Government run health care and government run schools

[nescafe]

Think how effeicient it would be if there was no government intervention. By the laws of free market economics it would surely be better...

Be careful with that sarcasm, BAC might think you were being serious.

Of course, it would be challenging in the US due to the scale. You'd probably have to think up some method of splitting up the country into different administative regions, I'm not sure that it would be possible to come up with a fair and agreed upon basis to split up the country...

Nah, that is crazy talk. The states would never agree to it.

 

[Architect]

And in a word, it works.

Rolfe.

But BAC doesn't believe that. Hell, he's hosted a whole ream of links allegedly showing otherwise. And it's going to take ages to work through them, dammit - I feel I do owe him the courtesty of a reply (but I go on hols on Friday).

 

[Rolfe]

I've met some of BaC's links before. It wasn't worth it.

Have a nice holiday, I'll email you when you get back..

Rolfe.

 

[BeAChooser]

Annual checkups can often lead to more expensive procedures being performed if problems are found.

And you'd be wrong. They don't find problems all that often. Most medical problems are only discovered when a person goes to a doctor complaining about something specific. Which is exactly how the uninsured currently use ERs and hospitals.

My proof?

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/05/05/prsb0505.htm

Physicians examine the role of annual checkups in prevention

... snip ...

research is raising questions about whether annual physicals -- the most common reason patients visit the doctor's office -- serve as much of a preventive role as once thought.

... snip ...

Dr. Mehrotra said he was surprised to learn that 80% of preventive care, such as cholesterol screenings and weight loss counseling, occurred at visits other than annual checkups or yearly trips to the gynecologist.

... snip ...

If all patients had physicals, those visits would account for 41% of primary care physicians' direct patient time, the study said.

"We don't have the work force to do that," said David Dale, MD, president of the American College of Physicians,

http://www.thirdage.com/medical-care/diagnosis-annual-checkups-overrated

Diagnosis: Annual Checkups Overrated

Posted April 28, 2008


... snip ...

The annual physical examination -- that encounter when a physician looks in your throat, listens to your heart, pokes your abdomen, checks your reflexes and tests your blood -- is no longer a generally recommended medical practice.

That's because there is scant scientific evidence showing that yearly checkups help prevent disease, death or disability for adults with no symptoms. Many tests and procedures performed during the visits have questionable value, experts say.

... snip ...

"There is very little evidence, if any, that doing [comprehensive] exams yearly on patients without symptoms is good for anything," said Dr. Ned Calonge, chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which does not endorse yearly physicals.

First off, where did I say that I "believe in single payer systems"?

But you did jump in to stick up for those who believe in them. And you had only good things to say, initially, about a UK-like (i.e., single payer - like) system. And when I challenged your expressed assumption that the UK system works, you ignored my comments and changed to saying we need only modify it to make it work. Sorry if I misinterpreted your position. Glad to hear you don't believe in single payer systems.

Second, I understand free market economics fine

Not if you think wages are unaffected by what employers offer in terms of benefits. Not if you think there is no competition between employers for quality workers. Not if you think unions are the solution.

Quote:
Tell me, if single payer systems are so great for health care, do you think they'd be good for other types of services?

It would, I imagine, depend on the service. The military appears to work while "socialized".

Equating military needs to health care is totally bogus. Centralized control is essential to the effectiveness of a military force. That is not the case when it comes to health care. Furthermore, a citizen cannot take care of their own military protection needs. That requires collective action at the national level. There is no alternative. But that is not true when it comes to health care. Individuals can go out on their own or in small groups and take care of their health care needs. And should their health care fail, other folks health care can still be unaffected.

Police and fire departments too.

I already posted some sources that indicate police protection can be provided at less cost by private companies than by the government. And the truth is police and fire protection are totally unlike what is being demanded by you folks in health care. Police and fire protection are heavily dependent on the economy of given neighborhoods. Wealthy communities have better protection than less wealthy communities. They do not distribute their protection equally between those who pay taxes and those who do not. Also, police and fire protection are not handled at the nation level in most cases. Why can't health care be handled at the state and local level too?

I'm thinking more along the lines of ... bread. We all eat bread. Now why doesn't the government take control of bread making and bread distribution? Surely, if what you folks claim is true, they could do it better than the way it is currently done. Just think of all the money we could save?

It seems, to me, that things that are for the general welfare of the country

"General welfare" is a very vague term. Protecting our national borders is obviously of general utility to all of us. But about half the country does not believe a government takeover of health care is in their interest. So how can you claim it qualifies as "general welfare"? Because it make YOU happy?

Whether health care is part of the "general welfare", I guess, is up for debate.

Indeed it is. And there's another problem.

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." That does not give Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare. That power is reserved to the states through the 10th Amendment, which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution only allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. But Obama and company are unconstitutionally trying to do much more than that. It's unconstitutional because this issue has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

You know nothing of my inquisitiveness or openmindedness, just that I find your posts to be dull and mean spirited.

Do the facts I cite in my posts bore you? I'm sooooo sorry. And I object to your calling my posts "mean spirited". They are neither malicious or petty. I think it's that you just don't like what the facts suggest about socialized medicine and its supporters.

I just have this tendancy to point out mistaken claims if I notice them, like when you claimed that single payer proponents wanted the government to take over the entire system.

Now where did I say that in this thread?

Pointing out what others wants means I should be the one to defend it?

Hey, if you don't want to defend the UK system, fine with me.

Those would, of course, be perfectly valid questions to ask. I've not the professional level of knowledge needed to properly answer them.

And if you don't want to tell us how to modify it, that's fine with me, too.

 

[elbe]

And you'd be wrong. They don't find problems all that often. Most medical problems are only discovered when a person goes to a doctor complaining about something specific. Which is exactly how the uninsured currently use ERs and hospitals.

My proof?

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/05/05/prsb0505.htm

Interestingly, that article does not talk about emergency care, but preventative care. ER trips are not preventative, you go if you know something is wrong.

http://www.thirdage.com/medical-care/diagnosis-annual-checkups-overrated

Instead of asking patients to come in every year for a checkup, physicians should be figuring out which patients need what types of preventive care and making sure they get those services, experts suggest.

So it's arguing that instead of all-purpose checkups they do targeted care. That's still preventative and still not emergency care.

But you did jump in to stick up for those who believe in them. And you had only good things to say, initially, about a UK-like (i.e., single payer - like) system. And when I challenged your expressed assumption that the UK system works, you ignored my comments and changed to saying we need only modify it to make it work. Sorry if I misinterpreted your position. Glad to hear you don't believe in single payer systems.

Can you do me a favor and quote where I had "only good things to say" about a UK-like system? I remember saying that is what people seem to be more interested in, and I remember saying that that is much more preferable to the government running everything (like you once claimed defendants wanted), but I don't recall this "only good things" thing. But my memory has never been perfect. I did say that the UK posters seem to think it works fine. I don't live in the UK so I don't have any first hand experience. I tend to leave my opinion out of matters because I don't trust it.

Not if you think wages are unaffected by what employers offer in terms of benefits. Not if you think there is no competition between employers for quality workers. Not if you think unions are the solution.

I think employers offer what they think they can get employees for, I have my doubts that the average employee really thinks about how much the company pays for their benefits, instead thinking about the part that comes out of their paycheck. Employers can use that to their advantage where if they didn't offer medical benefits they can point to the paychecks and say "you have more money in your net pay" without raising gross wages.

Unions have nothing to do with it.

Equating military needs to health care is totally bogus. Centralized control is essential to the effectiveness of a military force. That is not the case when it comes to health care. Furthermore, a citizen cannot take care of their own military protection needs. That requires collective action at the national level. There is no alternative. But that is not true when it comes to health care. Individuals can go out on their own or in small groups and take care of their health care needs. And should their health care fail, other folks health care can still be unaffected.

We did, once, have an alternative, non-centralized military system, the militia system. Granted, that's not a very efficient military, but it served its purpose once. I mention the military primarily, and I know it's a common reference, to show that the government can actually run centralized systems.

I already posted some sources that indicate police protection can be provided at less cost by private companies than by the government. And the truth is police and fire protection are totally unlike what is being demanded by you folks in health care. Police and fire protection are heavily dependent on the economy of given neighborhoods. Wealthy communities have better protection than less wealthy communities. They do not distribute their protection equally between those who pay taxes and those who do not. Also, police and fire protection are not handled at the nation level in most cases. Why can't health care be handled at the state and local level too?

It has actually been offered as a suggestion for single payer health care to be managed on the state level. Did you not notice that?

I'm thinking more along the lines of ... bread. We all eat bread. Now why doesn't the government take control of bread making and bread distribution? Surely, if what you folks claim is true, they could do it better than the way it is currently done. Just think of all the money we could save?

Bread and health care are not similar, as you mentioned that the military and health care are not. Health care is, really, a somewhat unique area. It isn't a consumer good (as in you don't buy an MRI scan and keep that MRI scan), and it isn't exactly a service. You pay for what you need when you need it, there isn't a standardized price across the board (blood work would cost less then a knee replacement). You can't, in general, expect to partake of any particular medical service, except routine ones - mammogram, prostate exam, etc. - so people are unlikely to save up their money for that liver transplant they've always wanted.

"General welfare" is a very vague term. Protecting our national borders is obviously of general utility to all of us. But about half the country does not believe a government takeover of health care is in their interest. So how can you claim it qualifies as "general welfare"? Because it make YOU happy?

It is a very vague term, yes. Often used just for military and basic public services. I mentioned it because it is a way the government can do it, as in, it is within its power if it feels that health care is part of the general welfare of the country.

Indeed it is. And there's another problem.

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." That does not give Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare. That power is reserved to the states through the 10th Amendment, which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution only allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. But Obama and company are unconstitutionally trying to do much more than that. It's unconstitutional because this issue has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Continuing from my bit above your quote: If, as some people may argue, health care is a part of the "general welfare" then it would be a power delegated to the united states by the constitution and thus not one reserved for the states. It is very easy to see how health care can be in the in the federal government's interests for the general welfare. We already keep them (the citizens) safe, so we'll keep them healthy.

Do the facts I cite in my posts bore you? I'm sooooo sorry. And I object to your calling my posts "mean spirited". They are neither malicious or petty. I think it's that you just don't like what the facts suggest about socialized medicine and its supporters.

The facts? No. You tend to be repetitive and, from what I've observed, unable to admit errors. There really is little interest in debating someone who is unwilling to consider the idea they may be mistaken. The "mean-spirited" is that there is a, shall we say, general theme of your threads where democrats are viewed as people who wish to harm america. Intentionally, apparently. While I doubt, very much, that any politician is spick and span, you present a very biased view.

Now where did I say that in this thread?

I don't believe it was in this thread, but the thread I thought it was in wasn't it. I'll have to look more. If memory serves, I replied to you there saying how the proponents didn't want the government to control is it all, but to just pay for the private services, and you responded with feigned shock to the effect of "You expect to get that!!!" (paraphrasing, but I think that's along the right lines). I shall try to find the post later.

Hey, if you don't want to defend the UK system, fine with me.

I do not feel I am in any way qualified to defend the UK system, but UK posters, such as Rolfe and Architect, seem more able. I'm sorry, I've never been there, though it does seem lovely.

And if you don't want to tell us how to modify it, that's fine with me, too.

As a guess, I would say how much doctor's would be paid and what services would or would not be covered would be a part of the modifying. Those are, at least to me, things that would need to be considered after doing a study.

Forgive me, if you will, I haven't been feeling particularly great lately and have mostly just been killing time on here in place of working on my projects.

 

[BeAChooser]

Where they are preventable by non-heroic measures, yes. Universal health care seems to fall into that category

You don't think assuming control over 1/7th of the American economy qualifies as "heroic"?

You may also note that there has never been a pure capitalist utopia either.

Yeah, but in general capitalist systems have tended to be much more free and much more prosperous than their socialist and communist counterparts.

I know you are categorically unable to consider things from any other viewpoint than the hardcore libertarian one

I'm not a libertarian.

despite your wall o' links Gish gallop debating style.

Are you another who finds facts dull?

Well, the article you linked to was a few tens of millions of dollars worth of fines with no admission of guilt and no mention of recompense to those whose insurance (and insurability) vanished in a puff of profit.

Obviously, you didn't actually read the article.

First, the article states the firms agreed to offer new coverage to those whose policies were canceled (should I point out that they were probably canceled because the people lied on their applications?).

Second, the article clearly states:

The insurers also agreed to establish a process for former members to recover medical expenses they paid out of pocket after they were dropped as well as other damages, such as homes or businesses that were lost because unpaid medical debts ruined the former members' creditworthiness.

I guess you found that part too *dull* to read? That's the problem with your side of this debate. Facts are unimportant. Emotion is all that matters. You think to make things right, we need to seize control of 1/7th of the economy and make the wealthy pay for insurance for anyone who choses not to purchase insurance.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
If you don't like what the government does under universal health care, there is no recourse. You can't sue the government.

Sure you can.

You are right. I meant that only in the sense of that old saying ... "you can't sue the government".

Actually, a government cannot be sued unless it allows itself to be sued. Here is what the US government now allows:

http://www.finchmccranie.com/refresher.htm

The Federal Tort Claims Act was enacted by Congress in 1946 in recognition of the inequities caused by the failure to permit tort suits against the United States Government. ... snip ... When the United States Government is now sued in tort, the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 346(b), 2671 - 2680, comes into play, providing a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. The Act allows monetary recovery against the United States for damages, loss of property, personal injury or death. In seeking recovery, one must show that the damages occurred as a result of the negligent or wrongful acts of government employees acting within the scope of their employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).

It's important to note that the law does not allow punitive damages. In other words, asking for 10 million dollars to discourage the government from a given behavior is not allowed. Only provable damages. So while you may take the time and sue the government, and win, you can do nothing to encourage the government not to do the same thing to the next guy, as you could under a multi-player, non-government system.

Also the law states that the government cannot be liable unless the cause of the action is predicated on the negligence of an employee of the government. Now if an employee simply follows whatever guidelines Obama sets for disallowing some medical treatment, how is one to sue? The government won't be liable as long as the employee is obeying the rules handed down to them by some government *committee*.

You also need to realize that before you can sue, you must file a claim with the government, that they must deny, and a certain amount of time (6 months minimum) must pass. But more important, note that there is no right to a jury trial. In other words, whether you win or not is going to be up to a member of the government. So good luck with that suit.

You can also vote the chiseling politicians out of power, run for office yourself, or suggest legislation to you local rep to change things

Good luck with that too. Your not likely to have much effect when the beggars outnumber the choosers, the media is enamored with socialism, and most people will be satisified with their healthcare regardless.

Way to totally miss the point and retreat your ideology.

I don't think I missed the point at all. I think the point is that UHC is predicated on the democrat belief that there's such a thing as a free lunch. Which is why I asked if you were familiar with the term TANSTAAFL.

There is also a great deal of evidence that a UHC is more economic than our system -- see the stats posted upthread about healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP and life expectancy. Bloviate about special circumstances and make excuses as to how it could never work for us all you want, those numbers drown your blather out.

Go ahead. Do what all the rest on your side of this debate have done so far. Completely ignore everything I posted about comparing apples and oranges where costs are concerned. For example, ignore the cost of providing medical care to illegals (something the US actually does in large amounts but which many of those socialized dots in your so-called stats don't do in even small amounts). Ignore everything I posted about life expectancy being a very poor indicator of how well a country's health care system actually works. Ignore the links I provided that state if certain non-health care system related factors are accounted for (like deaths in accidents), the US has the highest life expectancy. Completely ignore the fact that the 40-45 million uninsured figure that is promoted ad nauseum by your side to justify the health care takeover (including in the article that presented those *stats* on GDP and life expectancy that you allude to) is nothing short of a LIE. You only prove my point about your side in this debate.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
What if you don't pay any taxes. You still entitled to coverage?

Oooh, trying to set me up for a "nescafe doesn't think children and the unemployed deserve healthcare despite everything else he has said!"

No, I actually just want to know how you feel about the large numbers of employed adults in this country that pay no federal taxes? As pointed out during the election, according to the IRS, in 2006 some 43 million federal tax returns (representing 91 million people) had zero or negative tax liability. These aren't children or the unemployed (who don't have to file at all). Should these people get free health care on the backs of the others who actually do pay taxes? Are they really *entitled* to coverage?

Also, at least 8 million people in that 40 million uninsured statistic that your side cites earn more (some, significantly more) than the median income of the US. Should they get free health care on the backs of everyone else too? Are they *entitled*?

I personally think that taking a play from Germany's book is the best thing here -- children are national treasures, and so all their healthcare is covered by the government as a matter of course.

Yeah, but Germany actually has a shrinking population. We don't. In fact, if anything, we need to discourage some people, especially the poor, from having too many children. Forcing parents to pay for their own children's care might do that.

Unlike you, I think UHC is a moral imperative

ROTFLOL!

Shouldn't it also be a moral imperative to stop people from being obese? Afterall, obesity has been identified as one of this nations top health problems because so many health problems are clearly linked to obesity. Perhaps the Federal government should institute a cap and trade type law on calorie intake? In the name of the "general welfare".

Shouldn't it also be a moral imperative to stop children from seeing too much TV? Afterall, spending too much time in front of TVs has been linked to poor performance in school and obesity. And it affects the black population in particular because black kids watch nearly twice as much TV as the national average. Maybe Obama, in the interests of the "general welfare", should institute a cap and trade type law where the number of hours children can watch TV is concerned. Perhaps allow each child 1 hour a night, but allow TV viewing time to be traded ... like carbon emissions.

And I could go on and on with examples.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I'm not the one that posted a source using Cuba as the example of good health care. That was YOU. Now all of a sudden you want to abandon it but you don't offer another source.

No, you simply want to magnify a small portion of one source

It wasn't a small portion of the source. Out of all the countries they could have chosen to focus on, they chose Cuba. And regurgitated the 40 million uninsured LIE. By the way, that link no longer appears to be working.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I notice also that you AGAIN have nothing to say about my observation that the 40 million uninsured statistic is bogus.

Because you brought it up

No, I didn't bring it up. The link YOU supplied that compared GDP and quality of healthcare brought it up ... along with Cuba.

and I do not care one way or another about that statistic.

You should, since that's the statistic that Obama and company are using to justify the reform of America's health care system.

See this: http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/22705345/is-the-number-of-uninsured-accurate.htm . It quotes Obama claiming the 46 million uninsured is why we need reform and then shows that the figure is an outright LIE.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
That's significant given that your side uses that statistic as the primary reason why we need wholesale reform.

Yes, because this complex issue can simply be boiled down to a us vs. them black and white issue. Things must be so simple in your little world.

No, the simplicity is in your little world. One filled with LIES.

I am in favor of UHC because anything else is inhumane

Well if inhumane is your concern, why don't we offer this wonder health care to every child and uninsured person in the world? Or does your humanity only extend to Americans?

and causes unnecessary drag on our society by making the populace as a whole less healthy.

You make the assumption that those 40-46 million are unhealthy. They are not. In fact, on the whole they are quite healthy. In fact, a large fraction of that number (see the above link) are under 35. Their being healthy is probably the #1 reason they chose not to buy health care even though 8 million or more of them could clearly afford it. But being selfish (and probably democrats), they didn't give what they would have spent on health insurance to help others. No, they used it to buy CDs, go see rock concerts, purchase recreational drugs or the latest cell phone, and donate to Obama's campaign.

We Americans are blessed to live in a society where it is OK to lose your insurance because your insurance company decides it is no longer profitable to carry you, or you change jobs, or get diagnosed with pancreatic cancer while involuntarily unemployed.

And Cubans are even more blessed. Right?

Try to see past your ideology at least once.

Look in the mirror. And stay out of my pocket.

 

[BeAChooser]

It would suck the life out of for-profit health care, but so what?

There you go, folks ... an admission (which the Obama administration denies) that the public program will eventually result in a single payer system ... because the government plan will operate with an unfair advantage ... not having to make a profit. And all these years, people on the left have been insisting that monopolies are bad.

 

[BeAChooser]

That's only a little over 7%. What's all the fuss about?

Especially considering the fact that in June of 2008, the Toronto Star reported (http://www.thestar.com/article/445835 ) that over 4 MILLION Canadians (12 and older) have no family doctor. That's about 15% of their population (12 and older). And the article said Canada's poor and underprivileged were affected the most. In that socialized medicine utopia.

 

[BeAChooser]

This, of course, is anathema to right-wingers. Why should high-earners pay more?

Of course, left-wingers say ... why should those who make more get better health care? And why should they drive better cars? And why should they get to live in better houses? And why should their kids get to go to better schools? And they are depending on Obama to correct all those injustices. It's called communism folks, whether the Obama supporters admit it or not. So you better ask yourself if you want to live in a communist country.

And by freeloading, I mean in this context the rich person who decides to shirk his responsibility to contribute to the welfare of the less fortunate.

And what about the freeloading at the other end? Decades ago, about 11 percent of Swedes lived on handouts rather than jobs. Now over 20 percent do. And the major accomplishment of LBJ's War on Poverty was to build into our system a minimum poverty rate that we've never been able to get below, despite over 10 trillion dollars in spending.

In a tax-funded system, this duty is not all heaped on the charitable and the soft-hearted.

Funny how when it's a voluntary system, conservatives are far more generous (charitable and soft hearted) than liberals. Guess liberals don't see it as a duty but as a annoyance. That why they want others to pay for their *charity*.

 

[Lemastre]

Me too, especially since I was just laid off. Also, some companies will, and have, terminated people with chronic illnesses because of health costs and such. Yes, it's illegal to do so, but they find ways to do it.

And perhaps more diabolical is the insurance company that offered a small businessman the choice of firing an employee whose kid racked up a large medical bill on her dad's company policy or losing coverage for all employees. I suppose it's a mere coin-toss for the company owner, since he loses the respect of his employees either way unless he can get coverage elsewhere really quickly.

 

[Geezer]

<snip>

In a multi payer system, people really are allowed to choose the one they want. In a single payer system, they are not. The government chooses for them, irregardless of whether a large fraction of the population don't like it. One approach is freedom. The other is tyranny.



And how is that going to work? Any better than Sweden's system?

<snip>

You are aware that Sweden also has private hospitals right?
You know that you can choose your doctor in Sweden too?
You of course know that you can go to any EU country for care and that the Swedish government still pays for it, right?

Yep, sounds like Tyranny to me...in the way that it doesn't.

 

[Geezer]

<snip>
Fair enough. But do you think changing the word to "economy-driven" changes the FACT that Sweden's health care (as well as its hospitals) is government-run or changes what the professor says Sweden's system does to stymie curiousity and new knowledge?

It discredits Williams that you used as a source when he mistranslated by mistake (or even by choice) an article that in fact wants the government to spend more money on research and makes NO argument on the discussion if being private would be better.

 

[Cobalt]

Can someone give me the tl;dr version of the back and forth between BAC and elbe without sarcasm and such?

 

[Architect]

There you go, folks ... an admission (which the Obama administration denies) that the public program will eventually result in a single payer system ... because the government plan will operate with an unfair advantage ... not having to make a profit. And all these years, people on the left have been insisting that monopolies are bad.

1. You're pushing your luck in claiming that Lefty's quote takes you as far as that.

2. You claim that private healthcare is a superior option, so why should i go down the pan? Surely everyone will be clamouring to pay for this superior, high quality treatment? In fact, health insurance companies will no longer have to pay for what you consider to be the spongers, and hence can offer a more cost-effective service!

Perhaps you've not really thought this through, eh?

 

[Architect]

Can someone give me the tl;dr version of the back and forth between BAC and elbe without sarcasm and such?

Well BAC and Ziggy both believe that UHC systems such as those employed in the UK, Canada, France, and Sweden all have lower clinical outcomes than the US system but refuse to respond to statistics which suggest that they're all pretty much on a par. However underlying this appears to be a political (small p) concern about being forced to pay for coverage and a perception that this will encourage/allow more spongers.

There's also a lot of use of annecdote and press stories rather than statistics.

 

[Architect]

And perhaps more diabolical is the insurance company that offered a small businessman the choice of firing an employee whose kid racked up a large medical bill on her dad's company policy or losing coverage for all employees. I suppose it's a mere coin-toss for the company owner, since he loses the respect of his employees either way unless he can get coverage elsewhere really quickly.

Don't let's tell BAC about European employment protection laws.

 

[GreyICE]

Can someone give me the tl;dr version of the back and forth between BAC and elbe without sarcasm and such?

0.21

 

[Cobalt]

Well BAC and Ziggy both believe that UHC systems such as those employed in the UK, Canada, France, and Sweden all have lower clinical outcomes than the US system but refuse to respond to statistics which suggest that they're all pretty much on a par. However underlying this appears to be a political (small p) concern about being forced to pay for coverage and a perception that this will encourage/allow more spongers.

There's also a lot of use of annecdote and press stories rather than statistics.

May I inquire as to the definition of "clinical outcomes?" I've not heard that term before.

 

[Architect]

Of course, left-wingers say ... why should those who make more get better health care? And why should they drive better cars? And why should they get to live in better houses? And why should their kids get to go to better schools? And they are depending on Obama to correct all those injustices. It's called communism folks, whether the Obama supporters admit it or not. So you better ask yourself if you want to live in a communist country.

Appeal to emotion, eh?

Adequate healthcare is a right, just the same as education. If you're quite happy for the poor to go without anything other than the most basic of emergency procedures, then just state it. But don't argue that providing such care is "communism". Or perhaps you don't support free universal education, either?

As for housing, you've got a problem there. All of the western democracies have public-sector housing and laws enacted to control slum developments - all in order to ensure that people have, as a minimum, a tolerable level of accommodation. Or perhaps you don't support these either?

After all, it's all their own fault for being poor.

 

[Architect]

May I inquire as to the definition of "clinical outcomes?" I've not heard that term before.

In considering comparative healthcare outcomes you need to look beyond, say, waiting times and to the overall results - what does it matter if you have to wait 4 weeks to get a verucca removed if, in fact, it's not an urgent condition. The question is how effective the system is in ensuring overall health according to a series of benchmarks.

Key indicators are things life like expectancy, cancer survival rates, infant mortality levels, child innoculation levels, and so on.

On a fair reading, the US is only middle of the pack (at a cost of roughly double that of the other developed countries).