What is the current Republican position on this?

[Drachasor]

I saw that Kaiser study of aggregate costs. Means nothing. Here's a bit from the material below: "Canadian governments simply reduce their expenses by limiting the service."\

I then presented a compilation of studies showing that the effectiveness of care in other first world countries is as good or better than the USA. I also presented another study showing that the increased lifespan in other countries is because they have better health care, and the USA loses years because of medically preventable deaths. Add that in with the USA spending a lot more money, and you clearly have an idiotic policy in the USA.

I am amused that in either this thread or another thread you used the concept of positive externalities, yet you seem to seek to deny that Health Care is one. Hilarious.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I saw that Kaiser study of aggregate costs. Means nothing. Here's a bit from the material below: "Canadian governments simply reduce their expenses by limiting the service."

I then presented a compilation of studies showing that the effectiveness of care in other first world countries is as good or better than the USA. I also presented another study showing that the increased lifespan in other countries is because they have better health care, and the USA loses years because of medically preventable deaths. Add that in with the USA spending a lot more money, and you clearly have an idiotic policy in the USA.
I am amused that in either this thread or another thread you used the concept of positive externalities, yet you seem to seek to deny that Health Care is one. Hilarious.

Here's every link that Drachasor has posted in this discussion. NONE of them supports the "better" part of "better and cheaper". One of them disputes it.

PGH found this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...out-the-uninsured-may-have-hit-close-to-home/

Also, actually go and look into the potential savings from Tort reform.

Tort reform, not comparative system performance.

Read the history on it.

Note the poverty rate among the elderly was over 50% when SS was enacted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Health_care_spending

From this link:

Another study found that the mortality gap between the well-educated and the poorly educated widened significantly between 1993 and 2001 for adults ages 25 through 64; the authors speculated that risk factors such as smoking, obesity and high blood pressure may lie behind these disparities.[110] In 2011 the United States National Research Council forecasted that deaths attributed to smoking, on the decline in the US, will drop dramatically, improving life expectancy; it also suggested that 1/5 to 1/3 of the life expectancy difference can be attributed to obesity which is the worst in the world and has been increasing.[111] In an analysis of breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer diagnosed during 1990–1994 in 31 countries, the United States had the highest five-year relative survival rate for breast cancer and prostate cancer, although survival was systematically and substantially lower in black U.S. men and women.[112]

The debate about U.S. health care concerns questions of access, efficiency, and quality purchased by the high sums spent. The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in responsiveness, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study

Blue Cross Blue Shie#Details_on_specific_organizationsld
...A little research or just reading my previous posts here would have got you covered here.

Again, socialized medicine is CHEAPER by leaps and bounds.

Whether medical treatment provides positive externalities ar not (I have not asserted otherwise) is not the issue. The difference between socialists and free marketeers turns on their assessment of the contribution that State attention to medical treatment can make.

 

[stokes234]

Weak. So's oxygen necessary to the existence of a civilized society.

I'm not going to get into a huge argument over semantics with you. If you believe that governments are corporations, don't just state it thirty times, try and use that to make an actual point. They are massively different since one exists as a result of being democratically elected and serves to direct infrastructure, military, healthcare, education, emergency services etc while the other exists to create and/or sell products and/or services for maximum profit to their shareholders. This is fairly obvious, and so unless you can explain why you believe the potential tiny overlap in legal definitions is important, you're not really saying anything.

 

[stokes234]

1. The "economies of scale" argument does not justify a role for government in the medical care industry, the education industry, the pension industry, or the charity industry generally, beyond the role that governments play in the home appliance industry or the clothing industry.
2. Governments attention does not solve free rider problems, it only changes their form.

If you believe this to be true, can you point to some examples of successful, rich societies that don't have these services run by government?

 

[Drachasor]

Here's every link that Drachasor has posted in this discussion. NONE of them supports the "better" part of "better and cheaper". One of them disputes it.

None of them dispute it. You're overreacting to small variations in survival rates to certain diseases. On the whole there's no advantage to the US system, and with particular diseases there are either tiny advantages or significant disadvantages.

Also, here's two links you missed:

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.

 

[stokes234]

I already did. Go back three posts. Follow the link. Here.

In your link, the only actual quote from NICE says "NICE chairman Michael Rawlins acknowledged that his agency's decisions deprive some patients of drugs that may extend their lives by several months or more."

Your claim was:"The British government will refuse to pay for care if remote authorities calculate that the quality of life of a patient they have never seen is below their statistical expectations."

But this isn't true. The British government won't restrict treatment based solely on quality of life, it will only restrict treatment if the length of life gained is only a few months. Feel free to prove me wrong - find some examples where someone is predicted 2 years, or 10 years of life with poor quality of life and gets refused treatment as a result. All your previous link does is show that both are simultaneously taken into account in extreme situations. Oh, and just like in the US, people are free to get private health insurance or seek private treatment on top of that, and we pay roughly the same for the public healthcare we receive - the primary difference being that we're all entitled to it, while only about 30% of americans are entitled to theirs (and often have to wade through large amounts of paperwork and means testing to get it).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'm not going to get into a huge argument over semantics with you.

There follows a semantic argument:...
(Stokes): "If you believe that governments are corporations, don't just state it thirty times, try and use that to make an actual point. They are massively different..."
Governments are corporations, according to dictionary definition and the IRS code.
(Stokes): "... since one exists as a result of being democratically elected...["
North Korea? Are you kidding? Even the British government does not exist "because it was democratically elected" unless the Norman invasion qualifies as an election.
(Stokes): "...and serves to..."
...(S)atisfy the desires of people in government.
(Stokes): "...direct infrastructure, military, healthcare, education, emergency services etc while the other exists to create and/or sell products and/or services for maximum profit to their shareholders. This is fairly obvious, and so unless you can explain why you believe the potential tiny overlap in legal definitions is important, you're not really saying anything."
Unions are 501-c(5) corporations. Most independent schools are 501-c(3) corporations. The overlap is NOT important. The point remains the same if you substitute "institutional" for "corporate" and "institution" for "corporation" in ...

...The "public goods" argument for State provision of charity (e.g., medical care) contains (inter alia) this flaw: oversight of corporate functions is a public good and the State is a corporation. Therefore, oversight of State functions is a public good which the State itself cannot provide. State assumption of responsibility for the provision of public goods transforms the "free rider" problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not solve it.

Are we now going to get into an argument over whether the State is an "institution"?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In your link, the only actual quote from NICE says "NICE chairman Michael Rawlins acknowledged that his agency's decisions deprive some patients of drugs that may extend their lives by several months or more."

a) That's not a quote from a NICE representative. Those are the reporter's words.
b)The article quoted NICE chairman Rawlins elsewhere.

Your claim was:"The British government will refuse to pay for care if remote authorities calculate that the quality of life of a patient they have never seen is below their statistical expectations."

But this isn't true. The British government won't restrict treatment based solely on quality of life, it will only restrict treatment if the length of life gained is only a few months. Feel free to prove me wrong...

Dunno what constitutes "proof". The article asserts otherwise. If treatment costs over $47,000 per "quality" year of life gained, the Health Service will not support the treatment (and "treatment" is not restricted to drugs).

 

[bikerdruid]

it is interesting to note that the greatest opponents of socialized medicine are those who have never had it.
ignorance seems to be the cause of their complaints.
those who have lived with socialized medicine support it.

]weird, eh?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Drachasor): "I then presented a compilation of studies showing that the effectiveness of care in other first world countries is as good or better than the USA."
(Malcolm): "Here's every link that Drachasor has posted in this discussion. NONE of them supports the "better" part of "better and cheaper". One of them disputes it."

None of them dispute it.

False.

You're overreacting to small variations in survival rates to certain diseases.

From a Drachasor link:

In an analysis of breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer diagnosed during 1990–1994 in 31 countries, the United States had the highest five-year relative survival rate for breast cancer and prostate cancer, although survival was systematically and substantially lower in black U.S. men and women.

and the "certain diseases" just happen to be the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the US, according to this site. Survival rates for untreated breast and prostate cancer are significantly lower than are survival rates for treated cancers. Further:...

Colorectal cancer -- cancer of the colon and rectum -- is the second leading cause of cancer mortality in America.

And those "particular diseases" came from a Drachasor link.

On the whole there's no advantage to the US system, and with particular diseases there are either tiny advantages or significant disadvantages.

The US system is MORE responsive, according to a Drachasor link.

 

[bikerdruid]

The US system is MORE responsive, according to a Drachasor link.

...perhaps for those who can afford it.
why are american conservatives so strongly against helping those less fortunate?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

it is interesting to note that the greatest opponents of socialized medicine are those who have never had it.
ignorance seems to be the cause of their complaints.
those who have lived with socialized medicine support it.

If you disagree with me, you must be ignorant. It's the only possible explanation, right?

(leftysergeant): "...it appears that you...assume that everyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant schmuck. Had you some demonstrable skill set, we might think that your opinion is well-founded."

weird, eh?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Malcolm): "The US system is MORE responsive, according to a Drachasor link."

...perhaps for those who can afford it.

The charity argument.

...why are american conservatives so strongly against helping those less fortunate?

Why are socialists everywhere so enamored of government as the instrument of charity?

 

[bikerdruid]

it is interesting to note that the greatest opponents of socialized medicine are those who have never had it.
ignorance seems to be the cause of their complaints.
those who have lived with socialized medicine support it.

]weird, eh?

If you disagree with me, you must be ignorant. It's the only possible explanation, right?

(leftysergeant): "...it appears that you...assume that everyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant schmuck. Had you some demonstrable skill set, we might think that your opinion is well-founded."

weird, eh?

the point is that you argue from what you have read.
we form our opinion based on our experience.
simply put, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[MelonyR]

I didn't read the whole thread, but with regards to Republicans and positions...the answer is always, Missionary.

(at least in public)

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

the point is that you argue from what you have read. we form our opinion based on our experience.

Anecdotal evidence, in other words. Maybe Druid could have an informative argument with

You've also repeatedly ignored evidence posted that disagrees with your position. I've posted numerous links and you IGNORE THEM. Your arguments don't have a leg to stand on.

and

agreed.

Simply put, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[stokes234]

There follows a semantic argument:...
(Stokes): "If you believe that governments are corporations, don't just state it thirty times, try and use that to make an actual point. They are massively different..."
Governments are corporations, according to dictionary definition and the IRS code.
(Stokes): "... since one exists as a result of being democratically elected...["
North Korea? Are you kidding? Even the British government does not exist "because it was democratically elected" unless the Norman invasion qualifies as an election.

Fine - since the discussion was about public services and your belief that the government shouldn't provide them, I assumed the discussion was related to countries where this was even a potential branch of discussion. You go ahead and argue semantics all day, i'm going to debate actual points. Although i'd like to remind you that you actually didn't find a dictionary definition of governments as being corporations.

Unions are 501-c(5) corporations. Most independent schools are 501-c(3) corporations. The overlap is NOT important. The point remains the same if you substitute "institutional" for "corporate" and "institution" for "corporation" in ...Are we now going to get into an argument over whether the State is an "institution"?

More semantics. If to you anything that is an institution is also a corporation, fine. Just don't pretend that that automatically means that you can say anything wrong with a corporation is also wrong with governments, because there are dramatic differences as I have previously explained. Given a list of Halliburton, Shell, Walmat, and three governments of any country, a ten year old would be able to tell you which were govenrments and which were corporations, because they are very different things.

 

[stokes234]

Dunno what constitutes "proof". The article asserts otherwise. If treatment costs over $47,000 per "quality" year of life gained, the Health Service will not support the treatment (and "treatment" is not restricted to drugs).

Since your claim was that the British government makes decisions based on quality of life, try finding examples where this is the case where length of life wasn't the primary concern.

 

[bikerdruid]

Anecdotal evidence, in other words. Maybe Druid could have an informative argument withand Simply put, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

whatever....
the fact remains that you argue from ignorance, and lack of experience.
my anecdotal evidence, and that of my family and friends, who have all been well served by our system, trumps your ignorance.
as i pointed out, the only ones who oppose socialized medicine are those who have never lived with it.

please answer the question...
why are americasn conservatives so unwilling to help their less fortunate neighbours?

 

[stokes234]

(Drachasor): "I then presented a compilation of studies showing that the effectiveness of care in other first world countries is as good or better than the USA."
(Malcolm): "Here's every link that Drachasor has posted in this discussion. NONE of them supports the "better" part of "better and cheaper". One of them disputes it."

I'll post one.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2004/10/28/hlthaff.w4.487.full.pdf

This paper shows that more people in the four countries with UHC are happy with their healthcare, they have lower out of pocket costs, more of them have a regular doctor, 3 out of 4 received treatment faster than in the US last time they needed it, they all found it easier to get evening and weekend treatment, fewer had access problems due to costs, they rate their ER treatment higher, they're happier with their pain treatment, they recieved fewer tests they felt were unneccessary, they had more frequent reviews on their medication and had the side effects explained better to them, they had fewer delays and fewer incorrect results from lab tests, they understood their doctors better and were happier with the amount of time spent with them, less frequently left their doctors with unanswered questions, more commonly followed their doctors advice, and there's more I just can't be bothered typing up.

There are other similar studies in previous threads on UHC. Basically, the US does certain cancer treatments better and has better treatment for the richest members of society, but there are plenty of other functions performed better by universal healthcare systems. At the end of the day people are happier with UHC, and given the blurriness between the other advantages and disadvantages of each system, and the fact that UHC seems to cost half as much, i'll go with the cheaper, happier system any day of the week. Oh, and not having to worry about paperwork, or your children dying because they got sick when you were out of work, also a plus.