Universal Health Care

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[Borodog]

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!"

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[Kaj]

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.

[Borodog]

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.

[TomCollins]

[ 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.

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"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."