point when you brought it up a few posts ago. My bad.You don't know what "generic" means in regard to medicine? What are you, like five?
Conjecture, but not futile. Or are Americans blessed with health sciences genes that make them the only ones able to make discoveries and develop new technologies? Clearly not the case. The US is the economic hegemon, but that doesn't mean you're special or irreplaceable.Using China as an example is silly, given the capitalistic nature of its economy. And saying that even without America, it follows that most of these inventions would still have been made, is a ridiculous piece of futile conjecture.
What's so bad about restricting exports to insure that Canadians have what they need? Maybe we wouldn't need to without controls, but then private industry would run wild leading to the drug equivalent of $140/barrel oil, creating the exact same problem seen in the US. Is this 'fair'? Maybe not, but it's a poor argument in favour of private healthcare, my friend.Your lack of shortages (and for the record, Canada doesn't keep shortage records, as far as I know, and you have run low on vaccines before) is because you are able to export drugs to free markets. If you think undercutting higher prices by selling cheaper versions of American drugs is a sustainable business model, what would happen when Americans started getting "free" medicine?
Also, your government often talks about restricting exports in order to prevent shortages. That wouldn't be necessary without price controls.
If you dislike protectionism on principle, well, that's another thing. Canadians aren't so hell-bent on free trade as the Americans are, but the funny part is that Americans ignore or deny outright how protectionist they really are. I tend to side with free trade, FWIW.
So what, black people living in ghettos aren't American, and therefore shouldn't be included in statistics? I like your style - ignore the bad parts to make yourself look better. For them, conditions are worse than the national average, so I'm not sure where you get off thinking it makes sense to ignore them.Yes, black people in the ghetto are more likely to get shot, (and they stay in these ghettos because of the welfare state) thus creating warped statistics that don't reflect the actual standard of living in the country.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
WHO 2000 Press Release
I tried looking for 2007/2008, but the website is a clusterfuck. Anyway, I think you get the point.The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.
I can think everyone can agree on this.Insurance needs to be reformed so drug companies have more incentive to bring costs down, (after all, why bring costs down when the insurance company will eventually have to start paying the claims no matter the cost?) allowing premiums to go back down.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
jghkghkfgOriginally Posted by Thomas Sowell
fhertyhhOriginally Posted by Thomas Sowell
dsfhgerhOriginally Posted by Thomas Sowell
y3hghthjjfOriginally Posted by Thomas Sowell
Hooray for quoting the words and thoughts of someone else! So now we know where your buzzwords came from.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Peter reads other economists than just Thomas Sowell.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi