single-payer system ... singled out

[Random]

Other than ones you are opposed to, is there really no government-provided service that you don't consider a fundamental right?

Public transit I suppose. I don’t really see that I have a right to it, just that it is good public policy.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

This is a completely false representation of my position. I do not think that I have a fundamental right to have a city park near my house. But that doesn't require that I therefore oppose having one. I don't. It's a nice perk, and I'm glad to have it. There is no conflict between wanting government to provide some service and thinking that it's not a fundamental right. But thanks for trying to tell me what I believe.

So are you saying you would be happy either way, whether poor, sick people got adequate care, or got the bare minimum, or got nothing?

 

[Ziggurat]

Public transit I suppose. I don’t really see that I have a right to it, just that it is good public policy.

Do you find it illogical that someone might look at healthcare in a similar manner?

 

[Ziggurat]

So are you saying you would be happy either way, whether poor, sick people got adequate care, or got the bare minimum, or got nothing?

No, that is not what I am saying.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

No, that is not what I am saying.

Sheesh, its like getting blood out of a stone...

So do you think that it would be preferable if poor people had access to good healthcare, you just want someone else to pay for it? And if nobody else will pay for it, then hard luck?

Help us out here...

 

[Random]

Do you find it illogical that someone might look at healthcare in a similar manner?

So, you would like UHC? Then what’s the problem? Look around the equally effective and much cheaper Europe models, pick and chose the best bits, then let’s do it! We kicked the British out in the 1770’s, bailed them out of two world wars, and still found time to land on the moon. If they can have UHC, I’m damn sure we can!

 

[Darat]

I think what Architect said about this should be repeated, for emphasis.

If a patient believes he has not got the care he should have received under the NHS, he can indeed take this to the legal system. There he will find a champion, an advocate, who will fight his case for him. This may well be funded under legal aid, depending on the circumstances.

However, this happens rarely, because it's rare for anyone not to be given the care they are entitled to. But if it does, emergency judicial review, the whole nine yards. And what's more, if it is a point of principle and the patient is successful, that judgement will be binding on the health service, and subsequent patients in the same situation won't have to go through it all again.

Rolfe.

And it's not as if our Drs and consultants and nurses and speech therapists and physiotherapists and dentists and so on don't "fight the system" on behalf of their patients, they do.

 

[Darat]

So, you would like UHC? Then what’s the problem? Look around the equally effective and much cheaper Europe models, pick and chose the best bits, then let’s do it! We kicked the British out in the 1770’s, bailed them out of two world wars, and still found time to land on the moon. If they can have UHC, I’m damn sure we can!

And I am sure that the Brits in this thread will agree that our "UHC" system is not the best in the world and that none of us are arguing that the USA should copy the NHS model. However since so many countries manage to deliver as least as good universal health care as the NHS it is inconceivable that the USA can't. You could even do what you did in the 1770's and again rely on the French for your model!

 

[Ziggurat]

So, you would like UHC?

I didn't say that. I was pointing out that your statements regarding healthcare as a right weren't even internally consistent with other things you believed. But I am not opposed to some government provision of health care, particularly in regards to children.

Look around the equally effective and much cheaper Europe models, pick and chose the best bits, then let’s do it!

Sure. Let's start with Medicare. Once we prove we can make things better with government involvement, then we can expand from there.

If they can have UHC, I’m damn sure we can!

I'm sure we can too. That's not the issue.

 

[Ziggurat]

You could even do what you did in the 1770's and again rely on the French for your model!

Oooh, that's a low blow.

 

[Architect]

I cannot possibly defend actual US practices against the socialist utopian vision that the residents of small-population countries claim to enjoy.

1. There are 60 million people in the UK. You'd be pushing your luck to describe that as "small population".

2. If you want, we can add up - say - France, Germany, Scandanavia, the Low Countries, and the UK. That's a couple of hundred million. All with UHC.

3. Stop complaining about utopian visions. Defend the statistics. It costs you double what it costs us, for no tangible health benefits as far as the figures tell us. Why is this, and why is it not simply wrong to squander so much money?

 

[Architect]

No, that is not what I am saying.

If you're complaining that nobody is understanding what you say, then perhaps it's time to consider how you're saying it.

 

[Rolfe]

I didn't say that. I was pointing out that your statements regarding healthcare as a right weren't even internally consistent with other things you believed. But I am not opposed to some government provision of health care, particularly in regards to children.

Oh, let's not get into the concept of what is or is not or should be or shouldn't be a "right". Rights are what your society grants you. So, I have a right to healthcare, USA citizens do not. This fact, not ethical speculation.

You can certainly formulate the argument as should Americans have a right to healthcare. However, this tends to be a counterproductive way of putting it, since many Americans don't like the concept of rights - or at least not ones they don't have already.

Should a modern, rich, civilised society arrange its communal finances so as to provide healthcare to all its citizens. Well, yes, I think. Your mileage may differ. However, I think the conversation will advance better if it's not couched in the language of human rights.

Sure. Let's start with Medicare. Once we prove we can make things better with government involvement, then we can expand from there.

I fail to see the point. You have a complicated system with a number of inbuilt disadvantages. So you want to struggle to make that better first, as a precondition for replacing it with something a lot simpler and without the disadvantages.

That's logical how, again?

I'm sure we can too. That's not the issue.

OK, so we now consider that maybe the piss-up in the brewery is possible. So why not? Teetotal or something?

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

Do you find it illogical that someone might look at healthcare in a similar manner?

Generally speaking, people don't die without public transport.

 

[Praktik]

Oooh, that's a low blow.

My french teacher in high school always mangled that one. "Ohh, thats a blow-low"

Which would get us all sniggering, or alternately, fantasizing. She was a petite blonde and those french women can make "you left your soiled undies on my pillow" sound hot with their accents.

 

[Ziggurat]

1. There are 60 million people in the UK. You'd be pushing your luck to describe that as "small population".

It's about a 5th of the US.

2. If you want, we can add up - say - France, Germany, Scandanavia, the Low Countries, and the UK. That's a couple of hundred million. All with UHC.

And all administered independently. Which makes totaling them up in order to compare them collectively to the US a rather meaningless exercise.

3. Stop complaining about utopian visions. Defend the statistics. It costs you double what it costs us, for no tangible health benefits as far as the figures tell us. Why is this, and why is it not simply wrong to squander so much money?

There are probably many causes. And yes, it's bad to waste money, nobody is actually denying that. But what NOBODY here has been able to do is offer any reason to think that we can dramatically expand the scope of government health care without dramatically expanding our costs as well. Whatever the reasons for these cost differentials, there's simply no reason to think that they'll just vanish once government takes over, because they already exist where government HAS taken over. Major cost differentials will remain even if we do what you're saying we should do. And so one of your primary arguments for why we should do it (to save money) doesn't actually stand up to real scrutiny.

 

[Ziggurat]

I fail to see the point. You have a complicated system with a number of inbuilt disadvantages. So you want to struggle to make that better first, as a precondition for replacing it with something a lot simpler and without the disadvantages.

That's logical how, again?

What are these inbuilt disadvantages? And why do you think Medicare cannot be simplified? And if it can't be, then why would the health care system as a whole be amenable to simplification? How is it that a much bigger system, which will have to cover more diverse situations and would include everything already under the smaller system, can avoid the problems of the smaller system it envelops, as well as be simpler than it?

That's logical how, again?

 

[Rolfe]

As has been suggested ad infinitum, if 300 million of a population is too big to handle, do it on a state-by-state basis and then have reciprocity. That's exactly how it works in the EU, with a population of about the same magnitude.

I think it's up to you to explain why the great US of A can't manage what every other developed country can do, which is deliver universal healthcare at the cost of under 10% of GDP. So far all you've come up with is multiple variations on the piss-up in the brewery argument.

Just to give you a help up. If citizens are demanding unneccesary expensive procedures, you exclude these from your entitlement, and allow people to purchase these privately, with or without insurance. You'll soon see how many people find they can manage just fine on the state-funded entitlement if you get this right - that is, only exclude the genuinely luxury items.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

What are these inbuilt disadvantages? And why do you think Medicare cannot be simplified? And if it can't be, then why would the health care system as a whole be amenable to simplification? How is it that a much bigger system, which will have to cover more diverse situations and would include everything already under the smaller system, can avoid the problems of the smaller system it envelops, as well as be simpler than it?

That's logical how, again?

Gotta go. However, encouraging people to allow chronic conditions to deteriorate until they're 65 is a disadvantage. Complicated billing and entitlement systems are a disadvantage.

I just can't believe how complicated your system is, to the point where I'm astonished it hasn't imploded decades ago.

Rolfe.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Would those costs exist if the healthcare system was funded by the government? For example, would you be required?

Only if all of healthcare were funded by the government. Not just the doctors, but the drug companies as well. They'd have to be nationalized. The government can't afford to buy drugs at those prices.