John Stossel explains why socialized health care is retarded

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

::hugs Gilly::

Yeah, what you said.

[Gilly]

[force my hand]

This discussions is pathetically ideological.
Remember that economics should be aimed at bettering welfare, which has a clear psychological component. Which, in turn, means that competition is to be considered better as long as the utility function of the members of the society says so. So, saying that competition always leads to a better outcome may be true in strictly practical terms (but not always, given that in certain occasions cooperation is definitely much more efficient), but we should also consider the global effect of this kind of view.

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).

[Wittmont]

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).

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.

[discojoe]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The consequences of full on socialized health care (which you admittedly seem to be against) fair outweigh any economic benefits.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

[discojoe]

This is pure rhetoric.

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.

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.

[discojoe]

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.

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.

[force my hand]

These are the words of someone unfamiliar with the real life consequences that economic inefficiency has on the everyone's standard of living.

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.

You've only gotten away with it so far because your country gets new medicine from the supposedly "unfair" American system.

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?

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.

[discojoe]

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.

Your "sustainable" shortage of doctors, crowded hospitals, and waiting lists sounds Utopian.

Lol, no wonder thousands of Canadians come to America for medicine every year.

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?

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.

Your ideology is based on your own self-interest, not the logical confines of the system itself

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.

free markets and choice are dropped for protectionism as soon as you stop benefiting.

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.

[Logos]

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.

I have the same skepticism of big business.

[force my hand]

Your "sustainable" shortage of doctors, crowded hospitals, and waiting lists sounds Utopian.

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 thousands of Canadians come to America for medicine every year.

LOL, no wonder millions of Americans receive no care 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[discojoe]

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.

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.

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.

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.

LOL, no wonder millions of Americans receive no care at all.

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.

Where does it matter where the drugs are 'invented'?

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.

If the US starts giving free health care to its citizens, don't be surprised when there are fewer and fewer medical advancements.

1) Canadians pay market prices for them, and do not get a free ride as you're attempting to portray.

Depending on where they live. And you're actually paying more for generic drugs because your government insulates generic drug manufacturers from competition.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh that's not what you meant? So you're just willing to put up with these terrible conditions because of "fairness"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[discojoe]

I have the same skepticism of big business.

paranoia FTL.

[Wittmont]

paranoia FTL.

Big business owns the politicians. Lobbyism ftw

Not to mention Big Oil in the White House, Wall Street in the Treasury (Goldman Sachs people everywhere like Paulson, Bernanke, Bolten - White House Chief of Staff) etc.

[force my hand]

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.

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.

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.

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.

LOL, no wonder your health care system is so fucked up.

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.

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 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.

If not socialized medicine, what do you propose - that they just 'get better jobs'?

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.

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?

If the US starts giving free health care to its citizens, don't be surprised when there are fewer and fewer medical advancements.

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.

Depending on where they live. And you're actually paying more for generic drugs because your government insulates generic drug manufacturers from competition.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[force my hand]

Oh that's not what you meant? So you're just willing to put up with these terrible conditions because of "fairness"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

If that's not you, then I apologize for that. But would you not consider yourself a libertarian as opposed to liberal?

...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.

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.

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.

[Rocky]

blah

[Logos]

paranoia FTL.

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.

[force my hand]

How can you measure happiness?

You take a survey asking people how happy they consider themselves.

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.

"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.

[discojoe]

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.

By that logic, the government should control all airlines too, because some people have died in plane crashes, and therefore the system has failed.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As said before, your "stats" will start to decline once Americans are no longer allowed to pay drug companies to research your medicine.

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.

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 not socialized medicine, what do you propose - that they just 'get better jobs'?

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).

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.

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?

By protecting generic drug manufacturers from competition (which ironically raises the price of generic drugs).

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.

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.

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.

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're able to afford your medicine because most of price controls that limit drug companies' ability to market and sell their products.

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.

You don't know what "generic" means in regard to medicine? What are you, like five?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[discojoe]

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.

You'd have to show me those statistics before convincing me that they're not politically warped and misleading.

If that's not you, then I apologize for that. But would you not consider yourself a libertarian as opposed to liberal?

No. I consider myself a conservative republican who leans libertarian.

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.

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.

[discojoe]

011101001101001000110101100100001001110010101
00100010000011110100101000111010001000111110101010 1110010101
01010101101111000011010101000010101010101001

10100001010001100011010100101101100000111000110101 0
011011110101010001010101010101110101

[Logos]

10100001010001100011010100101101100000111000110101 0
011011110101010001010101010101110101

Flattery will get you everywhere.

[Gilly]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

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.

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.

[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.

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.[/quote]

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.

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.

Fair enough.

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.

What makes you so sure it would be unfeasible if we just made richer people pay higher taxes? :wink:

[discojoe]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm aware of how capitalism works.

But apparently not how human nature works, and they're both related.

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.

No politician is going to touch government job security. It just won't ever happen.

What makes you so sure it would be unfeasible if we just made richer people pay higher taxes? :wink:

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".

[Gilly]

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.

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.

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.

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.

But apparently not how human nature works, and they're both related.

Not sure what you are referring to here.

No politician is going to touch government job security. It just won't ever happen.

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.

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".

This is interesting.

[force my hand]

By that logic, the government should control all airlines too, because some people have died in plane crashes, and therefore the system has failed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As said before, your "stats" will start to decline once Americans are no longer allowed to pay drug companies to research your medicine.

If US drug manufacturers weren't getting a fair shake, they wouldn't be selling to us - don't kid yourself.

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 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.

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).

I don't really see much of a problem with this, really.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You don't know what "generic" means in regard to medicine? What are you, like five?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[force my hand]

You'd have to show me those statistics before convincing me that they're not politically warped and misleading.

WHO 2000 Press Release

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 tried looking for 2007/2008, but the website is a clusterfuck. Anyway, I think you get the point.

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.

I can think everyone can agree on this.

[discojoe]

If there was one defining moment in the debates among an already crowded field of Democrats seeking their party's presidential nomination in 2004, it may well have been when Congressman Dennis Kucinich, pushing for government-provided health care, spoke with obvious disgust of the "profits" of the insurance companies and provoked a burst of spontaneous applause from like-minded members of the audience.

Insurance companies, like every other kind of institution, have to earn money in order to keep functioning. So does every individual who was not born rich. But some people react to the word "profit" with automatic responses, like Pavlov's dog.

Such prejudice against a word was far more common half a century ago than it is today. Congressman Kucinich may think of himself as a "progressive," but he is in fact a throwback to a bygone era.

Profit was defined as "overcharge" by George Bernard Shaw, one of the founders of Fabian socialism. "Never speak to me of profit," India's Prime Minister Nehru once said to his country's leading industrialist. "It is a dirty word."

Why are such conceptions of profit no longer as common as they were 50 years ago? Because of half a century of experience with economies that tried to operate without profit. Back in the 1950s, socialism was the wave of the future and countries around the world tried out one variety or another.

With profits eliminated, in theory there should have been lower prices for the consumers, who would now be able to afford a higher standard of living. In reality, countries that went the socialist route found themselves falling farther behind countries that allowed the hated profit system to continue to exist.

Naturally, political leaders with the vision of a government-controlled economy did not want to admit that they were wrong, much less have the voters realize that they were wrong. Only when decade after decade of blatant evidence from around the world became undeniable did governments begin to withdraw their suffocating controls and sell government-owned industries to private entrepreneurs.

But, just as there are still pockets of resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there are still holdouts like Congressman Kucinich and like-minded Democrats. Socialism has been discredited as an explicitly avowed belief but it still lives on in a thousand disguises, of which "universal health care" is just one.

Like so many pretty words used in politics, "universal health care" is seldom examined in terms of what its actual track record has been in the countries where it has been tried.

Probably the first country to have universal health care provided by the government was the Soviet Union. After decades of socialized medicine, what was the end result? In its last years, the Soviet Union was one of the few countries in the world with a declining life span and a rising rate of infant mortality.

But that terrible word "profit" had been banished and apparently that is what matters to the true believers.

Not all countries that tried socialized medicine went as far as the Soviet Union. But there has been a whole pattern of problems common to government-controlled medical care systems, whether in China, Britain, Canada or elsewhere. And none of the anti-profit zealots want to talk about any of those problems.

None of those who wants us to move in the direction of Canada on health care ever faces the question: Why do so many Canadians come to the United States for medical treatment and so few Americans go to Canada?

Could it be that we should look at what actually works, rather than what sounds good? Nor should we be overly impressed by words that sound bad, like "uninsured Americans." The bottom line is medical care, not insurance. People without insurance are treated at hospitals all across America every day.

Before we even consider throwing away what works in favor of something that has failed repeatedly, we need to stop reacting to words and start looking at facts. Socialism by any other name is still socialism -- whether it is advocated by shrill zealots like Kucinich or by other Democrats whose words are smoother.

jghkghkfg

[discojoe]

During the first 30 years of my life, I had no health insurance. Neither did a lot of other people, back in those days.

During those 30 years, I had a broken arm, a broken jaw, a badly injured shoulder, and miscellaneous other medical problems. To say that my income was below average during those years would be a euphemism.

How did I manage? The same way everybody else managed: I went to doctors and I paid them directly, instead of paying indirectly through taxes.

This was all before politicians gave us the idea that the things we could not afford individually we could somehow afford collectively through the magic of government.

When my jaw was broken, I was treated in an emergency room and was given a bill for $50 -- which was like a king's ransom to me at the time, 1949. But I paid it off in installments over a period of months.

Like most young people, I was lucky enough not to have any heavy-duty medical expenses that would have required major operations or a long hospital stay.

That is still true for most young people today, which is why many people in their twenties do not choose to pay for medical insurance, even when they can afford it.

They know that, in an emergency, they can always go to an emergency room. And today the idea that you ought to pay for that out of your own pocket is considered almost quaint in some quarters.

It is not uncommon -- especially in California, with its large illegal immigrant population -- for hospitals to have to shut down because so few people pay for the emergency room care they receive.

There are, of course, people with huge medical bills that they cannot possibly pay. Believe it or not, that also happened back before the modern welfare state.

Some hospitals -- whether public or private -- could absorb such costs, with the help of donors. There were people with polio living in iron lungs, which is why rich and poor alike gave money to the March of Dimes.

But that is very different from hospitals being stiffed every day by emergency room users whose only emergency is that they want to keep their money to spend on fun, instead of on doctors.

The biggest of the big lies in the "health care" hype is that a lack of insurance means a lack of medical care. The second biggest lie is that health care and medical care are the same thing.

Doctors cannot stop you from ruining your health in a hundred different ways, so statistics on everything from infant mortality to AIDS are not proof of a need for government to take over medical treatment.

Few people show the slightest interest in what has actually happened in countries with government-controlled medical care.

We are apparently supposed to follow those countries' example without asking about the months that people in those countries spend on waiting lists for medical treatments that Americans get just by picking up a phone and making an appointment.

It is amazing how many people seem uninterested in such things as why so many doctors in Britain are from Third World countries with lower medical standards -- or why people from Canada come to the United States for medical treatment that they could get cheaper at home.

Government price controls on pharmaceutical drugs are more of the same illusion of something for nothing.

People who are urging us to follow other countries that control the prices of medications seem uninterested in the fact that those countries depend on the United States to create new drugs, after they destroyed incentives to do so in their own countries.

Since it takes more than a decade to create a new drug, a politician can be elected president by hyping price controls on drugs, spend eight years in the White House, and be living in retirement before people start to notice that we no longer get the kinds of new medications that successively conquered deadly diseases in the past.

fhertyhh

[discojoe]

A huge headline on the front of a recent issue of the New York Times Magazine said more than they intended: "Now Are We Ready to Talk About Health Care?" Inside was an article with the same title by Hillary Clinton.

The casual arrogance of that question is staggering. We talked endlessly about Hillary's proposed government-run medical system a decade ago and decided against it for many reasons. Now this re-run of the same issues proceeds as if the question is whether the rest of us are "ready" to talk about such things.

Senator Clinton parades the usual litany of reasons why the government should run the medical system, beginning with "soaring health costs and millions of uninsured." But, not only does she offer nothing that will actually reduce those costs, she declares that "our mental health delivery system is underfinanced."

In other words, she wants to spend more money on shrinks. Can you imagine what will happen to costs if unverifiable diseases and unverifiable cures provide blank checks to be paid by the taxpayers?

"Universal health care" is a lovely phrase with political resonance in some quarters. But what does it mean concretely?

First of all, since people differ in what they want, nothing can be "universal" without being mandatory. In other words, we are talking about forcing people to belong to whatever program the politicians and bureaucrats come up with, regardless of what the people themselves might prefer.

As for health, it is the end result of many things -- diet, exercise, genetics, lifestyle -- most of which are beyond the scope of government. What the government can control -- doctors, hospitals, medicines -- are only part of the equation.

What the lovely phrase "universal health care" boils down to is politicians and bureaucrats forcing people to get their medical treatment and pharmaceutical drugs the way the politicians and bureaucrats decide.

Somehow, the notion seems to be insinuated that the government can do it cheaper and better. But name three things that the government does cheaper and better than private individuals and organizations. It would be no trick at all to name dozens of things that the government does worse and at higher costs.

How is it going to be cheaper to manage hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical drugs, when it is going to take an army of bureaucrats and tons of red tape to do it? Economists say that there is no free lunch. There is no free red tape either.

Whatever charming visions may be conjured up by political rhetoric, what matters are the hard realities of government-run medical systems. Such systems have existed in many countries around the world. Why not look at what happens in those countries?

How many of those who gush about "universal health care" know that the countries which have it also have waiting times to get treated that are several times as long as people in America wait to see a specialist or get an operation? Waiting not only means longer suffering, it can also mean that a treatable disease can become untreatable -- or even fatal -- because of the delay.

Britain has had a government-run medical system for about half a century, so it might be a good source of facts -- for those who are interested in facts, instead of political rhetoric.

A feature article in London's Daily Mail referred to "our filthy hospitals." The distinguished British magazine The Economist likewise commented on how dirty these hospitals are.

Why? Because British hospitals are so tied up in government rules and union contracts that a nurse has no authority to order the janitorial staff to mop the floor after a patient has vomited. If the nurse wants that floor mopped any time soon, she has to stop taking care of patients and go find a mop to clean it up herself.

Working for a government-run medical system is apparently not all that attractive to Britons who might go into the medical profession. Many of the doctors in Britain are from Third World countries whose medical schools are often substandard.

These are just some of the problems that go with government-run medical systems, whether in Britain or in other countries around the world. But what are mere facts compared to a lovely phrase like "universal health care"?

dsfhgerh

[discojoe]

If you ask most people about the cost of medical care, they may tell you how much they have to pay per visit to their doctor's office or the monthly bill for their prescription drugs. But these are not the costs of medical care. These are the prices paid.

The difference between prices and costs is not just a fine distinction made by economists. Prices are what pay for costs--and if they do not pay enough to cover the costs, then centuries of history in countries around the world show that the supply is going to decline in quantity or quality, or both. In the case of medical care, the supply is a matter of life and death.

The average medical student graduates with a debt of more than $100,000. The cost per doctor of running an office is more than $100 an hour. The average cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug is $800 million. These are among the costs of medical care.

When politicians talk about "bringing down the cost of medical care," they are not talking about reducing any of these costs by one cent. They are talking about forcing prices down through one scheme or another.

All the existing efforts to control the rising expenses of medical care--whether by government, insurance companies, or health maintenance organizations--are about holding down the amount of money they have to pay out, not about reducing any of the real costs.

Price Controls

Many of the same politicians who are gung ho for imposing price controls on prescription drugs, or for importing Canadian price controls by importing American medicines from Canada, have not the slightest interest in stopping frivolous lawsuits against doctors, hospitals, or drug companies--which are huge costs.

Price control zealots likewise seldom have any interest in reducing the amount of federal requirements for getting a drug approved for sale to the public--a process that can easily drag on for a decade or more, costing millions of dollars, and also costing the lives of those who die while waiting for the drug to be approved by bureaucrats at the Food and Drug Administration.

For political purposes, what "bringing down the cost of medical care" means is some quick fix that will win votes at the next election, regardless of what the repercussions are thereafter.

What Repercussions?

If the bureaucratic hassles that doctors have to go through make their huge investment in time and money going to medical school not seem worthwhile, some can retire early and some can take jobs no longer involving treating patients. Either way, the supply of medical care can begin to decline, even in the short run.

In the long run, medical school may no longer look like such a good investment to many in the younger generation. Britain, which has had government-run medical care for more than half a century, has to import doctors from the Third World, where medical school standards are lower.

So long as there are warm bodies with "M.D." after their names, there is no decline in supply, as far as politicians are concerned. Only the patients will find out, the hard way, what declining quality means.

No law passed by more than 500 members of Congress is going to be simple or even consistent. There are already 125,000 pages of Medicare regulations. "Universal health care" can only mean more.

No Choice

I saw a vivid example of what bureaucratic medical care meant back in 1959, when I had a summer job at the headquarters of the U.S. Public Health Service in Washington. Around 5 o'clock one afternoon, a man had a heart attack on the street near our office.

He was taken to the nurse's room and asked if he was a federal employee. If he was, he could be sent to the large, modern medical facility there in the Public Health Service headquarters. But he was not a government employee, so an ambulance was summoned from a local hospital.

By the time this ambulance made its way through miles of downtown Washington rush-hour traffic, the man was dead. He died waiting for a doctor, in a building full of doctors. That is what bureaucracy means.

Making a government-run medical care system mandatory--"universal" is the pretty word for mandatory--means that we will all have no choice but to be caught up in that bureaucratic maze.

y3hghthjjf

[Logos]

Hooray for quoting the words and thoughts of someone else! So now we know where your buzzwords came from.

[discojoe]

Hooray for quoting the words and thoughts of someone else! So now we know where your buzzwords came from.

Virgin.

[Logos]

Virgin.

If that is the worst insult that you can throw at me, then I remain unscathed and unfazed, but highly amused.

[discojoe]

If that is the worst insult that you can throw at me, then I remain unscathed and unfazed.

But if it's not the worst, you are scathed and fazed?

[Joy]

[Logos]

But if it's not the worst, you are scathed and fazed?

No. If it's not the worst, then I am just disappointed. It was not a wall of facts, but merely a wall of Thomas Sowell that you quoted.

[Joy]

Peter reads other economists than just Thomas Sowell.

[Logos]

Peter reads other economists than just Thomas Sowell

Happy to hear that, but that does not change the reality of him just posting a wall of Thomas Sowell. I'm also hoping that he reads a variety of views and not just ones that supports his ideas, though he probably does.