What is the current Republican position on this?

Oh wow, so other first world countries don't have universal health care? Please explain.
First of all, the universe is not sick. Second: politicians in democratic States everywhere face similar incentives. Socialism is a self-congratulatory power fantasy: "What a wonderful world it would be if I ran it". Add to this the incentives of prospective recipients of the State's health care expenditures, and you get State-run or State-funded health care.
 
Why shouldn't you? I never argued against a basic level of police protection.
...
Ah yes, the "if you believe in some limits, therefore you have to believe in the complete extreme" straw man.
...
Because I believe in certain basic limited services are best delivered through the government.

We just want to understand WHY you think fire and police services are fine, but health care is not. All provide help in an emergency, are more efficiently handled by government, cover unforeseeable disasters (genetic defects, statistically unlikely illnesses, etc), and so forth.

What makes health care different?
 
First of all, the universe is not sick. Second: politicians in democratic States everywhere face similar incentives. Socialism is a self-congratulatory power fantasy: "What a wonderful world it would be if I ran it". Add to this the incentives of prospective recipients of the State's health care expenditures, and you get State-run or State-funded health care.

I think we both know what "Universal Health Care" means when we are speaking of government programs. Your disagreement with the semantics aside.

It's a fact that Health Care for all residents is cheaper when it is run by the State, just as effective, and covers everyone. Whatever you call it, it is just a better deal. Americans pay upwards of twice as much for health care compared to other first world countries, and the treatments are no better, the prognoses are no better, and the efficacy of care is no better.
 
We just want to understand WHY you think fire and police services are fine, but health care is not. All provide help in an emergency, are more efficiently handled by government, cover unforeseeable disasters (genetic defects, statistically unlikely illnesses, etc), and so forth.

What makes health care different?
You'll note that I agreed that BenBurch proposal has merit as long as it is funded by everyone participating, such as taxes through food or other goods that everyone buys, and is structured right. I don't have much confidence in the way government is currently running Medicare with it's $47.9 billion in fraudulent payments in 2010.
 
I can see an argument for compulsory vaccination, since there is a prisoner's dilemma aspect to the individual's calculation of whether to seek vaccination.
That's not unique to vaccinations.
Immunity conferred through risky preemptive treatment is nearly unique to vaccination against communicable disease, seems to me. What other social ill poses a similar prisoner's dilemma?
For most other issues of individual health, each individual has sufficient incentive to maintain health that State attention to this is likely redundant and expensive.Roads do not respond to incentives and cannot maintain themselves. People do, and can.
Ahh, so you favor tax incentives so that people maintain healthy habits then?
Not in general. People have sufficient incentive w/o tax incentives to stay healthy.
I have not used professional medical services in 20 years.Define "adequate".
Oh, right, because you are lucky and haven't had any health problems, everyone can do without. I suppose you ignore the fact that a good bit of that is pure luck?
I make my own luck. When I was younger, I would buy health insurance in the season that Oahu got large surf. I never had to use it. I got a laceration from coral on the last big South swell and treated it myself. I'll have a scar. Next time I'll use superglue for sutures.
We all, ultimately, receive "inadequate" health care. LBJ was a snake. Medicare is unconstitutional and one of the major contributors to the unsustainable US debt.
The only problem with it is that it isn't universal and it is crippled by law (e.g. it can't negotiate medication prices). Looking at other First World countries it is pretty clear that provided health care can work just fine.
We disagree about the "just fine" part. "Universal" would make it more expensive.
The welfare State cannot last. Politicians have made more promises than they can keep. The longer policymakers defer addressing the entitlement issue, the narrower and less favorable their options will become. How to gracefully default is a complex issue. I don't know. Yes, better not to have made these promises in the first place.
What's your evidence that Social Security can't last? It's perfectly fine through 2038 and after that if NOTHING is done, it will still be fine at 80% payouts. The only reason for the problems is really the growth disparity.
That's a long discussion. Maybe later.
Up to you and your grandparents. Inevitably, somebody or some body decides when to pull the plug on grandma. It will either be family or some committee in Washington. Take your pick. Just don't pretend that the State can confer eternal life.
You are not familiar with the fact that one of the reasons Social Security was implemented was because old people were dying in the streets? Get rid of that and you'll see a lot more homeless old people dying.
Doubt the reason. Old homeowners will die. Old apartment dwellers will die. Everybody dies.
 
Ah yes, the "if you believe in some limits, therefore you have to believe in the complete extreme" straw man. You seem to have quite the habit of throwing out straw men in many of your postings.

Not a straw man at all

You set the standard:
There is risks everywhere of course. Don't expect everyone else to make your life risk free.

And then you turn around an advocate for fire and police services. What you don't do is provide a reason why these particular services should be exempt from your standard.

Based on this principle in which none of us should expect everyone else to make our lives risk-free, why should my taxes go to pay for fire and police services for you?
 
You'll note that I agreed that BenBurch proposal has merit as long as it is funded by everyone participating, such as taxes through food or other goods that everyone buys, and is structured right. I don't have much confidence in the way government is currently running Medicare with it's $47.9 billion in fraudulent payments in 2010.

Going with Johnny Karate, is your argument that there might be too much Fraud and our government is too incompetent/corrupt to handle it, or that medical risk is somehow different than crime or fire risk?
 
Well this thread has gotten rather depressing. It's looking more and more like if I do get cancer sometime soon I'm screwed. No matter how treatable it is.
 
Immunity conferred through risky preemptive treatment is nearly unique to vaccination against communicable disease, seems to me. What other social ill poses a similar prisoner's dilemma?

A healthier person is less prone to infection. A healthier population is harder for an infection to spread throughout. One disease can potentially make you vulnerable to others by weakening the immune system. A healthier population helps everyone in this way.

Not in general. People have sufficient incentive w/o tax incentives to stay healthy.

That's manifestly not the case.


I make my own luck. When I was younger, I would buy health insurance in the season that Oahu got large surf. I never had to use it. I got a laceration from coral on the last big South swell and treated it myself. I'll have a scar. Next time I'll use superglue for sutures.

That's BEING lucky, not making your own luck. Getting hit by a car, getting meningitis, getting pneumonia that is resistant to antibiotics, getting a disease that wrecks one of your organs, getting cancer, etc, etc, are all things that can happen to someone doing "everything right." You can't "make your own luck" to avoid them, but you can be lucky enough to avoid them all, as you are.

We disagree about the "just fine" part. "Universal" would make it more expensive.

When you look at total costs all Americans together spend on Health Care, it is actually cheaper to go with a universal system.

That's a long discussion. Maybe later. Doubt the reason. Old homeowners will die. Old apartment dwellers will die. Everybody dies.

Old people who can't work can't live in apartments or homes. They die in the streets.
 
Well this thread has gotten rather depressing. It's looking more and more like if I do get cancer sometime soon I'm screwed. No matter how treatable it is.

You can try getting in touch with a doctor or something and see what can be worked out.
 
(Malcolm): "I can see an argument for compulsory vaccination, since there is a prisoner's dilemma aspect to the individual's calculation of whether to seek vaccination.
(Drachasor): "That's not unique to vaccinations.
(Malcolm): "Immunity conferred through risky preemptive treatment is nearly unique to vaccination against communicable disease, seems to me. What other social ill poses a similar prisoner's dilemma?
(Drachasor): "A healthier person is less prone to infection. A healthier population is harder for an infection to spread throughout. One disease can potentially make you vulnerable to others by weakening the immune system. A healthier population helps everyone in this way.
Agreed. The difference is that you benefit if everyone else gets vaccinated and you don't. That's the tragedy of the commons aspect (the tragedy of the commons is a multi-person prisoner's dilemma with memory). Vaccination carries a risk, so it's better to avoid it if everyone else gets vaccinated.

(Malcolm): "For most other issues of individual health, each individual has sufficient incentive to maintain health that State attention to this is likely redundant and expensive. Roads do not respond to incentives and cannot maintain themselves. People do, and can."
(Drachasor): "Ahh, so you favor tax incentives so that people maintain healthy habits then?"
(Malcolm): "Not in general. People have sufficient incentive w/o tax incentives to stay healthy."
(Drachasor): "That's manifestly not the case."
Looks to me most people try to stay healthy. If they don't, I don't see what the goons with the guns (the State) can do about it.

(Malcolm): "I have not used professional medical services in 20 years. Define 'adequate'."
(Drachasor): "Oh, right, because you are lucky and haven't had any health problems, everyone can do without. I suppose you ignore the fact that a good bit of that is pure luck?"
(Malcolm): " I make my own luck. When I was younger, I would buy health insurance in the season that Oahu got large surf. I never had to use it. I got a laceration from coral on the last big South swell and treated it myself. I'll have a scar. Next time I'll use superglue for sutures."
(Drachasor): "That's BEING lucky, not making your own luck. Getting hit by a car, getting meningitis, getting pneumonia that is resistant to antibiotics, getting a disease that wrecks one of your organs, getting cancer, etc, etc, are all things that can happen to someone doing "everything right." You can't "make your own luck" to avoid them, but you can be lucky enough to avoid them all, as you are."
Taking care of myself is not "luck". Hedging your bets (e.g., buying seasonal insurance) is not "luck".
Please define "adequate".

(Malcolm): "We all, ultimately, receive "inadequate" health care. LBJ was a snake. Medicare is unconstitutional and one of the major contributors to the unsustainable US debt."
(Drachasor): "The only problem with it is that it isn't universal and it is crippled by law (e.g. it can't negotiate medication prices). Looking at other First World countries it is pretty clear that provided health care can work just fine."
(Malcolm): "We disagree about the "just fine" part. "Universal" would make it more expensive."
(Drachasor): "When you look at total costs all Americans together spend on Health Care, it is actually cheaper to go with a universal system."
I doubt that. Across industries, monopolies deliver wretched performance at high cost, and stifle innovation, and subsidized goods are over-consumed.


(Malcolm): "The welfare State cannot last. Politicians have made more promises than they can keep. The longer policymakers defer addressing the entitlement issue, the narrower and less favorable their options will become. How to gracefully default is a complex issue. I don't know. Yes, better not to have made these promises in the first place."
(Drachasor): "What's your evidence that Social Security can't last? It's perfectly fine through 2038 and after that if NOTHING is done, it will still be fine at 80% payouts. The only reason for the problems is really the growth disparity."
(Malcolm): "That's a long discussion. Maybe later."
(Drachasor): "Why save money for the elderly, when you can just have people spend it when they are young. No reason to make a system to prop up old people and keep them from dying on the streets, right?"
(Malcolm): "Up to you and your grandparents. Inevitably, somebody or some body decides when to pull the plug on grandma. It will either be family or some committee in Washington. Take your pick. Just don't pretend that the State can confer eternal life."
(Drachasor): "You are not familiar with the fact that one of the reasons Social Security was implemented was because old people were dying in the streets? Get rid of that and you'll see a lot more homeless old people dying. "
(Malcolm): "Doubt the reason. Old homeowners will die. Old apartment dwellers will die. Everybody dies. "
(Drachasor): "Old people who can't work can't live in apartments or homes. They die in the streets. "
Or not, if they saved for retirement, or educated their kids well and live with them, or their social network supports them. Governments displaced all of these with subsidized alternatives and do a worse job.
 
Agreed. The difference is that you benefit if everyone else gets vaccinated and you don't. That's the tragedy of the commons aspect (the tragedy of the commons is a multi-person prisoner's dilemma with memory). Vaccination carries a risk, so it's better to avoid it if everyone else gets vaccinated.

You likewise benefit if everyone else is really healthy and fit even if you aren't. Fewer contagions going around.

Looks to me most people try to stay healthy. If they don't, I don't see what the goons with the guns (the State) can do about it.

Yeah, everyone doing really well at that is why obesity is a growing problem. There's certainly things the State can do to encourage healthy behavior and the existence of healthier foods.

Taking care of myself is not "luck". Hedging your bets (e.g., buying seasonal insurance) is not "luck".

Not getting hit by a car, suffering any major illness or accident IS luck. The average person might have decent chances of that happening, but it is intellectually dishonest to propose that such a strategy is feasible for a population as a whole or to even say who in particular it would work for beyond the lucky ones.

Lots of people take care of themselves. That doesn't mean they can prevent unexpected medical problems from coming up. You have been fortunate not to experience any of that.

Please define "adequate".

If you are going to repeat a question I missed, at least have the courtesy to quote or mention what it was in regards to.

(Drachasor): "When you look at total costs all Americans together spend on Health Care, it is actually cheaper to go with a universal system."
I doubt that. Across industries, monopolies deliver wretched performance at high cost, and stifle innovation, and subsidized goods are over-consumed.

Doubting it does not make it not true. Hmm, I provided this link to you in another thread and you ignored it there.

(Drachasor): "Old people who can't work can't live in apartments or homes. They die in the streets. "
Or not, if they saved for retirement, or educated their kids well and live with them, or their social network supports them. Governments displaced all of these with subsidized alternatives and do a worse job.

Tons of people fall through the cracks. This is a historic fact. It's even worse if a recession hits or some other financial disaster wipes out the investments of people. Hmm, good thing that no longer happens, right?

If you are going to be advocating this, then you are either going to have to propose who this would be avoided this time around (note: private charity was insufficient before), or be ok with homeless old people dying. Maybe those old people don't have family, maybe their family sucks, maybe they have kids that don't like them, maybe they didn't save money well or lost their investments. The exact causes don't matter, only that plenty of people would end up this way does. Lots of people suck at seriously planning for the future and especially future accidents.*

*Like unforeseeable medical problems.
 
Immunity conferred through risky preemptive treatment is nearly unique to vaccination against communicable disease, seems to me. What other social ill poses a similar prisoner's dilemma? Not in general. People have sufficient incentive w/o tax incentives to stay healthy.I make my own luck. When I was younger, I would buy health insurance in the season that Oahu got large surf. I never had to use it. I got a laceration from coral on the last big South swell and treated it myself. I'll have a scar. Next time I'll use superglue for sutures.We disagree about the "just fine" part. "Universal" would make it more expensive. That's a long discussion. Maybe later. Doubt the reason. Old homeowners will die. Old apartment dwellers will die. Everybody dies.


non sense. I shared the same surf with you I surfed for over 30 years at a high level and having lived on the North Shore serious injuries happens to the best guys regardless of skill level. The fact that you have been lucky to this point is pure luck.

Your point on universal health care costing more again is non sense and has no evidence to support your assertion. countries around the world with universal health care pay far less.
 
All Americans already have access to health care, housing, food and anything else that is sold in the U.S. If you can't afford it, that is a different matter. Like anything else that you may want but can't afford, you'll have to do without, borrow from someone, find charity, or lobby for a law to be passed that will force someone else to pay for what you want.

What I have noticed in my time as a financial counselor is that many of my conservative patients may not believe they are entitled to government money (which is more the opinion of left leaning patients who get very upset when they can't qualify for medicaid or other government health assistance programs), they have an extreme sense of entitlement to charity. I think this comes from the Republican mantra that charity has the ability of picking up their costs. Also, Bush was fond of saying that a hospital can't turn a patient away. Now that's true in some cases, but that doesn't mean we can't charge them for it, which we do. And that's only for emergencies, i.e. you will die right away if you don't get this service. If it's something that, if you go without it, won't kill you now, but will eventually (like not getting a transplant or a needed drug), hospitals absolutely can and do refuse these services.

So for instance, their doctor will want to use a very expensive infusion drug. Their insurance refuses to cover the drug. We tell the patient that they will have to pay us however many thousands of dollars (perhaps reaching into hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars) the drug costs if they want it, unless we can successfully get them some kind of drug assistance through the drug company directly or through some other kind of charitable assistance programs. Sometimes the drug has a really good drug assistance program through the pharmaceutical company and we can get the person what they need. Sometimes they're just getting something that either doesn't have a charity for it, or they don't qualify for that charity.

They are then furious the hospital will not provide the drug for free. They will scream and cry and curse me and ask how I can sleep at night and tell me how horrible we are that we won't give them the drug they need to live. We explain to them that though our hospital offers a lot of financial assistance, it is limited to certain kinds of patients (for instance, those in state). Even for those who qualify, the kind of assistance they can receive from us is often limited. I explain that we are one of the top hospitals in the world, and people come from all over the world to receive services here. That though we are non profit, we are not a free hospital. We could not afford to operate as a free hospital/research center. They tell me things like "well if my insurance won't cover it, that's your problem, not mine."

And then, they will end the conversation with, "This is Obama's fault." Even though Obama has nothing to do with anything and this is the way it's been since we've been a hospital.

I make my own luck. When I was younger, I would buy health insurance in the season that Oahu got large surf. I never had to use it.

Did you know that babies can be born with cancer? It happens, usually some kind of brain cancer like glioma or glioblastoma. Then that baby, if it lives and grows up, has a preexisting condition that will make it either disqualified from getting insurance, or the premiums will be exorbitantly expensive. Or maybe the cancer treatment needed to save its life has severe effects on the baby's cognitive abilities, and when it grows up, it will lack the mental capacity to have the kind of job that has good insurance, or at least pays them enough to buy their own. But hey, I guess it's the baby's fault for not "making it's own luck."
 
Last edited:
Well this thread has gotten rather depressing. It's looking more and more like if I do get cancer sometime soon I'm screwed. No matter how treatable it is.

Don't give up on the CA program for people with preexisting conditions. I believe you will qualify.
 
You likewise benefit if everyone else is really healthy and fit even if you aren't. Fewer contagions going around.
The incentive structure is not the same. Vaccination poses a health risk to each individual. I'm better off avoiding vaccinaton if everyone else gets vaccinated, yet each individual's decision, made in isolation, leads to a tragedy of the commons. That's the argument for collective coercion.

(Malcolm): "Looks to me most people try to stay healthy. If they don't, I don't see what the goons with the guns (the State) can do about it."
Yeah, everyone doing really well at that is why obesity is a growing problem. There's certainly things the State can do to encourage healthy behavior and the existence of healthier foods.
Why suppose that the result of aggregated decisoinmaking will improve upon the aggregate result of individual decisionmaking, here? This is not analogous to vaccination. State subsidies change the individual's risk calculation such that aggregate costs will increase, seems to me.

(Malcolm): "Taking care of myself is not "luck". Hedging your bets (e.g., buying seasonal insurance) is not "luck"."
Not getting hit by a car, suffering any major illness or accident IS luck. The average person might have decent chances of that happening, but it is intellectually dishonest to propose that such a strategy is feasible for a population as a whole or to even say who in particular it would work for beyond the lucky ones. Lots of people take care of themselves. That doesn't mean they can prevent unexpected medical problems from coming up. You have been fortunate not to experience any of that.
You buy insurance appropriate to the risks you take. Or you take risks appropriate to the insurance you have. That was the point of my seasonal insurance example.

(Malcolm): "Please define "adequate"."
If you are going to repeat a question I missed, at least have the courtesy to quote or mention what it was in regards to.
(Drachasor): "Expense at the extremes of health care doesn't really justify not giving everyone adequate health care, which is exceedingly affordable. In fact, even the vast, vast majority of the more extreme cases aren't all that expensive for society to cover."

(Drachasor): "When you look at total costs all Americans together spend on Health Care, it is actually cheaper to go with a universal system."
(Malcolm): "I doubt that. Across industries, monopolies deliver wretched performance at high cost, and stifle innovation, and subsidized goods are over-consumed."
Doubting it does not make it not true. Hmm, I provided this link to you in another thread and you ignored it there.
I'll look into it. Skeptically.
Lots of people take care of themselves. That doesn't mean they can prevent unexpected medical problems from coming up. You have been fortunate not to experience any of that.
So? What's the point, here? How does a State presence in the medical treatment industry or the medical care insurance industry improve things?
Tons of people fall through the cracks. This is a historic fact. It's even worse if a recession hits or some other financial disaster wipes out the investments of people. Hmm, good thing that no longer happens, right?
Derail. Long discussion possible here about the government's role in subsidizing and mandating risky behavior by banks. To the "fall throught the cracks" part: that's true and it will be true in any system. The cracks will be larger in an inflexible bureaucratic State-monopoly system.

(Drachasor): "Old people who can't work can't live in apartments or homes. They die in the streets."
(Malcolm): "Or not, if they saved for retirement, or educated their kids well and live with them, or their social network supports them. Governments displaced all of these with subsidized alternatives and do a worse job."
If you are going to be advocating this, then you are either going to have to propose who this would be avoided this time around...
Engrish, prease.
...(note: private charity was insufficient before)
Every strategy is insufficient. Everybody dies.
...or be ok with homeless old people dying.
I'm okay with everybody dying. As P. J. O'Rourke observed, natural selection doesn't work on things that don't die. The brain is an evolved organ. Without death, we'd not have even the brains of amoeba, and be unable to appreciate love and loss. Homeless old people die. Young people in secure homes die. Why suppose that the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in your neighborhood (the State) has any positive contribution to make to longevity? It's not their area of expertise.
...Maybe those old people don't have family, maybe their family sucks, maybe they have kids that don't like them, maybe they didn't save money well or lost their investments. The exact causes don't matter, only that plenty of people would end up this way does. Lots of people suck at seriously planning for the future and especially future accidents.*
*Like unforeseeable medical problems.
I don't see any obvious economies of scale in the pension or nursing home business that imply a useful role for a State presence in these industries. As I wrote before, the "public goods" argument for State (government, generally) provision of charity contains a flaw: corporate oversight is a public good and the State itself 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 charity transforms the "free rider" problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.
 

Back
Top Bottom