Stossel Solves the Health Crisis with Capitalism

[Chaos]

Now, just wait for all the howls of, why should moderate drinkers/Big Mac eaters/whatever be penalised for the sins of the few? Ignoring of course that the moderate consumers won't be paying much extra tax on their moderate consumption.

To quote James Bond, "do I look like I give a damn?"

 

[Rolfe]

Well, it's annoying, because it's precisely these howls that tend to block the implementation of what might actually be a very good idea indeed.

Rolfe.

 

[Chaos]

Well, it's annoying, because it's precisely these howls that tend to block the implementation of what might actually be a very good idea indeed.

Rolfe.

Thank you.

Do you think there is any chance that the howlers in question will realize that, as extra taxes for unhealthy behavior (let´s just call it the Gluttony Tax for short ) kick in, the base UHC premiums/taxes ought to go down?

 

[Corsair 115]

As a matter of fact, some US senators raised this concern about competitiveness.

Specifically, they consider Canada's universal healthcare to be an unfair competitive advantage when an auto manufacturer is thinking about opening plants. They argue that it makes the Canadian plants cheaper to operate (true) and assert that this constitutes an unfair subsidy under NAFTA.

That's some chuztpah for those senators to complain about that in regards to NAFTA, considering that the U.S. violated the terms of NAFTA when it came to Canadian softwood lumber exports to the U.S. and when it came to allowing Mexican trucking firms to deliver goods to points inside the U.S. (Note that in both of these cases the NAFTA dispute resolution panel ruled in favour of Canada and Mexico in their complaints against U.S. actions. Under the terms of NAFTA, the U.S. should have abided by these rulings but did not, thus it violated not only the spirit of the agreement but its rules as well. One may well ask what is the point of having a signed agreement with the U.S. is if it feels free to ignore such agreements whenever domestic politics makes it expedient to do so.)

 

[blutoski]

Don´t companies pay higher taxes in Canada, and get a bargain on healthcare?

It's hard to compare. The US companies involved in this specific concern were American auto manufacturers, and their tax situation is not representative. My impression is that actually they operate with net inflow from federal and provincial coffers in the form of direct subsidies, and as we speak, they're negotiating a stimulus grant.

What about education?
Would well educated workers be an unfair advantage too.

The argument was that the Canadian healthcare system could be an unfair subsidy because the US did not have a similar subsidy.

Education would be different, because both countries have public education systems.

In any case, the argument was more just sabre-rattling, as NAFTA contained wording to protect specific grandfathered subsidies and healthcare was excluded from the start.

 

[Corsair 115]

In any case, the argument was more just sabre-rattling, as NAFTA contained wording to protect specific grandfathered subsidies and healthcare was excluded from the start.

Yes, but if softwood lumber is any indication, what NAFTA actually contains is of little significance since the U.S. feels free to ignore the rules of the agreement whenever required by domestic politics.

 

[themusicteacher]

Every douche like Stossel thinks that everything with the words "universal" attached to it is the road to socialism and, therefore, ruin. As someone pointed out earlier, the AMA opposed Medicare even though it is a better moneymaker for them simply because St Ronnie Reagan (God rest his gentle soul forever and ever in the highest reaches of neo-con heaven, amen) said that magic word: socialism. This is the conservative method of debate: use a buzz-word that has negative stereotypes attached to it (after all, you helped create said stereotype!) to shut down debate since most people will uncritically react to said buzz-word. You can't lose a debate you didn't have but it looks like you won because you said, "Socialism!" or "Welfare Queens!" There. We still have the problem but my ideology won, so nyah-nyah!

Again, we get the worst healthcare for our dollar and have one of the lowest life-expectancies in the developed world. But, hey, we've got our "free-market" healthcare and that's all that matters, right? Ideology: 2 billion, Sensibility: 0.

 

[Architect]

Indeed!

 

[Baylor]

Again, we get the worst healthcare for our dollar and have one of the lowest life-expectancies in the developed world. But, hey, we've got our "free-market" healthcare and that's all that matters, right? Ideology: 2 billion, Sensibility: 0.

Nonsense. It's the left-wingers stuck on ideology. Did you hear Michael Moore when he said "in my perfect world...."? I almost threw up on my keyboard. There's no such thing as a "pefect world". Someone is always gonna get screwed. The question is who is gonna get screwed? Conversatives think those who contribute the most should have the best chance.

 

[not_so_new]

Nonsense. It's the left-wingers stuck on ideology. Did you hear Michael Moore when he said "in my perfect world...."? I almost threw up on my keyboard. There's no such thing as a "pefect world". Someone is always gonna get screwed. The question is who is gonna get screwed? Conversatives think those who contribute the most should have the best chance.

By "contribute" are you speaking of say, the managers of Lehman Brothers or the board of directors for AIG perhaps?

Thanks for the "contributions" fellas.

And yes, I G-U-A-R-A-N-T-E-E they all have much better health care than I do.... which means I think you proved a point here so thanks for your contribution as well Rebel.

 

[Rolfe]

Nonsense. It's the left-wingers stuck on ideology. Did you hear Michael Moore when he said "in my perfect world...."? I almost threw up on my keyboard. There's no such thing as a "pefect world". Someone is always gonna get screwed. The question is who is gonna get screwed? Conversatives think those who contribute the most should have the best chance.

I don't really think we want to base our arguments on what Michael Moore said.

I'm happy to say that Conservatives in Britain are fully behind our National Heath Service. Even apart from the circumstances related in that link, they know perfectly well that the only way to get votes is to support and pledge to improve the NHS. Any party proposing doing away with it could look forward to about 200 years in opposition.

So, you're happy for people who have the bad luck to fall ill with big-ticket healthcare needs to do without, so long as the people who don't get sick get to keep their money?

I don't really know what you mean by "those who contribute more" in this situation. People don't choose to need cardiac bypasses, or brain surgery or hip replacements. And it's not necessarily those who can afford these interventions who actually need them. So, are you saying that only those who can afford to contribute the cost of their own healthcare should receive treatment?

But that's not how it works in the USA at the moment. You have a socialised healthcare system. You pay just as much for it as we pay for our socialised healthcare system. The only difference is that those who contribute most, don't get to access it at all. They get the privilege of contributing all over again into an insurance policy, or paying for what they need out of their own pocket.

The consequence of this is that you guys, as a country, are paying close on twice what we do for your healthcare as a country (proportionately). And you still have overall poorer outcomes, despite the very high standards of care available to part of the population.

And this is damaging the competitiveness of your industry. Did you see the part where General Motors spends more on healthcare for its workers than it does on steel? Or where the motor industry in general was complaining that it couldn't compete against countries where healthcare costs weren't loaded onto the employer?

Rolfe.

 

[3point14]

Nonsense. It's the left-wingers stuck on ideology. Did you hear Michael Moore when he said "in my perfect world...."? I almost threw up on my keyboard. There's no such thing as a "pefect world". Someone is always gonna get screwed. The question is who is gonna get screwed? Conversatives think those who contribute the most should have the best chance.

I have to ask, have you read the rest of the thread?

 

[Lonewulf]

Nonsense. It's the left-wingers stuck on ideology. Did you hear Michael Moore when he said "in my perfect world...."? I almost threw up on my keyboard. There's no such thing as a "pefect world". Someone is always gonna get screwed. The question is who is gonna get screwed? Conversatives think those who contribute the most should have the best chance.

So, instead of throwing up on your keyboard, you threw up on this message board instead?

 

[bobrayner]

By "contribute" are you speaking of say, the managers of Lehman Brothers or the board of directors for AIG perhaps?

Irrelevant sniping aside, in developed countries with a good public healthcare system, the rich tend to pay a bigger proportion of the costs (through general taxation).

For instance, in the UK, before state intervention there's a 15-fold difference between top and bottom household income quintiles; after state intervention it's 4-fold. The difference is caused by the state taking lots of money from the rich, giving some of it directly to the poor, and spending the rest on everybody (healthcare, education, infrastructure, &c). This kind of thing is pretty normal in developed democracies.

 

[themusicteacher]

Nonsense. It's the left-wingers stuck on ideology. Did you hear Michael Moore when he said "in my perfect world...."? I almost threw up on my keyboard. There's no such thing as a "pefect world". Someone is always gonna get screwed. The question is who is gonna get screwed? Conversatives think those who contribute the most should have the best chance.

Blah, blah, blah. Good obfuscation, though. There have been several studies (I'm sure you'll claim they're biased) that consistently say we have the worst care for the highest price. What I'm getting at is that the debate on a better health care system is constantly shut down by thoes who scream "socialism!" It doesn't matter what the reforms proposed are, it's those voices who either, a) already have good health care and insurance and can afford good HC regardless and/or, b) have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that looks even remotely un-free market. The truth is, we don't have a free market system right now anyhow. Good try though, even if it is from a Runnin' Rebel.

 

[Rolfe]

There are so many things in the USA that are socialised. Schools, libraries, street lighting, firefighting - there's a lot before you even start on law enforcement, defence and foreign affairs.

Medicine is also socialised, but uniquely in the developed world the rich schmucks who pay the taxes to support the socialised system don't get to benefit from it.

I don't know why they see this as a privilege.

Rolfe.

 

[themusicteacher]

There are so many things in the USA that are socialised. Schools, libraries, street lighting, firefighting - there's a lot before you even start on law enforcement, defence and foreign affairs.

Medicine is also socialised, but uniquely in the developed world the rich schmucks who pay the taxes to support the socialised system don't get to benefit from it.

I don't know why they see this as a privilege.

Rolfe.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. The rich do benefit from the system. They are just helping by subsidizing those who help make them rich namely, the workers from all the companies they make money off of whether through direct involvement or being a shareholder. Rich people owe the fact that they have money to those who made them rich. There are no such things as self-made millionaires.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm talking about getting benefit from tax contributions. The rich contribute most, but they aren't allowed to access the system they're being taxed for. They're shut out, and have to pay all over again.

Rolfe.

 

[blutoski]

I'm talking about getting benefit from tax contributions. The rich contribute most, but they aren't allowed to access the system they're being taxed for. They're shut out, and have to pay all over again.

Rolfe.

I think themusicteacher is saying that while they may not personally be able to access the services, that those who are excluded due to high income may still benefit indirectly. eg: the workforce is more able to come into work and produce profits.

It could also be argued that the higher a person's income, likely the greater the benefit realized, since they have more profits to lose due to absenteeism in the workforce.

 

[Rolfe]

But that's not the case, at least so far as I understand it from this and other threads. The healthcare costs for people in employment are met partly by the employee and partly by the employer. We already discussed how General Motors spends more on healthcare coverage for its employees than it does on steel. How the US motor industry was accusing Canada of unfairly subsidising its industry because they weren't hamstrung by healthcare costs. How the evidence is that US industry in general is being rendered uncompetitive by this.

Medicaid is for the very poor, who are mostly unemployed. How many people holding down an actual job qualify for Medicaid? Not a lot. Who is this rich person running such a sweatshop that Medicaid is taking care of his workers' medical needs? Doesn't happen as far as I know. Medicare is for people over the age of 65. Beyond some subsidy towards insurance costs of people with chronic conditions that make them uninsurable, these taxes are not paying to keep the workforce healthy.

Rolfe.