What is the current Republican position on this?

[Drachasor]

As I wrote before, "evidence" means "from what is seen". Anecdotes, in other words. People in this discussion objected to my evidence, and moderators allowed insults in response. That's tiresome. The world is a pile of anecdotes. From anecdotes (i.e., data) people extract statistics. I have read statistics on wait times to see a doctor and on post-diagnostic success that favor the US. Again, as I wrote before, the taxpayers of one medium-sized US State could provide medical care ("coverage") for the Earth's entire human population if "medical care" means one band-aid and one aspirin per person per year, but the entire Earth's GDP would be insufficient to keep even one person alive forever.

Maybe no one takes your side that seriously because you are just citing your personal experience and opinions with absolutely no studies or statistics backing up ANYTHING you say. If you've read this stuff, then link to it.

I'm not the one promising eternal life. Quite the opposite; I have observed repeatedly that everyone is going to die. So please quit misrepresenting my argument,

Hilarious. No one is promising eternal life. You are the one acting like people are promising it, no one has said anything of the sort. You are acting like medical care doesn't have limits where more money can't be used to buy anything. It doesn't. You are the one acting like medical care can keep spending more and more and more money on people with no limit. It can't. You are the one acting like there is always another procedure or medication. There isn't.

Again, people with health care don't die because they don't have enough money being spent on them. They die because our medical care has very real limits on what it can do. More money doesn't change those limits. Eternal life isn't possible and no one is saying that it is. The only person repeatedly bringing it up is you.

The question is vague. Lots of problems with control over medical decisionmaking by a remote, rule-bound bureaucracy.

The question isn't vague. Name some problems that would exist with government, but not the private industry.

E.g. you say problems exist, so what are they? If you can't even specify what you are talking about here, then why should anyone take it seriously?

Dunno what "this" refers to. As to the "live longer" part, we've been over this.

Yes, you claimed all other first world countries must have other factors that meant they lived longer, without naming what any of those other factors were.

I then provided a link showing that a large difference was due to medically preventable deaths. You didn't respond to that.

Same for governments. The State is a bunch of guys with guns. Guns do not make people wiser or more compassionate. You've presented statistics on expenditures per capita and as a fraction of GDP. These say nothing about the quality of care that medical treatment budgets deliver.

Longer lives due to medically preventable deaths being prevented is something I presented. You ignored it. Here's another one.

But sure, quality of care studies are there, here's a paper that compiles them all. US healthcare is no better than other systems in the vast majority of areas and it is worse in several aspects.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Lots of problems with control over medical decisionmaking by a remote, rule-bound bureaucracy.

This is already the way insurance works, with private insurance. It already is a remote, rule bound bureaucracy (I'll note that the paperwork and procedures involved in working with private insurance far exceeds those required for Medicare on the provider side of things). Private insurance already has the ultimate decision in whether or not a patient's treatment is covered, and can overrule a doctor and a patient's decision on what they want for health care.

Where is your proof that the government doing this would be somehow more dangerous for the individual than a private enterprise? They both benefit financially if you die rather than get expensive treatment.

And why do you keep claiming that other people here are claiming people can live forever? No one lives forever. You can have the best medical coverage on God's green earth and get all your healthcare covered with no problem, that doesn't mean your treatment will be successful. No one's arguing that universal healthcare = eternal life. But for many people, universal healthcare does in fact = a better quality of life, and/or more years of life because it gives them access to healthcare they would not otherwise have.

And I'll ask you again, why do you consider a book written by a little known right wing poitical advocate with no medical credentials and no experience in healthcare a valid resource for you to research healthcare systems, unless you are just looking for someone to validate your ideology rather than get actual facts?

I'll also ask you again: why would (as you claimed) a person with Medicare, who has to pay 20% for all their MD visits, be more likely to over use their services than a person with private insurance who has to pay $0 for their MD visits just because the person with Medicare's plan is subsidized?

Maybe no one takes your side that seriously because you are just citing your personal experience and opinions with absolutely no studies or statistics backing up ANYTHING you say. If you've read this stuff, then link to it.

What's more, they site opinions that are demonstrably false. I.E. Steve's opinion that denials don't occur. Or Malcolm's opinion that medical advances are stifled under universal healthcare.

And what I find most eggregious is that Malcolm said in reply to me, "No, everything you say is a false Democratic talking point."

When then repeatedly invited by me to point out what I said that was an untrue Democratic talking point, he repeatedly was unable to do so. He also then stated that his only possible response to my points was to swear at me, which mods don't allow.

Malcolm, I will ask you one more time. What information have I presented in this thread that is an untrue Democratic talking point?

 

[rustypouch]

Lots of problems with control over medical decisionmaking by a remote, rule-bound bureaucracy.

That's why I like the system I have, and don't want US style health care.

I can't speak for other systems, but here in Alberta, each doctor's office is a privately owned company. The doc treats the patient whoever he deems necessary. The bill is sent to the government, who then pays. I don't have to deal with the very real situation of having care denied because it will eat into corporate profits.

 

[BenBurch]

That's why I like the system I have, and don't want US style health care.

I can't speak for other systems, but here in Alberta, each doctor's office is a privately owned company. The doc treats the patient whoever he deems necessary. The bill is sent to the government, who then pays. I don't have to deal with the very real situation of having care denied because it will eat into corporate profits.

I had the chance to be sponsored into Canada and I turned it down because I felt I should remain here and fight for that sort of thing. I wonder if I erred?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's why I like the system I have, and don't want US style health care. I can't speak for other systems, but here in Alberta, each doctor's office is a privately owned company. The doc treats the patient whoever he deems necessary. The bill is sent to the government, who then pays. I don't have to deal with the very real situation of having care denied because it will eat into corporate profits.

The State cannot pay for medical care without a definition of "medical care". "The doc treats the patient whoever he deems necessary. The bill is sent to the government, who then pays." That's "however", right? What if the doctor decides to treat hypochondria with hookers and single malt scotch? Care will inevitably be denied for everyone who does not die by accident (and even some of those). At some point, keeping an unresponsive lump of meat at 37 C. isn't worth another dime. The argument between socialists and free marketeers turns on who decides, that is all.

 

[Drachasor]

The State cannot pay for medical care without a definition of "medical care". "The doc treats the patient whoever he deems necessary. The bill is sent to the government, who then pays." That's "however", right? What if the doctor decides to treat hypochondria with hookers and single malt scotch? Care will inevitably be denied for everyone who does not die by accident (and even some of those). At some point, keeping an unresponsive lump of meat at 37 C. isn't worth another dime. The argument between socialists and free marketeers turns on who decides, that is all.

Again, you are making up problems where none exist. Your argument works equally well for all sorts of medical care, actually, including insurance companies.

In the real world this sort of problem doesn't come up to a significant degree, and it affects all sorts of medical care (though perhaps private insurance more than public).

Seems like you are arguing that health care would be more expensive when provided by the State. This isn't the case. It's cheaper and just as effective as I've already provided evidence to demonstrate those facts. Maybe you should examine the evidence before making more straw man arguments against UHC.

 

[BenBurch]

Not only is health case cheaper when done by a Universal system, but many other aspects of government itself get cheaper and the net result is not much more expense of government. And it has the benefit of fostering business, and expanding the tax base by keeping people in the employment pool longer.

 

[Travis]

The State cannot pay for medical care without a definition of "medical care". "The doc treats the patient whoever he deems necessary. The bill is sent to the government, who then pays." That's "however", right? What if the doctor decides to treat hypochondria with hookers and single malt scotch? Care will inevitably be denied for everyone who does not die by accident (and even some of those). At some point, keeping an unresponsive lump of meat at 37 C. isn't worth another dime. The argument between socialists and free marketeers turns on who decides, that is all.

Do you really think no one would notice if a doctor starts treating someone with prostitutes?

And why should anyone trust free marketeers to decide whether someone else lives or dies? Especially when that company's profits are tied into making sure that person dies?

 

[rustypouch]

The State cannot pay for medical care without a definition of "medical care". "The doc treats the patient whoever he deems necessary. The bill is sent to the government, who then pays." That's "however", right? What if the doctor decides to treat hypochondria with hookers and single malt scotch? Care will inevitably be denied for everyone who does not die by accident (and even some of those). At some point, keeping an unresponsive lump of meat at 37 C. isn't worth another dime. The argument between socialists and free marketeers turns on who decides, that is all.

Yeah, I made a typo/brainfart. It was supposed to be however.

But if there's a doctor that prescribes whisky and hookers, I'd love to see him. But if you want to go into the realm of the absurd, we can do that. For now, I'll consider you just a little dense.

Perhaps I should make it simpler: in the system in my province, doctors decide what treatment the patient needs. Profit is not a factor. In free market systems, profit is a motivating factor, as has been pointed out by several people here.

And since cost seems to be a major concern to you, keep in mind that you pay more in taxes to pay for health care than I do. But you don't have access to this, and must cover the costs of your care all by yourself.

 

[bikerdruid]

The State cannot pay for medical care without a definition of "medical care". "The doc treats the patient whoever he deems necessary. The bill is sent to the government, who then pays." That's "however", right? What if the doctor decides to treat hypochondria with hookers and single malt scotch? Care will inevitably be denied for everyone who does not die by accident (and even some of those). At some point, keeping an unresponsive lump of meat at 37 C. isn't worth another dime. The argument between socialists and free marketeers turns on who decides, that is all.

i see that you know nothing about socialized medical care in the real world.
you really should learn a few things before you post more codswallop like this.
it must be embarrassing for you.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...if there's a doctor that prescribes whisky and hookers, I'd love to see him. But if you want to go into the realm of the absurd, we can do that. For now, I'll consider you just a little dense.

Likewise. The obvious point: what is "medical care"?

Perhaps I should make it simpler: in the system in my province, doctors decide what treatment the patient needs. Profit is not a factor. In free market systems, profit is a motivating factor, as has been pointed out by several people here.

"Profit" is a bookkeeping term: the difference between total costs and total revenues. An organization which has no line in its balance sheet for "profit" must attribute all revenues to costs. This says nothing about the motives of the people in that organization. Doctors can be greedy and crooked. Patients may become complicit in fraud by physicians.

 

[Drachasor]

Likewise. The obvious point: what is "medical care"?

Strawman argument. No insurance company or state-run health system has trouble defining what medical care is. There are no issues here.

"Profit" is a bookkeeping term: the difference between total costs and total revenues. An organization which has no line in its balance sheet for "profit" must attribute all revenues to costs. This says nothing about the motives of the people in that organization. Doctors can be greedy and crooked. Patients may become complicit in fraud by physicians.

Motives matter, and profit as a prime motivating force in health care objectively doesn't work well. At least if you compare America's system to any other first world country. The profit motive makes health care cost more and cover less and provides zero advantages.

 

[bikerdruid]

Likewise. The obvious point: what is "medical care"?"Profit" is a bookkeeping term: the difference between total costs and total revenues. An organization which has no line in its balance sheet for "profit" must attribute all revenues to costs. This says nothing about the motives of the people in that organization. Doctors can be greedy and crooked. Patients may become complicit in fraud by physicians.

in any country with a successful socialized medical system, profit is not an issue.
this is the root of the american problem........greed.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

in any country with a successful socialized medical system, profit is not an issue.
this is the root of the american problem........greed.

I do not agree with the equation "profit" = "greed". "Profit" is a bookkeeping term: the difference between total revenues and total costs. An organization which has no line in its balance sheet for "profit" must attribute all revenues to costs. This says nothing about the motives of the people in the organization. Bureaucrats in State-run organizations and tax-exempt organizations can be just as greedy as can people in organizations which pay corporate income taxes. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, more altruistic, or more capable (except to the extent that they gain access to the tools of State violence) when they enter the State's employ. Quite the contrary: guns attract thugs.

 

[bikerdruid]

I do not agree with the equation "profit" = "greed". "Profit" is a bookkeeping term: the difference between total revenues and total costs. An organization which has no line in its balance sheet for "profit" must attribute all revenues to costs. This says nothing about the motives of the people in the organization. Bureaucrats in State-run organizations and tax-exempt organizations can be just as greedy as can people in organizations which pay corporate income taxes. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, more altruistic, or more capable (except to the extent that they gain access to the tools of State violence) when they enter the State's employ. Quite the contrary: guns attract thugs.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7626704&postcount=290

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Strawman argument. No insurance company or state-run health system has trouble defining what medical care is. There are no issues here.

We could not be farther apart, here. Except for traditional medicine in primitive cultures, most drugs (e.g. retrovirals, gene therapies), devices (artificial heart valves, insulin implants, artificial hips and knees), and procedures (coronary bypass, diet therapy) start as uncertain ideas and move through animal experimentation, human experimentation, conditional approval for some limited class of patient, expanded approval, and then in reverse (more limited approval => evidence of malpractice) as alternatives come on line.

Motives matter, and profit as a prime motivating force in health care objectively doesn't work well. At least if you compare America's system to any other first world country. The profit motive makes health care cost more and cover less and provides zero advantages.

We disagree.

Joel Fried
Pots and Kettles: Governance Practices of the Ontario Securities Commission

2. The Government’s Principal – Agent Problem
The principal-agent problem for the private sector is well known: the owner/principal delegates to a manager/agent the responsibility to provide some services for the principal.
The problem is one of structuring contracts and institutions to insure that, in carrying out her duties, the agent acts in the principal’s interest rather than her own.
Citizens of a country also face a principal – agent problem. Citizens “own” the machinery of government and employ bureaucrats to act as their agents in running this machinery. To reduce the costs of monitoring, the principals choose a legislature/board of directors to oversee the agents. Monitoring mechanisms are similar to those in the private sector: there are financial accounting standards that are met for each budgetary unit, and an external auditor checks these internal accounts. Transparency is maintained, in part, through freedom of information regulations. Compliance with procedures and other regulations are met both through internal monitoring and checks by units external to the bureau. Finally, contracts are structured, at least in a limited manner, to align the incentives for agents with those of the principals.
There is, however, an additional problem in the public sector that does not exist for private firms. The firm has a well defined objective function – the maximization of profits – whereas the apparent objective for the government is the maximization of some index of a (weighted) level of welfare of the electorate. An unambiguous index of social welfare has been impossible to construct and, in its absence, monitoring the public sector is further complicated because data is generally lacking on whether or not the objective was actually approached and/or achieved and what the costs are that are linked to any specific objective. In effect, because of distribution issues and public goods, the cash flows measured with traditional accounting procedures will be, at best, only superficially correlated with that objective. Thus, looking at cash flows will provide the principals an extremely poor method of monitoring their public sector agents.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Do you really think no one would notice if a doctor starts treating someone with prostitutes?

So what if they did? According to people here, all the doctor has to do is say it was medically indicated and the taxpayers would have to foot the bill.

And why should anyone trust free marketeers to decide whether someone else lives or dies? Especially when that company's profits are tied into making sure that person dies?

Because in an uncoerced, unsubsidized market in goods and services, there is no "someone else". People would pay for the services they want.

 

[Drachasor]

We could not be farther apart, here. Except for traditional medicine in primitive cultures, most drugs (e.g. retrovirals, gene therapies), devices (artificial heart valves, insulin implants, artificial hips and knees), and procedures (coronary bypass, diet therapy) start as uncertain ideas and move through animal experimentation, human experimentation, conditional approval for some limited class of patient, expanded approval, and then in reverse (more limited approval => evidence of malpractice) as alternatives come on like.

So? Again, State-run systems have zero problem defining health care taking all of this into account.

We disagree.

Joel Fried
Pots and Kettles: Governance Practices of the Ontario Securities Commission

Doesn't really matter. Seems like a motive issue to me when insurance companies are denying claims to people that need medical care so that there's more profit. Call that whatever you want, but it's still an objective fact that State-run health care works better than private insurance.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So? Again, State-run systems have zero problem defining health care taking all of this into account.

Flat false. Part of the "problem" is the uncertainty at every step in the process. That cannot be wished away. Neither can the other part: the different values which people place on human life. Does a death-row inmate with liver cancer get a lung transplant? Does a 92 year-old get a kidney transplant? Won't the value of an artificial hip or knee implant depend on the expected years of active life?

Doesn't really matter. Seems like a motive issue to me when insurance companies are denying claims to people that need medical care so that there's more profit. Call that whatever you want, but it's still an objective fact that State-run health care works better than private insurance.

We will all be denied or deny ourselves care we "need". Everybody dies. For every human for every dollar-denominated amount of medical resources __$X__, no matter how small, there will come a time such that some additional increment of longevity expectation __Y__days, is not worth __$X__.

 

[rustypouch]

So what if they did? According to people here, all the doctor has to do is say it was medically indicated and the taxpayers would have to foot the bill.Because in an uncoerced, unsubsidized market in goods and services, there is no "someone else". People would pay for the services they want.

Yes, I was simplifying, in the hopes that you might understand. But instead, you turn it ridiculous.

Here's some light reading: http://www.health.alberta.ca/professionals/fees.html

So people would pay for the services they want. What if they want to live, but don't have the money for treatment? You're okay with letting people die because they don't have a few hundred thousand dollars just sitting around?

But you still haven't addressed one point. How do you feel about paying more in taxes to cover health care than I do, and not having access to these services?