Universal Health Care
 

Universal Health Care...Three little words that keep popping up. Sounds great... right? After all its free...right? Hey sign me up!
But the real story is that it is a bad idea. Bottom line Universal Health Care= higher taxes. But don`t take my word for it. Ask those who live with it, like the nation of Norway.
The goverment ( Norway ) is giving you free health care, or at least that is what they say. But that means you are paying for it with your tax dollars. Norwegians are some of the most heavily taxed people in the world. That makes Norway one of the most expensive countries in the world to live in.
In Norway a glass of cheap wine costs ( in U.S. dollars) 16 dollars, gas costs 9 dollars a gallon, and the tax on a new car doubles the price of that car.
Remember free health care is a bitter pill to swallow. Would you rather spend 20 dollars co-pay on a doctors visit or an extra 20 grand or more on a new car?
Its your choice.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

Re: Universal Health Care
 

Excellent post. I especially love the part where you quoted and cited the numbers you used.

BTW: no one actually believes universal health care is "free," except for perhaps Michael Moore who kept repeating it on Larry King

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
Universal Health Care...Three little words that keep popping up. Sounds great... right? After all its free...right? Hey sign me up!
But the real story is that it is a bad idea. Bottom line Universal Health Care= higher taxes. But don`t take my word for it. Ask those who live with it, like the nation of Norway.
The goverment ( Norway ) is giving you free health care, or at least that is what they say. But that means you are paying for it with your tax dollars. Norwegians are some of the most heavily taxed people in the world. That makes Norway one of the most expensive countries in the world to live in.
In Norway a glass of cheap wine costs ( in U.S. dollars) 16 dollars, gas costs 9 dollars a gallon, and the tax on a new car doubles the price of that car.
Remember free health care is a bitter pill to swallow. Would you rather spend 20 dollars co-pay on a doctors visit or an extra 20 grand or more on a new car?
Its your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nobody thinks its free. Guess what? Our Army, Navy, AF, Park Service, Schools, Fire Depts, FBI, etc., aren't free either. So until you start railing against "universal national defense" with equal passion, then your argument is selectively applied (i.e., hypocritical).

Re: Universal Health Care
 

" Nobody thinks its free."

"The goverment ( Norway ) is giving you free health care, or at least that is what they say."

Of course its not free. But there are those who would like you to believe its free.
And there are those who believe those who say its free.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
" Nobody thinks its free."

"The goverment ( Norway ) is giving you free health care, or at least that is what they say."

Of course its not free. But there are those who would like you to believe its free.
And there are those who believe those who say its free.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's free in the sense that you don't pay out of pocket per visit. I think most people get that. Just like its "free" when the fire dept shows up to put out your burning house -- there's no bill for their services. And actually if you want to get technical, for those who pay near nothing in taxes, universal health care would be free.

And I'm still waiting for your outrage against "universal national defense". Which of course isn't free, either, and results in higher taxes as well.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]

Nobody thinks its free. Guess what? Our Army, Navy, AF, Park Service, Schools, Fire Depts, FBI, etc., aren't free either. So until you start railing against "universal national defense" with equal passion, then your argument is selectively applied (i.e., hypocritical).

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that defense is more efficient when supplied on a "universal national" basis. Nobody has demonstrated that it is true for health care. The countries that provide socialized health care are evidence that it isn't true, since they are either extremely expensive, lower quality or both.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
Except that defense is more efficient when supplied on a "universal national" basis. Nobody has demonstrated that it is true for health care. The countries that provide socialized health care are evidence that it isn't true, since they are either extremely expensive, lower quality or both.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent post. I especially love the part where you quoted and cited the numbers you used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Universal Health Care
 

Wouldn`t be free for those people who pay little or no taxes if it is in the form of sales tax. Which in all likelihood it would be. These are the people(the poor)who believe they are getting it free.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm still waiting for your outrage against "universal national defense". Which of course isn't free, either, and results in higher taxes as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm opposed to it! Of course, if we actually had "universal national defense" it wouldn't be nearly as objectionable as what we really have, which is "univeral national offense." But that's another thread.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
Except that defense is more efficient when supplied on a "universal national" basis. Nobody has demonstrated that it is true for health care. The countries that provide socialized health care are evidence that it isn't true, since they are either extremely expensive, lower quality or both.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been shown that the perceived supremacy and lower cost of our health care system compared to the world is a myth. Google it yourself (or see below). Americans pay more per capita on health care compared to any other western nation. Yes, we pay a lot more -- to say that the rest of the world is more expensive is a lie! Stop repeating how efficient our system is when the data suggests it isn't. When you pay more than twice as much per capita as the rest of the world, and still have 43 million w/o coverage compared to 100% coverage elsewhere, you are by any definition of the word, more INEFFICIENT than the rest of the world. It is that simple. You are regurgitating talking points which have no basis in facts -- please show some supporting data to say the rest of the world is more expensive, more inefficient, and worse service, if you can.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2...onovan/who.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2...ovan/costs.jpg

And before you claim our increased spending results in better health, that is wrong, too. We rank near the middle to bottom of western nations in areas like life expectancy and infant mortality (we're at bottom). So we pay more, cover less, and have worse results -- how does this make us more efficent?

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
So we pay more, cover less, and have worse results -- how does this make us more efficent?

[/ QUOTE ]

By efficiently creating cash cow investments for those that can afford to provide health care services at those high rates?

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I'm still waiting for your outrage against "universal national defense". Which of course isn't free, either, and results in higher taxes as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm opposed to it! Of course, if we actually had "universal national defense" it wouldn't be nearly as objectionable as what we really have, which is "univeral national offense." But that's another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Concur. But I know you are consistent in your outrage against federal programs. Conservatives on the other hand...

Re: Universal Health Care
 

Your argument might set a new record for number of straw men per paragraph.

[ QUOTE ]
Universal Health Care...Three little words that keep popping up. Sounds great... right? After all its free...right? Hey sign me up!

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the phrase "universal health care" implies that it is free?

[ QUOTE ]

But the real story is that it is a bad idea. Bottom line Universal Health Care= higher taxes. But don`t take my word for it. Ask those who live with it, like the nation of Norway.



[/ QUOTE ]
OK, have you actually asked anyone from Norway?

[ QUOTE ]


The goverment ( Norway ) is giving you free health care, or at least that is what they say.



[/ QUOTE ]
Who is "they"? Do you have some evidence that the government of Norway claims their healthcare doesn't cost anything to their citizens?

[ QUOTE ]

Remember free health care is a bitter pill to swallow. Would you rather spend 20 dollars co-pay on a doctors visit or an extra 20 grand or more on a new car?


[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying the only cost of healthcare in the U.S. (or at least the primary costs) is co-pays for doctor visits?

[ QUOTE ]

Wouldn`t be free for those people who pay little or no taxes if it is in the form of sales tax. Which in all likelihood it would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your evidence that health care would be financed through sales tax? Seeing as how the federal government has never financed anything through a sales tax, I can't imagine it would start here.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn`t be free for those people who pay little or no taxes if it is in the form of sales tax. Which in all likelihood it would be. These are the people(the poor)who believe they are getting it free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you for universal health care if everyone signs a statement that they understand that it is only "free" in the same sense as the fire dept is free? Because I think people wouldn't mind that. And since this seems to be your only argument presented against the idea of universal health care...

Re: Universal Health Care
 

My problem with it is:

1) It creates a higher tax rate, which in turn is a deterrent to economic growth and stabilty.

2) I`d rather my doctor and i make my medical desicions,instead of some goverment bureaucracy.

3) It is socialism in its truest form.

The need for health care reform is without doubt. But a system ran by a goverment bureaucracy isn`t the anwser.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
My problem with it is:

1) It creates a higher tax rate, which in turn is a deterrent to economic growth and stabilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

All govt programs increase taxes. Are you as equally against outrageous spending on our military? If not, you're being a hypocrite.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2...rySpending.jpg


[ QUOTE ]
2) I`d rather my doctor and i make my medical desicions,instead of some goverment bureaucracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people with insurance already have their medical decisions approved by a bureaucracy, and a bureaucracy that views them as costs rather than patients and often denies procedures as an automatic response. In other western nations, doctors have more ability (not less) to make decisions regarding their patients compared to the US insurance industry.

[ QUOTE ]
3) It is socialism in its truest form.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is no more socialist than many other govt programs. I find it ironic when some right wingers are against "socialist" health care, but yet support a draft if major war broke out (or even during peacetime). This is the ultimate hypocrisy. Besides, "socialism" is just a label anyway. You already support a system which taxes its citizens to provide certain services for all, such as: education, fire, police, defense, environment, safety, parks, recreation, rehabilitation, prison, corporate oversight, regulating communications systems, space exploration, job skills, housing for disadvantaged, orphan care, mental hospitals, postal delivery, etc. Yet, health care is "socialism". If you want to be consistent, rail against NASA and the National Park Service with equal vigor.

[ QUOTE ]
The need for health care reform is without doubt. But a system ran by a goverment bureaucracy isn`t the anwser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here's the thing: It's been shown to work quite well in other countries, and by many measures (cost, coverage, efficiency, etc.) our system is the worst. So, you can talk reform all you want, but it's currently broke and I see no other proposal on the table to fix it.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

Editted to remove pointless snarky comment.

So the United States, in aggregate, spends more dollars per capita on health care? So what?

I notice the graph shows dollars spent on health care per capita, rather than the fraction of per capita production spent on health care. Adjusting for this produces a number that is much more in line with the nearest countries, although US spending is still the highest at about 11%, with the nearest other country being germany at 9%. Hence total US health care spending is only of order 20-25% higher than Germany, rather than the misleading 50% above the nearest country (Switzerland) indicated by the original graph.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...dog/chart1.jpg

But even this number is deceptive. It is an elementary thought experiment to decide what the implications of this logic is: If a government wants to spend it's countries health care dollars more "efficiently", all it has to do is nationalize the health care system, and then not spend anything on health care at all. What an astonishingly low sum to spend on health care! Surely such a health care system is a marvel to be emulated. Any country can look more "efficient" under this criteria by simply spending less on the health care of their citizens. This is most blatantly the case in the UK, where the socialized health care system is an ongoing national unnatural disaster of shortages, wait lists, rationing, and simple non-treatment.

Americans can spend a higher fraction of their income on health care because health care is largely a luxury good. As real income increases relative to higher priority goods like food, clothing, shelter, energy, etc., more "discretionary" income is available for less critical things like entertainment and healthcare. America with it's high per capita average income will have of course see a higher than average fraction of that income dedicated to these things. Should we conclude that our theater industry is "inefficient" because American's spend a much high fraction of their income on movies than any other country in the world?

Furthermore, these kinds of international comparisons are useless in the absence of incredibly high end regression analysis with a tremendous amount of data, since they violate ceteris paribus, i.e. all else is not equal. Even in that case the results are always open to interpretation. Americans are the fattest people in the world, as everyone likes to tell us. We voluntarily choose to be so, but the cost is in poorer average health, poorer average health that must be paid for by increased health care spending, so we spend more.

Altogether I am reminded of the ridiculous claims that health care is better in Cuba in the United States because infant mortality is lower, without regard to the fact that neonatal care in the United States is so superior that high-risk pregnancies that simply become miscarriages in other countries become premature births in the United States, thus leading to elevated infant mortality rates.

Lastly, I find it laughable that the authors of the study neglect to tell us that the reasons that healthcare goods and services and administrative costs are rising so fast is because of the cost of regulatory compliance and administration imposed by government, a large part of which non-profit and government run hospitals are exempted from.

In every industry that is not heavily regulated, intervened in, or outright monopolized by a government, quality rises over time while prices fall. In every single industry where the reverse is true, quality falls while prices rise; roads (traffic jams and potholes abound, bridges collapse), public education (need I elaborate on the astounding ignorance of American high school produce?), police (who in many areas don't even bother to take police reports or respond to burglaries anymore), courts (where the right to a speedy trial is a ridiculous joke with defendents waiting months and sometimes years for trial), and yes, health care and health care insurance.

The idea that more competition is somehow supposed to raise prices while less competition is somehow supposed to lower prices is economically farcical, and has been known to be so for hundreds of years.

Why is it so hard for people to see and remember the results of government granted monopolies?

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1.../old-phone.jpg

Edit to add:

And it just occurred to me. What would the socialists be telling us if it were the case that the US spent less on health care per capita than other countries? Why, this too would be evidence of the "need" for socialized medicine. "Market failure!" Would be the cry. "People can't afford to spend enough on their health care! We need the government to step in and increase funding!"

Whatever the topic, whatever the data, the argument is always the same: More government, more control in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, more centralization of power into the hands of the few, and less power in the hands of the consumer to make their own plans and choices.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

Dude, chill.

The point of that data is to refute Copernicus's claim that other health care systems are more expensive than ours. Whether per capita or GDP, ours costs more per citizen. That is not sufficient to say others are superior, because you rightly bring up other factors. But it is sufficient to show that others aren't vastly more expensive.

Edited to remove snarky retort to snarky remark.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except that defense is more efficient when supplied on a "universal national" basis. Nobody has demonstrated that it is true for health care. The countries that provide socialized health care are evidence that it isn't true, since they are either extremely expensive, lower quality or both.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been shown that the perceived supremacy and lower cost of our health care system compared to the world is a myth. Google it yourself (or see below). Americans pay more per capita on health care compared to any other western nation. Yes, we pay a lot more -- to say that the rest of the world is more expensive is a lie ! Stop repeating how efficient our system is when the data suggests it isn't. When you pay more than twice as much per capita as the rest of the world, and still have 43 million w/o coverage compared to 100% coverage elsewhere, you are by any definition of the word, more INEFFICIENT than the rest of the world. It is that simple. You are regurgitating talking points which have no basis in facts -- please show some supporting data to say the rest of the world is more expensive, more inefficient, and worse service, if you can.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are quoting a lie yourself.... this number is arrived at by counting every person who spends one day without health insurance...i.e. changing jobs, being unemployed for a week or two....(also add spouses and dependents). There are also many people who choose not to be insured... one of the more famous that I know of is Rush Limbaugh. There are also companies out there which offer X amount of dollars for insurance...employees can choose a plan and use that money, or opt out and take it as income.

Bottom Line... right now in America, there are nowhere near 40 plus million uninsured. And faced with an emergency, there is 100% coverage in the US.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except that defense is more efficient when supplied on a "universal national" basis. Nobody has demonstrated that it is true for health care. The countries that provide socialized health care are evidence that it isn't true, since they are either extremely expensive, lower quality or both.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been shown that the perceived supremacy and lower cost of our health care system compared to the world is a myth. Google it yourself (or see below). Americans pay more per capita on health care compared to any other western nation. Yes, we pay a lot more -- to say that the rest of the world is more expensive is a lie ! Stop repeating how efficient our system is when the data suggests it isn't. When you pay more than twice as much per capita as the rest of the world, and still have 43 million w/o coverage compared to 100% coverage elsewhere, you are by any definition of the word, more INEFFICIENT than the rest of the world. It is that simple. You are regurgitating talking points which have no basis in facts -- please show some supporting data to say the rest of the world is more expensive, more inefficient, and worse service, if you can.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are quoting a lie yourself.... this number is arrived at by counting every person who spends one day without health insurance...i.e. changing jobs, being unemployed for a week or two....(also add spouses and dependents). There are also many people who choose not to be insured... one of the more famous that I know of is Rush Limbaugh. There are also companies out there which offer X amount of dollars for insurance...employees can choose a plan and use that money, or opt out and take it as income.

Bottom Line... right now in America, there are nowhere near 40 plus million uninsured. And faced with an emergency, there is 100% coverage in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. 43 million without coverage at one time or another during the year. (You know you could still get hurt or sick while you're between jobs, even for a week or two, right?)

Edit: And by the way, your claim regarding 100% coverage is false. If you are facing the emergency of requiring a procedure or treatment which could save your life, you are not guaranteed it. Sure, if you come in off the street with a gunshot that's one thing, but that's not every "emergency" out there. People lose limbs, eyes, and even their life because they can't afford it and insurance denies their claim or they don't have insurance. "!00% coverage for emergencies" is a myth.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

Editted my post. Better?

It is, in my opinion, an intentionally misleading, and largely irrelevent graph, however. Not to imply that you meant it to be misleading, but the authors certainly did. They wanted a reaction like "ZOMFG USA spends 50% more on healthcare than other countries and has poorer health! ZOMFG!"

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
Editted my post. Better?

It is, in my opinion, an intentionally misleading, and largely irrelevent graph, however. Not to imply that you meant it to be misleading, but the authors certainly did. They wanted a reaction like "ZOMFG USA spends 50% more on healthcare than other countries and has poorer health! ZOMFG!"

[/ QUOTE ]

The study I linked to quoted the same GDP data you quoted, so I don't think they were hiding that at all. And the fact is, the US DOES spend more on health care than the rest and has poorer health. You can come up with a variety of reasons that might be the case, and even debate whether that's a real issue, but it's still valid data.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except that defense is more efficient when supplied on a "universal national" basis. Nobody has demonstrated that it is true for health care. The countries that provide socialized health care are evidence that it isn't true, since they are either extremely expensive, lower quality or both.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been shown that the perceived supremacy and lower cost of our health care system compared to the world is a myth. Google it yourself (or see below). Americans pay more per capita on health care compared to any other western nation. Yes, we pay a lot more -- to say that the rest of the world is more expensive is a lie ! Stop repeating how efficient our system is when the data suggests it isn't. When you pay more than twice as much per capita as the rest of the world, and still have 43 million w/o coverage compared to 100% coverage elsewhere, you are by any definition of the word, more INEFFICIENT than the rest of the world. It is that simple. You are regurgitating talking points which have no basis in facts -- please show some supporting data to say the rest of the world is more expensive, more inefficient, and worse service, if you can.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are quoting a lie yourself.... this number is arrived at by counting every person who spends one day without health insurance...i.e. changing jobs, being unemployed for a week or two....(also add spouses and dependents). There are also many people who choose not to be insured... one of the more famous that I know of is Rush Limbaugh. There are also companies out there which offer X amount of dollars for insurance...employees can choose a plan and use that money, or opt out and take it as income.

Bottom Line... right now in America, there are nowhere near 40 plus million uninsured. And faced with an emergency, there is 100% coverage in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. 43 million without coverage at one time or another during the year. (You know you could still get hurt or sick while you're between jobs, even for a week or two, right?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Another misleading statistic. Why are there 43 million people uninsured?

A) Millions of them are self-insured; i.e. they have enough cash on hand that their risk of ruin from a medical catastrophe is negligable, and insurance (which is by definition a -EV proposition) makes no sense.

B) Millions of them don't want insurance, because they know hospitals are required by law to treat them anyway. I know an NP who works in Chapel Hill who explained to me that the hospital is always full of patients who have no insurance that they are required to treat by law, and they go to these patients and try to convince them to since up for Medicare, since the hospital could then get at least partially reimbursed. But they almost always refuse, because they know they'll get treatment anyway, and they don't want the hassle.

C) Government interventions in the insurance market have driven the prices up so high that it is simply uneconomical for young, healthy people to pay the absurd premiums. Hence more and more choose not to buy into the system. See my post on Insurance.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Editted my post. Better?

It is, in my opinion, an intentionally misleading, and largely irrelevent graph, however. Not to imply that you meant it to be misleading, but the authors certainly did. They wanted a reaction like "ZOMFG USA spends 50% more on healthcare than other countries and has poorer health! ZOMFG!"

[/ QUOTE ]

The study I linked to quoted the same GDP data you quoted, so I don't think they were hiding that at all. And the fact is, the US DOES spend more on health care than the rest and has poorer health. You can come up with a variety of reasons that might be the case, and even debate whether that's a real issue, but it's still valid data.

[/ QUOTE ]

And "valid data" in the absence of sound analysis is (intentionally) misleading. That's the entire purpose of studies like that; demagoguery and manipulation of public opinion via half truths.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

Again, you can draw your own conclusions, but 43 million were at one time or another uninsured, that was the point.

Boro, you claim that some of these might be uninsured due to govt intervention. Fine. But the point of my post was to discuss America's health care system compared to the rest of the world. SOMEHOW, the rest of the western democracies have found a way to cover everybody ALL the time, and STILL do it at a cheaper price per capita than we do in the U.S. Your reasons in your post are really not refuting this fact, they are only excusing it. And that's fine. One doesn't have to see this data and conclude that we should adopt their way, but one must be objective enough to at least acknowledge that the data suggest that their way provides more coverage at a cheaper per capita cost. Now from there, if you want to get into your opinion of their level of service, or the loss of liberty, or the growth of govt, that's fine. But I'm just trying to start on common ground by debunking some of the myths being floated around in this thread by conservatives.

Also, I want to say this to you personally, but it applies to other AC/Lib types as well:

I am not attacking the position that the best health care system is the one with no govt involvement. That may be the case. I am merely attacking the myths about the current state of US health care system compared to the rest of the world. And if you want my position, you could probably guess that I am for universal health care (but not outlawing if someone wants private health care services instead). I used to be fervently (almost rabidly) against universal health care for almost exactly the same reasons that you bring up (by the way, I hosted a libertarian website and mailing list that was filled with articles against universal health care). I dug into the subject and came to the conclusion that a civilized, wealthy society should work together to provide this for all (I also changed my beliefs on the role of govt and private sector -- another thread someday). We provide roads, schools, armies and navies, postal delivery, law enforcement, fire protection, space exploration, workplace safety, and a zillion other services through taxes, but not health care (in general). So, I believe there are only two consistent positions: (1) No govt intervention in all these services, including health care; and/or (2) there is no reason health care couldn't be included in the list of govt services (doesn't mean it must be, just that it isn't different than the others). I respect an ACist or libertarian who believes #1 (I used to be there, too, and sometimes feel that way still). I think even ACist and libertarians would have to concede #2 (it doesn't contradict #1). What I don't respect are those who attack universal health care as "socialism" but support govt funding of other services. This is a logically inconsistent position which is fueled more by scare tactic talking points than objective data or consistent reasoning.

Thanks.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

It appears we have little more to discuss on the subject.

I will add that I agree completely that the people who want government out of healthcare but in the roads, schools, courts, police, etc. have no intellectual leg to stand on. Once you concede that you think a coercive monopoly can provide any good or service better than a competitive free market, trying to confine the socialist djini to certain sectors of the economy but not others is intellectually bankrupt.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you can draw your own conclusions, but 43 million were at one time or another uninsured, that was the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

By this logic, there must be about a 40% unemployment rate in the US, since they may have gone one day without a job.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, you can draw your own conclusions, but 43 million were at one time or another uninsured, that was the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

By this logic, there must be about a 40% unemployment rate in the US, since they may have gone one day without a job.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a relevant comparison. You could get sick or hurt any day of the year, and if you're without insurance, you will have a tough time getting picked up by another company at a reasonable rate you can afford. There really isn't any more that will come out of discussing this point.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

"There really isn't any more that will come out of discussing this point. "

Or : "I can't counter your point, so you're wrong please don't bring it up again."

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
And "valid data" in the absence of sound analysis is (intentionally) misleading. That's the entire purpose of studies like that; demagoguery and manipulation of public opinion via half truths.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, it seems like these studies at least collect some data to contradict some of the demagoguery and half truths floated around by nitwits like Hannity and Limbaugh. You are making a very sweeping conclusion which I believe is unsupported. The study had a lot of objective data (hell, it even ranked US #1 in health care system responsiveness). You don't have to support govt health care to at least acknowledge that the study gave a relatively fair comparison of US health care system to the rest of the world in several key areas, which was its goal (I really don't know what its recommendations were or care to know, I just wanted to see the real data and see how it stacks up against the proclamations from right wingers, who by the way show no data). Do you want to rule out the entire study (or others) because you'd rather assume that US system must be superior? And any examination of this assertion is merely demagoguery and manipulation?

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
"There really isn't any more that will come out of discussing this point. "

Or : "I can't counter your point, so you're wrong please don't bring it up again."

[/ QUOTE ]

Good analysis. But I did counter his point.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
It appears we have little more to discuss on the subject.

I will add that I agree completely that the people who want government out of healthcare but in the roads, schools, courts, police, etc. have no intellectual leg to stand on. Once you concede that you think a coercive monopoly can provide any good or service better than a competitive free market, trying to confine the socialist djini to certain sectors of the economy but not others is intellectually bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you think that one must either be one extreme or the other? Meaning, one cannot think that .gov is better for something like national defence while not being so for other services (health care, for example)

Re: Universal Health Care
 

"Meaning, one cannot think that .gov is better for something like national defence while not being so for other services "

Well of course someone can think whatever they want, it's just an incorrect position. Government monopoly is much less efficient than a system of private property and free trade (not just free trade w/ other nations, but also free trade within the nation).

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It appears we have little more to discuss on the subject.

I will add that I agree completely that the people who want government out of healthcare but in the roads, schools, courts, police, etc. have no intellectual leg to stand on. Once you concede that you think a coercive monopoly can provide any good or service better than a competitive free market, trying to confine the socialist djini to certain sectors of the economy but not others is intellectually bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you think that one must either be one extreme or the other? Meaning, one cannot think that .gov is better for something like national defence while not being so for other services (health care, for example)

[/ QUOTE ]

It means that one cannot use moral reasons for this differentiation. In other words, one cannot be against universal health care because it is "socialism" or government interference or unlawful taxation, but be for standing armies. If you acknowledge the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of one, you must acknowledge the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of both. Doesn't mean you still support both, but you acknowledge they are both similar uses (or abuses) of govt power -- you just prefer one over the other, or believe one is more efficient, more practical, or whatever.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

Kaj : By your argument, anyone who supports a measure of taxation (even the tiniest little tax) also supports full out communism.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj : By your argument, anyone who supports a measure of taxation (even the tiniest little tax) also supports full out communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think the following is consistent?

One can support taxation to build roads and schools, but if this money is used to build hospitals, one can make argue against it on moral grounds.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

"One can support taxation to build roads and schools, but if this money is used to build hospitals, one can make argue against it on moral grounds."

I oppose taxation to build roads and schools so the question has no interest to me; but your argument was that because one accepts A) (military by government) they must accept B (health care by government) so why not force them into C (everything by government).

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Universal Health Care...Three little words that keep popping up. Sounds great... right? After all its free...right? Hey sign me up!
But the real story is that it is a bad idea. Bottom line Universal Health Care= higher taxes. But don`t take my word for it. Ask those who live with it, like the nation of Norway.
The goverment ( Norway ) is giving you free health care, or at least that is what they say. But that means you are paying for it with your tax dollars. Norwegians are some of the most heavily taxed people in the world. That makes Norway one of the most expensive countries in the world to live in.
In Norway a glass of cheap wine costs ( in U.S. dollars) 16 dollars, gas costs 9 dollars a gallon, and the tax on a new car doubles the price of that car.
Remember free health care is a bitter pill to swallow. Would you rather spend 20 dollars co-pay on a doctors visit or an extra 20 grand or more on a new car?
Its your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nobody thinks its free. Guess what? Our Army, Navy, AF, Park Service, Schools, Fire Depts, FBI, etc., aren't free either. So until you start railing against "universal national defense" with equal passion, then your argument is selectively applied (i.e., hypocritical).

[/ QUOTE ]

Because government corrects for the collective action problem. People have personal incentives to cover themselves in the most efficeint way, but people do not have the incentives to build roads or join an army. Its not hypocritical at all to realize that we need some government without expanding every facet of government.

Re: Universal Health Care
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It appears we have little more to discuss on the subject.

I will add that I agree completely that the people who want government out of healthcare but in the roads, schools, courts, police, etc. have no intellectual leg to stand on. Once you concede that you think a coercive monopoly can provide any good or service better than a competitive free market, trying to confine the socialist djini to certain sectors of the economy but not others is intellectually bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you think that one must either be one extreme or the other? Meaning, one cannot think that .gov is better for something like national defence while not being so for other services (health care, for example)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite certain that government is not equally poor at all things it tries to do, but I am also quite certain that it is worse than the free market at providing all goods and services that actually should be provided. It is of course much better than the free market at producing public bads, like monopolies, wars and deathcamps.