Equity market says US Health Bill is killed

[ponderingturtle]

Then pony up your numbers, because I don't believe you for a second. There are a lot of people without insurance but with healthcare.

Sure as long as you are happy with 45000 deaths per year. That fits well with the idea of healthcare.

 

[Rolfe]

You're merely choosing a shallow (or narrow) definition of freedom, which is what you critiqued Rolfe for above. People differ in what is important to their freedom. You may hate government size, and may console yourself with the observation that taxpayers in the UK cough up more per person, only to find that others like Rolfe simply don't weight this category as highly at all, which seems to suggest that she feels freer than you do, even along this dimension.

Conversely she (along with--I think--the vast majority of UHS participants, me included) places a fair bit of weight on the peace of mind that medical costs need never bankrupt anyone in the UK, at the same time as knowing that medical costs will almost never result in primary care not being available either. You don't apparently think that is very important to the perception of freedom. Can you at least see why others might (vehemently) disagree?

I wasn't going to bother responding to Faithkills' nonosensical post, but as you've brought it up, it's worth highlighting a couple of his misconceptions.

10% more of the work of subjects of your nation is taken by the government than mine. I wish the differential was higher.

I fail to see why you care so much about how much more free we are except shared misery. [....]

I will try to make it even more simple for you. If I force you to work 100% of the time for me, you are a slave. What about 90%? 80%

I must suppose that you, or your electorate overall at least, must think 40% makes you 'not a slave'.

Personally I'm glad I am free to choose how to use 10% more of my life than you.

The basic error here seems to be the assumption that the taxpayer does not benefit from taxation revenue. A moment's thought demonstrates the fallacy of that. On the contrary, the taxpayer is indeed the beneficiary, not merely of the libraries and the roads and the police force and the schools and the parks and so on, but of civilisation itself, which is only possible when citizens contribute to the maintenance of the society they live in.

That last sentence is particularly wrong, though. The percentage of your life you get to choose how you use doesn't have anything to do with how much you're taxed. You get a job. That's your choice. If you like the job, then 40% of your time at work (or 30% or any other percentage) doesn't suddenly become slavery just because you pay tax on your earnings. On the other hand, if you hate your job, I don't imagine 60% of your time suddenly becomes unalloyed joy just because it represents your "take-home pay".

Then again, there's the question of actual time spent at work versus leisure hours. Everything I hear about the USA indicates that leisure hours are significantly less than in Europe. I hear about only two weeks of "paid time off" a year, to include sick leave as well as holiday! Now that's slavery, in my book! I hear about only two or three days of sick leave allowed in a year. I hear about working weeks of 45 hours and more (mine is 37). I hear about people having to take two or even three jobs to keep themselves.

If that's "freedom", then I have to say I'm singularly lacking in envy.

Oh what a shallow definition of freedom you have Rolfe

On the contrary, I see a definition of "all my time except the proportion of my working life not attributable to taxpaying" as quite astoundingly naive. Not to mention demonstrating an anti-government and indeed anti-civilisation mindset I find quite abhorrent. We've had plenty threads on libertarianism, and frankly this just sounds like more of the same.

I repeat, I have many real, tangible freedoms that I don't see my American friends enjoying, and the fact that the tax rate is a bit higher here is of no relevance at all when I consider all these advantages.

How free are you if you aren't free to do some thing.. like free to take from others because you have the guns to do so.

I don't even understand that. You really think you're free because you have weapons you can use to steal from your neighbours?

Now you are just being silly. NHS is funded by leprechauns?

You still seem not to have grasped the arithmetic here. The amount of tax you pay to fund "socialised" medicine (Medicare and Medicaid) is slightly more than the amount of tax we pay to fund the entire NHS. Therefore, as I said, whatever is causing the extra tax burden on British citizens compared to US, it isn't the NHS.

The actual difference here is that I benefit from that taxation, in that I am free to access the healthcare funded by my taxes. (I'm also free to buy private insurance if I want to, but if I don't, I still have heathcare.) You, on the other hand, cannot access the healthcare your taxes are paying for, but are forced to make other arrangements.

Me.

This makes you more free?

I would not want to have a serious illness under NHS. Yes if you need stitches you can walk in and get them. Yes if you get cancer you're much more likely to die over there.

I'll pay for my stitches.

And I'll survive my cancer.

I'd like to see the statistics for cancer survival, covering your entire population. We've found in other threads that these aren't available. Collection of such figures including the poor and uninsured doesn't seem to happen on a national basis.

Nevertheless, I'll spell it out for you again. You're already paying more in tax than I am, to fund "socialised" healthcare you can't access. You're forced to make your own arrangements. In contrast, I can choose. If I'm happy with what the NHS is offering, I can choose to rely on it, and pay no more. If I'm not happy, I can buy private insurance. And as this doesn't have to cover the stitches (and a lot of other routine, trivial and emergency stuff), it's a helluva lot cheaper than it is in the USA.

I'm simply at a loss to know why you think you're so free.

You've made your choice. Why do you hate that the US makes a different one so much?

A cynic might wonder that the vehemence of socialists to expand their dominion into more free societies might be because of envy.

Oh, we're back to "why do you hate America?" I wish you guys had any idea how silly that line makes you sound. America. Loverly place to visit, lovely people, wouldn't care to live there at all.

Of course you know we're richer than you individually and in aggregate.

Excuse me? Are you really saying that every US citizenis richer than every British citizen? That's obvious nonsense. Care to reword that?

Who is carrying me? Do you mean the taxes I pay, which are reduced if I carry health insurance? Yes I do believe that reduction should be removed so we would have more competitive forces driving down prices. Yes I believe people that can afford health care should pay (me) so we can better subsidize people that really cannot afford.

No, I mean the other people in your insurance pool, whom you expect to carry you if you develop an expensive medical condition.

The last sentence there, actually sounds like a call for the sort of universal healthcare we have here, where payments are on the basis of how much you can afford (tax according to means), not on how high a risk you're assessed as being. Those who can afford it, pay more in order that those who cannot afford it can be treated.

It's an insurance pool including everyone, with the premiums assessed according to ability to pay. It almost sounds as if you approve of this.

And as I said, if anyone doesn't like the quality of care on offer, they're at liberty to buy their own. At a lesser cost than in the USA. True, they're not at liberty to stop contributing to the universal system, but then you're not at liberty to stop contributing to Medicare and Medicaid either, and the amount is at least comparable, so I still don't see where you have the advantage.

Well, if you're happy in this world of long hours and few holidays, putting thousands a year aside on top of your taxes just in case you fall ill, because you fondly imagine that a lower headline rate of tax makes you in some philosophical way "free", then good luck to you.

I'll stick with the actual freedoms I actually enjoy.

Rolfe.

 

[WildCat]

That varies. And it's got nothing to do with my point.

It has everything to do with your point. If you claim everyone has health care now then costs couldn't go up by officially covering everybody.

 

[WildCat]

Lol is that rhetorical? Of course it's better. I can choose who to work for, how much to work for them, and in the case of insurance, how much I want to buy.

I don't know anyone who gets to pick their employer-provided health plan, aside from government workers. Do you work for the government?

The government just takes and then tells me how much better of I am because of it.

You're free to be unemployed and then the government won't take anything. This is your same argument you used above...

I'm no fan of big business but at the end of the day they have to pay me to get me to do stuff or offer the best product to get me to buy stuff.

And?

The government has no such requirement and we see the results.

So the only countries with UHC are ones in which the government takes over? You haven't even looked at this subject aside from Sean Hannity talking points have you?

 

[ZirconBlue]

I don't know anyone who gets to pick their employer-provided health plan, aside from government workers. Do you work for the government?

I get to "pick" my plan, in that my employer offers 3 plans, but they are all provided by the same insurance company, and just have different levels of deductibles and co-payments. Basically, it's just a shell game where I can choose whether to pay more upfront (through payroll-deducted premiums) or pay it later (in the form of deductibles and copayments).

 

[Ziggurat]

It has everything to do with your point. If you claim everyone has health care now

But I don't. I'm claiming that the number of people who don't have healthcare is different than (and smaller than) the number of people who don't have health insurance.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure as long as you are happy with 45000 deaths per year. That fits well with the idea of healthcare.

You just don't get it. I'm in a dispute about the current facts. My feelings about those facts, as well as any preference for a course of action, are irrelevant to determining what those facts are. If you can't address the actual facts I'm discussing, then don't bother responding, because this post was completely irrelevant. You don't know what my feelings or preferences are.

 

[Rolfe]

Lol is that rhetorical? Of course it's better. I can choose who to work for, how much to work for them, and in the case of insurance, how much I want to buy.

I'm going to have another go at that one, because it's so naive. (I like Federer's torso better, but the camera keeps cutting away when he changes his shirt....)

I can choose who to work for (I'm choosing right now, as it happens), how much to work for them, and in the case of healthcare insurance, how much I want to buy,

So what less freedom do I have than Faithkills has? None at all, as far as I can see.

Indeed, the overall tax rate in Britain is higher than in the USA, but as we've already told him about a gadzillion times, this has bugger-all to do with healthcare funding. It is, quite simply, a complete irrelevance. The amount of tax (on a per capita basis) that goes towards funding socialised healthcare in the USA is actually slightly more than the equivalent amount in Britain that goes to fund the NHS.

The extra freedom I have, that Faithkills doesn't have, is the freedom to access the healthcare provided by the taxes I pay. And then, of course, I have the freedom to buy that healthcare insurance if I want to. Fathkills may have the freedom not to spend "thousands" on healthcare insurance right enough, but if he makes that choice, he certainly won't be in an enviable position if he gets seriously ill.

Add that to my 37-hour week, my 25 days (33 days including public holidays) paid holiday a year, freedom to take time off if I'm sick without losing my job, and the freedom to take home £2,600 (that's $4,160 at current exchange rates) per month after tax - and why on God's green earth would I conceivably be jealous of any American?

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

Why do you hate America?

 

[Rolfe]

I don't. Roger Federer is not American!



Rolfe.

 

[Faithkills]

I must admit that the only reason I continue to follow this thread is to ogle Faithkills' avatar.

Hehe thanks As stated I don't expect the government to keep me healthy, I take responsibility for that endeavor

Thanks, I'm registered with them already. However, McKinsey's analysis doesn't make any estimate of net medical tourism by value. It refers to patient numbers and, incidentally, finds it to be small (72,500 inpatient visits globally, all destinations, per year). Even if all those visits were to the US (which they're not) it is highly unlikely that it makes a dent in the 16% of GDP which is healthcare product.

You think it's a stretch that the majority of world medical tourism being to the most expensive wouldn't constitute the greatest amount by value?

Well I speculated in another thread about this that probably many conservatives would give the "tax" and "government spending" categories far more weight than other categories of economic freedom. But it is a credit to the objectivity of both the EFW and the Heritage calculations that they don't (see below).

As I said I'm not indifferent to their assessments. However the spending is a very good indicator.

You're merely choosing a shallow (or narrow) definition of freedom, which is what you critiqued Rolfe for above.

When you have to lie it's telling about your argument. I never chose that, or anything here, as a 'definition of freedom'. I said they are good metrics.

And I called Rolfe on that because he called me shallow and then made the same claim which he called me shallow for.

People differ in what is important to their freedom. You may hate government size, and may console yourself with the observation that taxpayers in the UK cough up more per person, only to find that others like Rolfe simply don't weight this category as highly at all, which seems to suggest that she feels freer than you do, even along this dimension.

The difference is that I'm not asserting, rather strenuously, Rolfe adopt my preference.

Conversely she (along with--I think--the vast majority of UHS participants, me included)

First the relative happiness of people in the UK with the NHS is up for debate. Although certainly all the surveys done by the government do tell the people that the people are mostly happy. I'm sure they are much comforted. You seem to be.

places a fair bit of weight on the peace of mind that medical costs need never bankrupt anyone in the UK, at the same time as knowing that medical costs will almost never result in primary care not being available either.

The outcomes for major illness in the UK is nothing I am interested in duplicating. So if the option is free to be bankrupt or free to be dead I'll take bankrupt.

You don't apparently think that is very important to the perception of freedom. Can you at least see why others might (vehemently) disagree?

This is asinine. I don't deign to decide your perception of freedom.

This discussion is about how you think you know better than us. I'm not suggesting you fix your health care system. If you are happy with it that's terrific. I'm not suggesting you pay less taxes. I'm not suggesting you do anything whatsoever. As sons and daughters of Britain we clearly have some different preferences, especially with regard to how much we wish to be governed and how much we trust government and how much freedom we prefer. I think that's great. I'm all about diveristy.

The basic error here seems to be the assumption that the taxpayer does not benefit from taxation revenue.

This is pathetic. Does this sort of rhetoric fly around here now? I never said the taxpayer never benefits from what taxes are spent on.

Your basic error is assuming that had you t had the fruits of your labor taken that you couldn't have allocated them more wisely and efficiently.

Every pound you spend you allocate the best you can. If you spend too much you have less to spend on other things.

Every pound the government spends is spent according to some policy and is spent as efficiently as myriad competing interests can allow it to and as the department in question has interest in doing. If they spend too much they get more money. From you. If they don't spend all they have they are likely to get their budget cut.

A moment's thought demonstrates the fallacy of that. On the contrary, the taxpayer is indeed the beneficiary, not merely of the libraries and the roads and the police force and the schools and the parks and so on, but of civilisation itself, which is only possible when citizens contribute to the maintenance of the society they live in.

Perhaps you might do better if you gave it a bit more than a moments thought because that wasn't enough for you.

The fact is that roads, police, schools, parks, 'and so on' all existed before government took them over. Having been taken over they cost ever increasing amounts.

For example, I haven't statistics on the UK but in the US for example a year's mean tuition cost about a months income for the mean income. Now it's six months.

If you like the job, then 40% of your time at work (or 30% or any other percentage) doesn't suddenly become slavery just because you pay tax on your earnings.

Well if they take 100% you're a slave. Would you consider yourself free at 90%? Apparently you do at 40%.

Everything I hear about the USA indicates that leisure hours are significantly less than in Europe. I hear about only two weeks of "paid time off" a year, to include sick leave as well as holiday!

Basically you have no clue about what you are talking about. I am pretty sure you wouldn't like to hear about how much time I get off or how I am compensated.

Not to mention demonstrating an anti-government and indeed anti-civilisation mindset I find quite abhorrent.

Oh noes! I've offended the delicate sensibilities of an ignorant boor. I must say most people from the UK that I have met do not speak with such force about things which they are clueless.

Civilization is not government. How many wars were started for the benefit of the people?

I don't even understand that. You really think you're free because you have weapons you can use to steal from your neighbours?

No. I was alluding to the concept of positive rights which you had already invoked, whether you knew it or not, but it went over your head. If you have the right to something it must be the power to take it from someone else, hence government guns.

You, on the other hand, cannot access the healthcare your taxes are paying for, but are forced to make other arrangements.

Lolwut? FFS you a mess. I am not forced to pay for insurance to cover my health care. I choose to do so. My taxes aren't, and shouldn't be paying for my healthcare.. how much sense would that make?

I'd like to see the statistics for cancer survival

Already linked. Scroll up.

Nevertheless, I'll spell it out for you again. You're already paying more in tax than I am, to fund "socialised" healthcare you can't access.

Do you post drunk? On average Americans pay less taxes than you. I'm ok with that. I prefer to keep more of my resources and allocate them according to my choice. You prefer differently. I'm ok with that too.

Oh, we're back to "why do you hate America?"

Lol you're a piece of work. I never said that. I don't care if you hate America or not. I do wonder why you care so much that we have different preferences.

Excuse me? Are you really saying that every US citizenis richer than every British citizen? That's obvious nonsense. Care to reword that?

My assertion was accurate, as you know. Of course, since you knew that, you had to rephrase into an absolute absurdity. You don't help your credibility.

No, I mean the other people in your insurance pool, whom you expect to carry you if you develop an expensive medical condition.

I do no such thing. I pay an insurance company to cover my costs should they occur. They make a profit doing so. Their other customers do the same. They have no claim on me and I have no claim on them. We have claims on the insurance provider whom we paid for service.

The last sentence there, actually sounds like a call for the sort of universal healthcare we have here, where payments are on the basis of how much you can afford (tax according to means), not on how high a risk you're assessed as being.

If people who can afford health care are not subsidized then price competition will bring down costs. Look at procedure costs for example in India or Costa Rica where most health care is paid out of pocket. The mechanisms for cost control are well known, they work everywhere government doesn't meddle in markets. Then you subsidize people who actually can't afford it and those resources go farther than they would otherwise.

Regardless of how something is paid for, subsidy drives up costs. As we are not willing to let people die we have to subsidize some people. But subsidizing everyone is economically insane and a recipe for a broke health care system, as your NHS demonstrates so well.

I'll stick with the actual freedoms I actually enjoy.

The difference between us is I don't mind that you prefer different things.

I don't know anyone who gets to pick their employer-provided health plan, aside from government workers.

I can't speak for your experience but most people I know have different plans offered.

But of course employer based health care is a bad way to go about it. A good first step would be to shift the tax benefit to the individual.

So the only countries with UHC are ones in which the government takes over?

You think reductio helps your argument?

(I like Federer's torso better, but the camera keeps cutting away when he changes his shirt....)

I'm a runner not a weight lifter.

Add that to my 37-hour week, my 25 days (33 days including public holidays) paid holiday a year, freedom to take time off if I'm sick without losing my job, and the freedom to take home £2,600 (that's $4,160 at current exchange rates) per month after tax - and why on God's green earth would I conceivably be jealous of any American?

Why are you obsessed with our life?

In point of fact you might be envious of my compensation and time off, but it would be gauche to go into detail.

So what less freedom do I have than Faithkills has? None at all, as far as I can see.

That's wonderful. You're pleased with they way your nation is run and your place in it. Do you suppose that I want you to change?

We're talking about a proposed piece of legislation in America that is a mess and doesn't fix any of the problems and in fact would make things worse that Americans don't want that is in fact very little similar to your NHS.

Secondarily we're talking about tax burdens and I prefer less burden and more choice. That's probably a head scratcher to you. How could a person spend more thriftily or address their own needs than a government bureaucracy? That's crazy talk I know.

You like your burden and think the government spends more efficiently and wisely than you would do. That's a head scratcher to me.

I'm ok with that too

Vive le difference!

 

[Shalamar]

Do you post drunk? On average Americans pay less taxes than you. I'm ok with that. I prefer to keep more of my resources and allocate them according to my choice. You prefer differently. I'm ok with that too.

You are confused over what Rolfe is saying.

In the UK, he DOES pay in taxes than Americans do, *however* the amount of that tax burden that is placed towards the NHS, is *less* than the amount of taxes that Americans pay that go towards healthcare, and they cannot access it. You keep talking about overall Tax burden, when Rolfe is talking about a portion of that Tax burden.

Add to the fact that Rolfe can change jobs, without being forced to change Insurance providers, or even doctors (If your doctor isn't on the new insurance network). And if Rolfe is unemployed, access to fully funded Healthcare is still there without having to pay for expensive insurance such as COBRA.

 

[Sporanox]

In the UK, he DOES pay in taxes than Americans do, *however* the amount of that tax burden that is placed towards the NHS, is *less* than the amount of taxes that Americans pay that go towards healthcare, and they cannot access it. You keep talking about overall Tax burden, when Rolfe is talking about a portion of that Tax burden.

And that's with partial governmental coverage (in America). What we would see under full control scares me.

 

[Shalamar]

And that's with partial governmental coverage (in America). What we would see under full control scares me.

So why is it that the USA is the only country that can not, or is incapable of putting forward a viable single payer system that would be on par with, well, any other country that enjoys it?

 

[Faithkills]

I'm not forced to change providers if I change jobs. I'm forced to change providers if I want to get the tax subsidy, which is wrong and needs to be fixed. Actually it should be shifted to the individual and then slowly phased out.

And yes Shalamar I share that fear. It may be they have bureaucratic saints in the UK but we haven't them in the US.

The ways to fix health care in the US are easy.

Tort reform. Loser pays, just like in some European nations. This is needless overhead.
Insurance portability. Get rid of the antitrust exemption and allow interstate competition.
Remove the AMA/LCME's licensing authority. This is a provider supply monopoly that needs to end. Expanding demand without allowing supply to grow is a recipe for higher prices. Of course that's the whole point of the AMA.
Drug reimportation. The cost of maintaining pharma's IP 'rights' are too high.
Remove coverage mandates. We don't need to protect aromatherapy and acupuncture. If people want that in their plan fine. If not they shouldn't be forced. These drive up costs by creating needless demand. People will utilize resources if they are forced to pay for them.
Shift the tax break from employer to individual. Gradually devolve it. (along with all 'targeted' tax subsidies for that matter) Subsidies drive up demand and thus drive up costs.
Gradually devolve all public health for people who are not in poverty. These drive up costs for everyone.

Expand HSA's and specifically all HSA's must allow the owner to spend funds unused after a time period. Forcing them to spend on health care means they will spend on health care. This creates needless resource demand which drives up costs.

Consolidate public health into a genuine indigent care system which should be a combination of subsidized HSA's and a conventional NHS like system such that HSA's compete with the PHS. Funding follows participation.

 

[Francesca R]

You think it's a stretch that the majority of world medical tourism being to the most expensive wouldn't constitute the greatest amount by value?

What? You said "This 17% of our GDP figure that gets bandied about conveniently neglects the fact that's not all American's spending money, some of it helps our trade deficit." and "some of that 16% is you nice brits coming over to our medical system, [ . . . ] to help our trade deficit.".

But your evidence says nothing about how much. It does report global (all destinations) medical trips. And I assert that even if all those were to the US which they are not, the impact on US net health spending would be negligibly small. The US would still have 16% ish of domestic product going to health care for Americans.

So I dunno why you offered such a soundbite, given the substance behind it is trifling. Its almost as if you think the gargantuan net spend on health care in the US is a silly waste.

I never chose that, or anything here, as a 'definition of freedom'. I said they are good metrics.

You choose to define freedom narrowly. You said so. Specifically, you said:

Ultimately for me it boils down to how much of my life I have to spend working for the government.

That's up to you, but for you to state that "Faithkills defines freedom narrowly" is a lie, is itself a lie. You define freedom narrowly. More narrowly than the Heritage Foundation index and more narrowly than the CATO index too. And that's before we get to non-economic freedoms.
-

The difference is that I'm not asserting, rather strenuously, Rolfe adopt my preference.

Neither is she, neither am I asserting you adopt anything. So there's no difference is there? Kindly don't manufacture a difference where there is none.

First the relative happiness of people in the UK with the NHS is up for debate. Although certainly all the surveys done by the government do tell the people that the people are mostly happy. I'm sure they are much comforted. You seem to be.

I would prefer a universal system with insurance opened up to private competition, as is the case in most of continental Europe, over a single-payer system. I think--for example--the French, Dutch and Swiss systems are better than the UK. I suspect most Brits here prefer the NHS. Whatever. What you will find to be an overwhelmingly dominant preference--whoever does the survey--is that participants in a universal system absolutely do not want to entertain anything like the US system.

At least--if you have any data showing that citizens in any non-US OECD nation would on balance prefer the US system over theirs, please share it because I would like to see it for novelty value.

This discussion is about how you think you know better than us.

No it isn't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Drug reimportation. The cost of maintaining pharma's IP 'rights' are too high.

I don't think it's clear that this would do much to lower prices in the US. What it could mostly do is raise prices outside the US. But that's not our problem, so I'm not opposed to allowing this. If other countries want to protect their lower prices, they can forbid re-exporting.

 

[Faithkills]

What? You said "This 17% of our GDP figure that gets bandied about conveniently neglects the fact that's not all American's spending money, some of it helps our trade deficit." and "some of that 16% is you nice brits coming over to our medical system, [ . . . ] to help our trade deficit.".

But your evidence says nothing about how much.

Umm maybe that's why I made no quantitative assertions?

As we see in the very passages you quote.

Stay with me here. I said most world medical tourism is to the US. The US has the highest prices. I said some of the 16% figure is essentially exported services.

I don't make quantitative assertions without data, hence I didn't so assert. Some rough calculations put it in the billions but that would be guesswork.

You think it's 'negligible'. Fair enough, I can't refute that either.

So I dunno why you offered such a soundbite, given the substance behind it is trifling. Its almost as if you think the gargantuan net spend on health care in the US is a silly waste.

Nope just needlessly inflated.

You choose to define freedom narrowly. You said so. Specifically, you said:That's up to you, but for you to state that "Faithkills defines freedom narrowly" is a lie, is itself a lie. You define freedom narrowly. More narrowly than the Heritage Foundation index and more narrowly than the CATO index too. And that's before we get to non-economic freedoms.

And you are now lying. I have never defined freedom. I don't think arguments over definitions make for entertaining threads. Maybe you do.

I would prefer a universal system with insurance opened up to private competition, as is the case in most of continental Europe, over a single-payer system. I think--for example--the French, Dutch and Swiss systems are better than the UK.

I want a safety net. In the US we like safety nets. We don't like safety hammocks.

I suspect most Brits here prefer the NHS. Whatever. What you will find to be an overwhelmingly dominant preference--whoever does the survey--is that participants in a universal system absolutely do not want to entertain anything like the US system.

So? And you see overwhelmingly US absolutely don't want to entertain anything like the UK system.

Again, I don't see the problem here. People have different preferences. Oh.. the tragedy!

At least--if you have any data showing that citizens in any non-US OECD nation would on balance prefer the US system over theirs, please share it because I would like to see it for novelty value.

I would like to see that information as well. Though I'm not sure how edifying a poll of people who have a Rolfe like knowledge of the US system would be

We apparently all work three jobs and still can't afford health care and people are dying in the streets.

It's just so much work kicking the lepers out of the way on the way to work in the morning..

No it isn't.

Glad to hear it!

So you weren't trying to convince us that because most western nations have some form of socialized medicine that we should socialize ours more?

What was your point then?

 

[Rolfe]

Now, I said everybody has three jobs, and still can't afford healthcare, and people are dying in the streets....

The same way you said freedom was having a gun so you could steal from your neighbours, and everybody in the USA is richer than everybody in Britain.

Except, it really did look as if you said these last things.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The difference is that I'm not asserting, rather strenuously, Rolfe adopt my preference.

And indeed, would you point out anywhere I have asserted, strenuously or not, that you adopt mine? I began by challenging your assertions that "socialism" (apparently defined a having an overall tax rate higher than that of the USA and/or paying for things out of the public purse that are not so funded in the USA) was "slavery". Pointing out that this is nonsense is in no way asserting that you must change in any way. You began by criticising my preference, not the other way round.

Why do you feel the need to criticise the arrangements of other countries, in order to defend your own system?

First the relative happiness of people in the UK with the NHS is up for debate. Although certainly all the surveys done by the government do tell the people that the people are mostly happy. I'm sure they are much comforted. You seem to be.

Indeed. Which is a lot different from your original assertion that relying on the NHS was in effect a guarantee of dying on a waiting list.

The outcomes for major illness in the UK is nothing I am interested in duplicating. So if the option is free to be bankrupt or free to be dead I'll take bankrupt.

No, the option is to choose to rely on the system paid for by your taxes (which are still less than the tax take hypothecated in this direction in the USA, no matter how often you deny this), or to purchase your own healthcare insurance. Which will cost you less than it would in the USA, because, as I said, the insurance companies understand that a lot of the routine and almost all the emergency care will be picked up by the NHS anyway.

Note again your assumption that relying on the NHS is equivalent to "ending up dead". For the gadzillionth time, the NHS does not consist solely of waiting lists with dying people on them. In practice, you don't end up either dead or bankrupt, thankfully.

This discussion is about how you think you know better than us.

Er, no, it isn't. The part of the discussion you are engaging with most vehemently was sparked off by your assertions about socialism, slavery and inevitable death from untreated cancer which you apparently believe to represent life in countries with universal healthcare.

I'm not suggesting you fix your health care system. If you are happy with it that's terrific. I'm not suggesting you pay less taxes. I'm not suggesting you do anything whatsoever. As sons and daughters of Britain we clearly have some different preferences, especially with regard to how much we wish to be governed and how much we trust government and how much freedom we prefer. I think that's great. I'm all about diveristy.

Rhetoric about slavery and inevitable death from untreated cancer is a funny way of demonstrating your respect for diversity, I have to say.

This is pathetic. Does this sort of rhetoric fly around here now? I never said the taxpayer never benefits from what taxes are spent on.

You spoke of slavery, and of money "taken by the government" being equivalent to the forced labour of a slave. I point out that taxes are a fair contribution to the running of a society from which the taxpayer benefits.

Your basic error is assuming that had you t had the fruits of your labor taken that you couldn't have allocated them more wisely and efficiently.

You're sounding more and more like Jerome da Gnome. You seem to be reading from the same elementary catechism. "Fruits of your labour". "Taking at the point of a gun" and so on. Heard it all before. Jerome got his backside handed to him every time.

Well if they take 100% you're a slave. Would you consider yourself free at 90%? Apparently you do at 40%.

And you do, at 30% or whatever it is? Like I said, we've established what you are, we're only haggling about the price.

No. I was alluding to the concept of positive rights which you had already invoked, whether you knew it or not, but it went over your head. If you have the right to something it must be the power to take it from someone else, hence government guns.

I'm still unclear whether you're referring to your right to carry a gun, which I freely concede is a right you have and I don't, or whether we're back on Jerome's mantra of government taking your tax payments "at the point of a gun".

If you join him in suggesting that everyone who receives treatment from the NHS has taken it from their fellow-citizens at the point of a gun, then I give up. I'm not going there again.

Lolwut? FFS you a mess. I am not forced to pay for insurance to cover my health care. I choose to do so. My taxes aren't, and shouldn't be paying for my healthcare.. how much sense would that make?

You're not forced to pay for insurance in one sense of the word, but in another, yes, you are. "My car has broken down, so I was forced to take the bus." Well, you could have stayed home. Indeed. One assumes the speaker had a pressing reason for undertaking the journey regardless. In the same way, one assumes you value having healthcare coverage, as all your posts have indicated this. Thus, you are forced, or obliged if you like, to make some arrangement for that.

Your taxes are not paying for your healthcare. That was sort of my point. You're paying a bit more than I am in order to fund socialised medicine, but you're not getting any healthcare for that.

Are you sure that doesn't make you a slave, in any possible sense of the word?

Already linked. Scroll up.

I don't think so.

Do you post drunk? On average Americans pay less taxes than you. I'm ok with that. I prefer to keep more of my resources and allocate them according to my choice. You prefer differently. I'm ok with that too.

Do you read the forum drunk?

It is of absolutely no relevance whether or not we pay more taxes to fund the army, or the old age pension, or mending the roads, or running the universities. WE PAY LESS IN TAX TO FUND THE NHS THAN YOU PAY TO FUND MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.

Find another thread if you want to criticise the areas where our tax spend does actually exceed yours.

Lol you're a piece of work. I never said that. I don't care if you hate America or not. I do wonder why you care so much that we have different preferences.

Go back and review the thread. I came into this in response to a series of posts that described the British system as "socialism", slavery, and implied that anyone in the country who developed cancer could look forward to nothing but dying on a waiting list.

Why do you have such a need to criticise arrangements in another country when trying to defend your own?

My assertion was accurate, as you know. Of course, since you knew that, you had to rephrase into an absolute absurdity. You don't help your credibility.

You said that Americans are, individually, all richer than British people. What did you actually mean? because I have no freaking clue.

I do no such thing. I pay an insurance company to cover my costs should they occur. They make a profit doing so. Their other customers do the same. They have no claim on me and I have no claim on them. We have claims on the insurance provider whom we paid for service.

Oh, way to wiggle! February's sophistry award is a certainty already! Your entire purpose in purchasing insurance is to ensure that if the need arises you will receive back goods and services worth far more than the amount you paid in. Where do you think this money is coming from? Clever investments? Of course it's coming, largely, from the other customers whose needs just happen to be less than they paid in. Thus, you are expecting these people to carry you, if you need it.

If people who can afford health care are not subsidized then price competition will bring down costs. Look at procedure costs for example in India or Costa Rica where most health care is paid out of pocket. The mechanisms for cost control are well known, they work everywhere government doesn't meddle in markets. Then you subsidize people who actually can't afford it and those resources go farther than they would otherwise.

Regardless of how something is paid for, subsidy drives up costs. As we are not willing to let people die we have to subsidize some people. But subsidizing everyone is economically insane and a recipe for a broke health care system, as your NHS demonstrates so well.

The subject for more detailed discussion, I believe. However, you might like to look at the incomes of medical providers in the countries you mention. I just wonder if the USA as a whole would be comfortable with its medical profession being on the same sort of level.

The difference between us is I don't mind that you prefer different things.

Well, I'm happy for you. The other difference between us is that I don't gratuitously jump into discussions and start calling other groups of people slaves.

Why are you obsessed with our life?

In point of fact you might be envious of my compensation and time off, but it would be gauche to go into detail.

I'm not particularly concerned with your life. However, when you come along and start carrying on about your marvellous freedoms that apparently we don't have, and all this because you aren't cursed with universal healthcare, I start wondering what these actually are.

You simply can't answer that at all. Apart from some mention of guns that wasn't very clear, but I'm quite happy to leave you your guns.

When you persist in declaring that I, as a Brit, am so poor and so enslaved, I merely feel the impulse to point out that I'm not actually especially poor, or disadvantaged, or enslaved. And that I seem to have quite a few freedoms you apparently don't.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're a lot richer than I am. I know there are many very rich Americans, just as there are many very rich Brits. And I know it's usually the very rich ones that come out with this guff about slavery and "fruits of my labour" and "taking at the point of a gun".

You seem to think I should prefer to be the sort of American who works 18 hours a day for the minimum wage, just for the sheer "freedom" of it all, and the privilege of paying a few dollars less in tax.

Thanks, I'll pass.

That's wonderful. You're pleased with they way your nation is run and your place in it. Do you suppose that I want you to change?

We're talking about a proposed piece of legislation in America that is a mess and doesn't fix any of the problems and in fact would make things worse that Americans don't want that is in fact very little similar to your NHS.

Secondarily we're talking about tax burdens and I prefer less burden and more choice. That's probably a head scratcher to you. How could a person spend more thriftily or address their own needs than a government bureaucracy? That's crazy talk I know.

You like your burden and think the government spends more efficiently and wisely than you would do. That's a head scratcher to me.

I'm ok with that too

Vive le difference!

Fine. Carry on. Discuss the US system and how it's good and/or bad and how it might be altered, or not as the case may be.

It's just a bit odd that you seem to feel the need to call other people slaves, while you're at it. You like your situation. Great. Just don't go round claiming superpowers like FRRREEEEEEEEEDOMMMMMM!!!!!, just because your tax percentage is a couple of points lower, when your actual actions are in fact a lot more constrained.

Rolfe.