Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments).

He then mentioned that we already have some socialized services in the USA, which people have no problem with. He used the example of fire departments, which provide service to everyone and are not expected to turn a profit. He argued that if fire departments were forced to maximize revenues for shareholders, it would be a terrible idea that might compromise safety in life-or-death situations. Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

This seemed like a reasonable argument to me. Am I wrong for thinking this?

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments).

He then mentioned that we already have some socialized services in the USA, which people have no problem with. He used the example of fire departments, which provide service to everyone and are not expected to turn a profit. He argued that if fire departments were forced to maximize revenues for shareholders, it would be a terrible idea that might compromise safety in life-or-death situations. Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

This seemed like a reasonable argument to me. Am I wrong for thinking this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's gonna be a tough sell around here...where half the people don't even agree with his point about socialized fire departments.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"?

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they would be incompetent. All capitalists are. Then they fire their workers. See Roger and Me.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]

Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments).

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the biggest problems with socialized ___________ is the difficulty (impossibility) or performing economic calculations well. Think about how complex medicine is. How long should doctors be in school/residency? How much training do nurses need? How many ways should each specialize? How many of each are needed? How much do we pay them to get the number and quality that we need? How do you decide between doctors who specialize in organ transplants, and foot surgeons? There are millions of questions to answer when discussing how to go about figuring out quality and quantity needs. Profits and losses are used as a way to figure out if you are providing enough of service X or to much of product Y.

[ QUOTE ]

He then mentioned that we already have some socialized services in the USA, which people have no problem with. He used the example of fire departments, which provide service to everyone and are not expected to turn a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

People don't care about the fire department because its 0.1% the size and complexity of the health care industry. Its less prevalent in people's lives, but if a million peoples homes caught fire every day you would damn sure want a system in place that would figure out how much fire protection to provide the best safety to cost ratio.

Micheal Moore likes to pretend that we have limitless resources, and that we ought to just give them away to anyone who asks without thinking about how this effects availability to others, and how this effects future generations.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Around the turn of the last century we had for-profit fire departments. They did in fact do a half-assed job and compromised safety. That's why they were socialized.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Around the turn of the last century we had for-profit fire departments. They did in fact do a half-assed job and compromised safety. That's why they were socialized.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?!?! You mean that The Market didn't solve all of the problems? Shocking!

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments).


[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmmmmm.....seems like there is a written contract and the court system that alleviates this strawman of an argument


also, insurance companies compete with each other to get market share--it's not like they can treat their customers like crap if their customers have a brain

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Around the turn of the last century we had for-profit fire departments. They did in fact do a half-assed job and compromised safety. That's why they were socialized.

[/ QUOTE ]Not all fire departments are socialized. Where I live you have a choice to subscribe for fire service, If you don't subscribe and your house catches fire the fire department will watch it burn.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which shows that Moore is even dumber than those who don't accept evolution and think the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

[ QUOTE ]

Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments).

[/ QUOTE ]

I only buy insurance which is beneficial to *me*. That means insurance which covers all procedures deemed medically necessary by my doctor. Just like any other business, it does not benefit the shareholders for the insurance company to commit fraud or to default on it's coverage. This is especially true in a competitive industry in a free market.

[ QUOTE ]

Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

This seemed like a reasonable argument to me. Am I wrong for thinking this?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are so wrong it's scary.

That health-care is often life or death makes it even MORE vital that the industry not be destroyed by government regulation or socialization. If the computer/software industry had been socialized circa 1980, do you think we'd now have better and more available computers and apps? How about the aircraft industry in the early/mid 20th century? Would passenger air travel now be safer and cheaper? Of course not, and health care is no different.

However, the situation is even worse than that. If health care is socialized, what we'll never see are the possibly revolutionary, life-saving new medicines and procedures which would have been invented, but never come to be. The loss here is similar to the "broken window" fallacy demonstrated in Henry Hazlitt's lesson, but on a life or death scale.

Socializing health care will not only make it less available and of lower quality, in the longer-term it will destroy life-saving innovation. It is the dumbest idea ever.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are so wrong it's scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, as I am trying to learn more about this subject. But, don't other countries have socialized healthcare programs that work, by and large, pretty well? And don't these countries sometimes invent life-saving new medicines and procedures? I mean, it's not only America making advances in medicine, is it?

As for the insurance issue... many people get their health insurance through their jobs, so their choices are limited to whatever their employer has. Also, the for-profit nature of insurance leads to 150-page coverage documents written in jargon and legalese, which most people don't understand (and don't even read) until they are denied coverage for something they assumed would be covered.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are so wrong it's scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, as I am trying to learn more about this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know; just trying to emphasize how vigorously I disagree with the idea.

[ QUOTE ]

But, don't other countries have socialized healthcare programs that work, by and large, pretty well?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's difficult to judge, since:

-- All countries (including the U.S.) regulate/socialize health care and the economy in general to various degrees.

-- We don't really know how much better the quality of health care would be in those countries if it wasn't socialized. Again, I refer you to Hazlitt's "broken window" fallacy.

-- The socialized countries do benefit from advances made in the freer economies. For example, I gather computers & software are reaonably cheap & available in Sweden. This is surely due in part to the (relative) free market in that industry in the U.S. and Japan. I wonder how many people in Sweden would have pc's if the U.S. and Japan had socialized the computer/microchip industry 30 years ago?

[ QUOTE ]

And don't these countries sometimes invent life-saving new medicines and procedures? I mean, it's not only America making advances in medicine, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is no way to know what additionally *would* have been developed. How can you compare?

[ QUOTE ]

As for the insurance issue... many people get their health insurance through their jobs, so their choices are limited to whatever their employer has. Also, the for-profit nature of insurance leads to 150-page coverage documents written in jargon and legalese, which most people don't understand (and don't even read) until they are denied coverage for something they assumed would be covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

It still comes down to crappy if not fraudulent service. If so many insurance companies really do business that way, I'll start my own company which does not give customers the run around, and I'll become very wealthy and successful. The freer the market is, the easier it will be for such competitors to compete.

That many people buy health insurance through jobs is not relevant. If I don't like the choices offered by my employer, I'll look for a job with better benefits or better pay to buy my own. Again, that's only possible in a free market.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
He then mentioned that we already have some socialized services in the USA, which people have no problem with. He used the example of fire departments, which provide service to everyone and are not expected to turn a profit. He argued that if fire departments were forced to maximize revenues for shareholders, it would be a terrible idea that might compromise safety in life-or-death situations. Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

This seemed like a reasonable argument to me. Am I wrong for thinking this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think you are wrong for thinking this. For one thing, I think it is wrong to assume that having a profit mechanism will make things worse or inefficient; if anything, the opposite is true. Without a price structure (which would at least allow for profits, though not at the exclusion of charity), there is no real way of efficiently allocating resources (Mises argues this point well in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth).

But beyond this point, I think part of the problem is that the desire for 'socialized' medicine is present mostly because our system is so horrible. So a proponent of socilized medicine asks: what system is better, our current one or a socilized one (like Sweden?). And honestly, I'm not sure that a socialized system wouldn't be better than what we have. But, whether it gets explicitly stated or not, our current system somehow ends up getting labeled as a free market system, and then it becomes a battle of 'profits vs nonprofits' and 'capitalist vs socialist', and we more and more want the latter because the former is working so poorly. But we don't have a free market system, and the problem with our system has nothing to do with profits (if it did, why wouldn't our 'shoe-providing system' suffer similarly?). The problem is one of corporatism, of government regulations (regulations that benefit the large medical corps at the expense of the poor), of licensing and rampant monopolization.

So I am skeptical of the degree to which socializing healthcare can fix the system--I think it may (depedning on the specifics) switch which problems are biggest (socialist systems may be much less detrimental to the poor, but often at the expense of both efficiency and expediency, as well the obvious loss of freedom).
Luckily I think that completely voluntary solutions can solve both problems--and in fact they have, historically. We had a very functional and reasonable system in this country until government "fixed" it.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
He then mentioned that we already have some socialized services in the USA, which people have no problem with.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not casting about with a critical eye. Most every service that is provided exclusively by government is annoying or awful. Most every privately provided service that is awful goes extinct in a hurry.

Look back in your life and identify where you've found yourself in the longest lines for service. You might be tempted to suggest getting tickets for some one shot event but the single provider nature of such an event is almost the same as a single (government) provider of driver's licenses or building permits or health care.

A private business with a long line for service will either expand or face competetion or both. The line will go away. When there's only a single provider AND that provider gets paid the same no matter what quantity or quality of service they provide, how do you like your chances?

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
But beyond this point, I think part of the problem is that the desire for 'socialized' medicine is present mostly because our system is so horrible. So a proponent of socilized medicine asks: what system is better, our current one or a socilized one (like Sweden?).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a good point and one that applies in a whole lot of other contexts as well. For example, I think a lot of the pro death penalty support comes from people who are fed up with our criminal justice system and don't want to see "killers walking free." You almost get into a "Well if x is bad, then the opposite of x must be good" sort of mentality which ignores a whole world of possibilities.

Big Government is bad therefore no government must be good;
Weak on crime is bad therefore death penalty is good;
etc.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

Govt run health care will be great....we can bring in affirmative action too, I think there are way too many asian and indian doctors out there. I think its time we open up the medical profession to all people.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

The problem is that people believe every individual has a right to the best medical care money can buy. (How can you value a life?) The problem is, that there isn't enough money for everyone to consume the best health care money can buy.

Socialized health care would only benefit those who don't have any health care today (the poor). Everyone else (the majority) will see substantial decreases in quality and availability of their care once their employers stop buying coverage, which they would under a socialized system. Wages would not likely rise much in this scenario, but taxes most definitely will. So everyone who has a real job today will get less pay and worse health care.

I do think government should provide coverage for children since they can't provide it for themselves in a lot of cases where parents have other priorities.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a good point and one that applies in a whole lot of other contexts as well. For example, I think a lot of the pro death penalty support comes from people who are fed up with our criminal justice system and don't want to see "killers walking free." You almost get into a "Well if x is bad, then the opposite of x must be good" sort of mentality which ignores a whole world of possibilities.

Big Government is bad therefore no government must be good;
Weak on crime is bad therefore death penalty is good;
etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as an anarchist I do think no government is good (and not just because big government is bad [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

But I do agree that this type of reasoning factors into both the decision to be pro-death penalty (which is bad) and anarchist (which is good).

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]

Look back in your life and identify where you've found yourself in the longest lines for service. You might be tempted to suggest getting tickets for some one shot event but the single provider nature of such an event is almost the same as a single (government) provider of driver's licenses or building permits or health care.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I wait in line longer on a busy evening at Wal-Mart than I ever have at the DMV. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or maybe Wal-Mart emulates a "single provider" on the Tulalip reservation. *shrug* But isn't Wal-Mart one of your corporate heroes or something?

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, the situation is even worse than that. If health care is socialized, what we'll never see are the possibly revolutionary, life-saving new medicines and procedures which would have been invented, but never come to be. The loss here is similar to the "broken window" fallacy demonstrated in Henry Hazlitt's lesson, but on a life or death scale.

Socializing health care will not only make it less available and of lower quality, in the longer-term it will destroy life-saving innovation. It is the dumbest idea ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wrong. Look north to Canada. They are developing many life saving intiatives. Some of the top cancer iniatives are coming out of facilities here. Also many research and private entities are working on cures as there is a profit to be had if you discover the cure. Our socialized health care system is not the best but it is so much better than the US's.

I did see that Moore interview he also used the example of the education system and police services. He also mentioned that you have to regulate the Drug Companies also. Good luck on that they have bought both the Republicans and Democrats.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, the situation is even worse than that. If health care is socialized, what we'll never see are the possibly revolutionary, life-saving new medicines and procedures which would have been invented, but never come to be. The loss here is similar to the "broken window" fallacy demonstrated in Henry Hazlitt's lesson, but on a life or death scale.

Socializing health care will not only make it less available and of lower quality, in the longer-term it will destroy life-saving innovation. It is the dumbest idea ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wrong. Look north to Canada. They are developing many life saving intiatives. Some of the top cancer iniatives are coming out of facilities here. Also many research and private entities are working on cures as there is a profit to be had if you discover the cure. Our socialized health care system is not the best but it is so much better than the US's.

I did see that Moore interview he also used the example of the education system and police services. He also mentioned that you have to regulate the Drug Companies also. Good luck on that they have bought both the Republicans and Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you referencing here, because of the top 50 pharm companies world wide (both profit and R&D) the US has 20 companies. Canada doesn't have any. Are you referencing small companies owned by the larger ones or what?

Cody

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]

Socialized health care would only benefit those who don't have any health care today (the poor). Everyone else (the majority) will see substantial decreases in quality and availability of their care once their employers stop buying coverage, which they would under a socialized system. Wages would not likely rise much in this scenario, but taxes most definitely will. So everyone who has a real job today will get less pay and worse health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement implies that US citizens are presumably receiving much better quality health care than people in any of the socialized systems used in other countries like Canada, Sweden, and just about every other western country. I don't think that's true. That's not to say the socialized systems don't have their own problems, but they're not exactly trainwrecks compared to the US system either. In many ways they're better. Saying they're not is arrogant and shortsighted, in that we're refusing to think the US, with our perfect system, could possibly learn anything from how it's done elswehere.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Look back in your life and identify where you've found yourself in the longest lines for service. You might be tempted to suggest getting tickets for some one shot event but the single provider nature of such an event is almost the same as a single (government) provider of driver's licenses or building permits or health care.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I wait in line longer on a busy evening at Wal-Mart than I ever have at the DMV. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or maybe Wal-Mart emulates a "single provider" on the Tulalip reservation. *shrug* But isn't Wal-Mart one of your corporate heroes or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

WA has privatized the motor vehicle registration business and it's quite slick because of it. Tulalip and Muckleshoot casinos both have monopolistic set-ups and many tribal member employees that are 'juiced in' for life. That makes for the poor service I remember. I never went to the Wal*Mart there but Auburn's was decent and Renton was OK.

I'm a regular at many Wal*Marts and the wait is modest or none. You are unlucky.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments).

He then mentioned that we already have some socialized services in the USA, which people have no problem with. He used the example of fire departments, which provide service to everyone and are not expected to turn a profit. He argued that if fire departments were forced to maximize revenues for shareholders, it would be a terrible idea that might compromise safety in life-or-death situations. Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

This seemed like a reasonable argument to me. Am I wrong for thinking this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I think so. Having the government in control of who gets what health care is scary to me. Don't see how this compares to a city fire department. Wonder what Mr. Moore thinks of Health Savings Accounts?

Read an interesting article the other day how medicare/medicaid actually set's prices for health care and thus leads to ineffecient pricing of health care procedures and medicines. If I find it I'll dig post a link to it.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Socialized health care would only benefit those who don't have any health care today (the poor). Everyone else (the majority) will see substantial decreases in quality and availability of their care once their employers stop buying coverage, which they would under a socialized system. Wages would not likely rise much in this scenario, but taxes most definitely will. So everyone who has a real job today will get less pay and worse health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement implies that US citizens are presumably receiving much better quality health care than people in any of the socialized systems used in other countries like Canada, Sweden, and just about every other western country. I don't think that's true. That's not to say the socialized systems don't have their own problems, but they're not exactly trainwrecks compared to the US system either. In many ways they're better. Saying they're not is arrogant and shortsighted, in that we're refusing to think the US, with our perfect system, could possibly learn anything from how it's done elswehere.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US government spends more per capita on social service programs than Canada does. heres a post i made not long ago on the raw numbers. Fact is that the US does have plenty of things wrong with its health care system, but they can all be traced back to the governments interference, not to free market options.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, the situation is even worse than that. If health care is socialized, what we'll never see are the possibly revolutionary, life-saving new medicines and procedures which would have been invented, but never come to be. The loss here is similar to the "broken window" fallacy demonstrated in Henry Hazlitt's lesson, but on a life or death scale.

Socializing health care will not only make it less available and of lower quality, in the longer-term it will destroy life-saving innovation. It is the dumbest idea ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wrong. Look north to Canada. They are developing many life saving intiatives. Some of the top cancer iniatives are coming out of facilities here. Also many research and private entities are working on cures as there is a profit to be had if you discover the cure. Our socialized health care system is not the best but it is so much better than the US's.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must have missed the entire point of the lesson mentioned in the post you replied to. Maybe Canada is developing some life-saving drugs. That's what is seen. What is unseen is how many life-saving drugs would be developed if not for the socialized aspect of your healthcare industry. Try reading Hazlitt's lesson again or Bastiat if you want it straight from the source.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
One of the biggest problems with socialized ___________ is the difficulty (impossibility) or performing economic calculations well. Think about how complex medicine is. How long should doctors be in school/residency? How much training do nurses need? How many ways should each specialize? How many of each are needed? How much do we pay them to get the number and quality that we need? How do you decide between doctors who specialize in organ transplants, and foot surgeons? There are millions of questions to answer when discussing how to go about figuring out quality and quantity needs. Profits and losses are used as a way to figure out if you are providing enough of service X or to much of product Y.


[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of those questions could be answered by epidemiologists. Disease doesn't follow the same market trends, as fashion or breakfast cereal y'know.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for the insurance issue... many people get their health insurance through their jobs, so their choices are limited to whatever their employer has.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is primarily due to wage caps instituted during World War II, which forced employers to compete by offering perks like health insurance. If the government hadn't meddled with the market during the war, then most people would still be purchasing their insurance directly.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the for-profit nature of insurance leads to 150-page coverage documents written in jargon and legalese, which most people don't understand (and don't even read) until they are denied coverage for something they assumed would be covered.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not the insurance companies' fault that people commit to contracts that they have neither read nor understand. Such people get what they deserve (crushing debt, complications due to lack of care, etc.).

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Socialized health care would only benefit those who don't have any health care today (the poor). Everyone else (the majority) will see substantial decreases in quality and availability of their care once their employers stop buying coverage, which they would under a socialized system. Wages would not likely rise much in this scenario, but taxes most definitely will. So everyone who has a real job today will get less pay and worse health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement implies that US citizens are presumably receiving much better quality health care than people in any of the socialized systems used in other countries like Canada, Sweden, and just about every other western country. I don't think that's true. That's not to say the socialized systems don't have their own problems, but they're not exactly trainwrecks compared to the US system either. In many ways they're better. Saying they're not is arrogant and shortsighted, in that we're refusing to think the US, with our perfect system, could possibly learn anything from how it's done elswehere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our system certainly isn't perfect, but what I see as a difference between our system and theirs is about 10% in taxes required to pay for health care. How are they going to sustain that model when their aging non-productive retiree population gets older and more expensive to support while the working class continues to shrink?

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why I have to explain it, Moore was the one who made the statement and I completely disagree with him.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that people believe every individual has a right to the best medical care money can buy. (How can you value a life?) The problem is, that there isn't enough money for everyone to consume the best health care money can buy.

Socialized health care would only benefit those who don't have any health care today (the poor). Everyone else (the majority) will see substantial decreases in quality and availability of their care once their employers stop buying coverage, which they would under a socialized system. Wages would not likely rise much in this scenario, but taxes most definitely will. So everyone who has a real job today will get less pay and worse health care.

I do think government should provide coverage for children since they can't provide it for themselves in a lot of cases where parents have other priorities.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG. You should really try to study countries that have socialized health care systems.

One thing is for sure: It would benefit more people than a free market system. If you disagree with this, you don't know what you're talking about.

Now isn't it worth paying a little extra in tax to save people's lives? Oh I forgot, they're poor. Yeah, I guess we should forget about them then.

But really, even rich people could get so sick that medical bills would be too expensive, so I think your arguments are a bit flawed.

You say that since everybody wants the best health care, there isn't money enough to make everybody happy. "You can't put a price on a life".

Guess what. That's EXCACTLY why countries have a social health care systems. Everybody gets treated the SAME, since no life is worth more than another.

One more thing. Yes, it costs money, but it's just a matter of priorities.

For example, in the "socialist" country I live in, people with average income pay about the same tax as in the us. And still health care is free! How could this be? Well, we don't use 1/3 of our budgets on military. So if your goverment could just stop making wars for some time, you could afford free health care for all. Wouldn't that be great, instead of using that money on tanks? No?

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now isn't it worth paying a little extra in tax to save people's lives? Oh I forgot, they're poor. Yeah, I guess we should forget about them then.


[/ QUOTE ]

NO its not, and its not even close. Its perfectly fine to give money to save the lives of poor people etc. But under no circumstance is it excusable to rob me and force me to pay for the health care of a stranger.

[ QUOTE ]
"You can't put a price on a life".


[/ QUOTE ]

ofc you can !! actuaries do it everyday.

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody gets treated the SAME, since no life is worth more than another.


[/ QUOTE ]

newsflash all men are equal but some are more equal than others. Some lives are more valuable. Bill Gates is more valuable that a squeegee bum. My life is more valuable to me than yours or anyone else. Yours is worth more to you than mine

[ QUOTE ]
And still health care is free!

[/ QUOTE ]

its not free. the money comes from somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, we don't use 1/3 of our budgets on military. So if your government could just stop making wars for some time, you could afford free health care for all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with you on elimination of needless war spending. But your still not going to justify stealing from me to pay for some idiot who won't / can't get a job.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

quick thought, in US the health care industry is mostly regulated. AMA and stuff. except for places like OR where naturpaths can be licensed.

also some crazy things like
http://ilfpost.org/?p=62
can happen where your dr. is legally prevented from helping you.

how do you free marketers explain that?

do you think there are systemic problems aside from the whole socialiation argument?
I mean, if you're poor but healthy, is there any reason to have a ceasarean, or really any reason to have your baby in a hospital?

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
NO its not, and its not even close. Its perfectly fine to give money to save the lives of poor people etc. But under no circumstance is it excusable to rob me and force me to pay for the health care of a stranger.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the root of the issue, and probably why the term "socialized _______" is so frowned on in the US. We are an individualistic society, not a collective one. Michael Moore even mentioned this in the interview.

I read a USA Today article a while back about Denmark's "Flexicurity" model, and they interviewed Danish citizens about their system. Two intersting quotes from the article:

[ QUOTE ]
Kjaer is a divorced father with a 7-year-old son to help support. He says his son can get a free education, too, and other help as he grows up, if he needs it. "If you fall here, someone along the way will catch you and help you," he says. "I pay my 50% taxes with a smile because they're worth it."

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The big difference between the United States and Denmark is you put an emphasis on individualism vs. the collective," she says. "We have no working poor. There are no kids living in cars with no child care. We pay high taxes for it. But in the end, how much money do you need?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine either of these (especially the bolded parts), ever coming out of a US citizen's mouth. It is a totally different mindset, and I think it depends who you talk to which one is "better".

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]

One thing is for sure: It would benefit more people than a free market system. If you disagree with this, you don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly what I said. More will benefit, but at an expense to others when they wouldn't pay for it themselves.

[ QUOTE ]

Now isn't it worth paying a little extra in tax to save people's lives? Oh I forgot, they're poor. Yeah, I guess we should forget about them then.


[/ QUOTE ]
They could buy their own insurance with the money they save from ridiculous taxes.

[ QUOTE ]

But really, even rich people could get so sick that medical bills would be too expensive, so I think your arguments are a bit flawed.


[/ QUOTE ]
No, rich people buy themselves insurance to prevent something like that from happening.

[ QUOTE ]

You say that since everybody wants the best health care, there isn't money enough to make everybody happy. "You can't put a price on a life".


[/ QUOTE ]
I think we should put a price on life, otherwise costs for the society spiral out of control. The more productive members of society will get the better health care, producing more societal benefits for everyone, instead of everyone getting the same worse health care.
Suppose a procedure requires a 2 day wait because there is too much demand for it under the social plan. This costs everyone because otherwise the productive guy would have gotten in and out and be back to work without the wait.

[ QUOTE ]

One more thing. Yes, it costs money, but it's just a matter of priorities.

For example, in the "socialist" country I live in, people with average income pay about the same tax as in the us. And still health care is free! How could this be? Well, we don't use 1/3 of our budgets on military. So if your goverment could just stop making wars for some time, you could afford free health care for all. Wouldn't that be great, instead of using that money on tanks? No?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish my government would end the war. Unfortunately, 51% of Americans thought it would be a good idea to keep killing.

I don't know what country you are from with socialized health care, but I would be willing to bet that you pay more in taxes than I do.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
He says his son can get a free education


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I pay my 50% taxes with a smile

[/ QUOTE ]


what an idiot !! that "free" education must be freakin GREAT!

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess he think shoe salesman are in natural conflict with shoe consumers too.
[ QUOTE ]
He then mentioned that we already have some socialized services in the USA, which people have no problem with.

[/ QUOTE ]
We have some capitalistic services here too, which people have no problem with.
[ QUOTE ]
He argued that if fire departments were forced to maximize revenues for shareholders, it would be a terrible idea that might compromise safety in life-or-death situations.

[/ QUOTE ]
How?
[ QUOTE ]
Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
So something should be socialized only when it's whatever is deemed an important issue to him? So his position comes down to simple fear mongering (this is too important to be left up to the free market, better it be left up to the same government he thinks caused 9/11).

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Around the turn of the last century we had for-profit fire departments. They did in fact do a half-assed job and compromised safety. That's why they were socialized.

[/ QUOTE ]
link?

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now isn't it worth paying a little extra in tax to save people's lives? Oh I forgot, they're poor. Yeah, I guess we should forget about them then.


[/ QUOTE ]

NO its not, and its not even close. Its perfectly fine to give money to save the lives of poor people etc. But under no circumstance is it excusable to rob me and force me to pay for the health care of a stranger.

[ QUOTE ]
"You can't put a price on a life".


[/ QUOTE ]

ofc you can !! actuaries do it everyday.

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody gets treated the SAME, since no life is worth more than another.


[/ QUOTE ]

newsflash all men are equal but some are more equal than others. Some lives are more valuable. Bill Gates is more valuable that a squeegee bum. My life is more valuable to me than yours or anyone else. Yours is worth more to you than mine

[ QUOTE ]
And still health care is free!

[/ QUOTE ]

its not free. the money comes from somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, we don't use 1/3 of our budgets on military. So if your government could just stop making wars for some time, you could afford free health care for all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with you on elimination of needless war spending. But your still not going to justify stealing from me to pay for some idiot who won't / can't get a job.

[/ QUOTE ]


I really disagree that some people are worth more than others, but of course the american system is build around that claim, so I'm not surprised you say that.

This stealing-mentality of yours, I'm not sure if I get it. You're gonna pay for your health insurance anyway, right?

My point is, it's very possible to have this system WITHOUT increasing taxes. Now what this means is that nobody will "steal" any more from you than they actually do now. You have to pay your taxes anyway. All you can hope for is that they use it for a good cause.
Let's have a few scenarios:

1) We use the money on national health care. Yes, that includes you too. You get that money back EVERY TIME you really need it for medical treatment, and so does others. If that's stealing, you might as well say that insurance is stealing, cause if you don't get sick, you didn't get value from your money. Only difference is that social health care would be an insurance for all citizens instead of individuals.
2) We use it on bombing stuff.
3) We send people into space.

Well, I guess space is pretty cool.

The problem with the US is that you pay A LOT of taxes as it is, still your goverment use it on stupid things.

A socialist sollution is not about paying as much tax as possible, as some people here seems to think.
It's about using the tax you do pay in an alternative way. This way includes health care for all, free schools, money when you get sick from work etc etc, so that everyone is secured a minimum of wealth in their lives, despite their financial/medical/educational situation.

Now I understand you don't like me calling it "free", since everybody actually pay for it. Of course you're right in that. Maybe "cover" is the best word. It's really like an insurance, of course in a bigger scale.

Just if you wonder: Although I live in one of those "socialist" western countries, it doesn't mean it's not democratic and free, as some people here seems to think. Of course we have a free market, the freedom of speech and all the other things.

Only difference is that the tax goes to different things + the really rich ones have to pay more. I don't think it's a bad deal at all, as I think it's better that NO ONE suffers, than a few ones having more money than they can spend anyway.

Of course I realize most of Americans don't like this idea. And I doubt it's gonna happen over there.
But at least I hope you now understand what I'm trying to say.
We do disagree, but I respect your opinions.
Take care.

Re: Michael Moore and socialized medicine
 

[ QUOTE ]
One thing is for sure: It would benefit more people than a free market system. If you disagree with this, you don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would serve more people probably, but it would be a downgrade for most, and it's not a net benefit for the individuals involved by any stretch of the word.
[ QUOTE ]
Now isn't it worth paying a little extra in tax to save people's lives? Oh I forgot, they're poor. Yeah, I guess we should forget about them then.

[/ QUOTE ]
No ones stopping you from helping them or convincing others to help them. How about you go work on that instead of taking money out of my pocket while acting like you have some moral high ground?
[ QUOTE ]
Guess what. That's EXCACTLY why countries have a social health care systems. Everybody gets treated the SAME, since no life is worth more than another.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is just dumb. Bill Gate's life has had a huge positive on society. Some bum with no job just takes from others. If you want to help a bum out, go ahead. Don't force me to subsidize him.
[ QUOTE ]
One more thing. Yes, it costs money, but it's just a matter of priorities.

[/ QUOTE ]
Subjective priorities you want to enforce on others.
[ QUOTE ]
For example, in the "socialist" country I live in, people with average income pay about the same tax as in the us. And still health care is free! How could this be? Well, we don't use 1/3 of our budgets on military. So if your goverment could just stop making wars for some time, you could afford free health care for all. Wouldn't that be great, instead of using that money on tanks? No?

[/ QUOTE ]
Instead of killing you, I'm just going to break your arm, see that's better right? Sure but I'd rather you not harm me at all in the first place.