Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
Understood. But then for the "sheep" - tough luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

If people want to provide healthcare for the poor and uninsured, then let them do so privately. If liberal-minded people complain that the poor need our help, then they should volunteer and donate to charities that help these people. (It's worth noting that I do these things. I'm not heartless, I just think government is both inefficient and corrupt.)

What we're talking about when we address public healthcare, public welfare, public insurance, or public programs in general, is the refusal of the individual citizen to step up and provide these services on their own, demanding instead that some faceless entity (in this case, the state) seize the money and resources necessary to provide it.

What happened to individual responsibility and charity?

You want middle class people to have healthcare. Great. Do it on your own - don't force me to provide to them.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
It's worth bearing in mind hat the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than any other nation on the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait so according to you since you didn't cite a source, our government spends more than any other country on healthcare yet we have 40M uninsured? and the solution is to spend MORE? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

(This is just wrong, American's spend more money PRIVATELY, but not publicly)

[ QUOTE ]

Also, the 'inefficient', socialised systems in the rest of the developed world are in fact rather more efficient than he private sytem in the US. Canada, for example, spends around $300 per person per year on administration. In the US the figure is around three times that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again another completely false statement, check the rest of the thread for actual citations.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a good book called The Undercover Economist, which explains why the inherent inequality of information between the insurer and the insured leads to market failure and poor efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this may have been true 30 years ago, it isn't true anymore. This is the information age, and medical records are passed around like candy. Also, many small companies can choose doctors and specific ailments to be covered to reduce costs.

[ QUOTE ]
In practice universal health care would mean that the vast majority of people would pay much less for healthcare and have much greater securiy, peace of mind and job flexibility. The main role of government is to intervene in cases of market failure like this. I can't see why you would not want to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because like all other regulated industries it would cost 3x as much. (check CATO for citation) and the service would be 10x worse.

Also, how are socialized systems handling malpractice? Does the government payout tens of millions in damages to a patient who had the wrong kidney taken out?

Here is a wiki comparing the two.

US vs Canada Healthcare

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]


Wait so according to you since you didn't cite a source, our government spends more than any other country on healthcare yet we have 40M uninsured? and the solution is to spend MORE?

(This is just wrong, American's spend more money PRIVATELY, but not publicly)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I'm right. For example, from the very page you link to;

"Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations’ budgets. The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724.[5]

However, U.S. government spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada. In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this number is $3,372.[5] In 2004, health care consumed 15.4% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 9.8% of GDP was spent on health care.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...stems_compared

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, the 'inefficient', socialised systems in the rest of the developed world are in fact rather more efficient than he private sytem in the US. Canada, for example, spends around $300 per person per year on administration. In the US the figure is around three times that.


[/ QUOTE ]
Again another completely false statement, check the rest of the thread for actual citations.

[/ QUOTE ]

" In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada."

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a good book called The Undercover Economist, which explains why the inherent inequality of information between the insurer and the insured leads to market failure and poor efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]
While this may have been true 30 years ago, it isn't true anymore. This is the information age, and medical records are passed around like candy. Also, many small companies can choose doctors and specific ailments to be covered to reduce costs.


[/ QUOTE ]

I inherently have a much better idea of my own state of health and lifestyle than the insurer does, regardless of medical records.

[ QUOTE ]

Because like all other regulated industries it would cost 3x as much. (check CATO for citation) and the service would be 10x worse.


[/ QUOTE ]

As i've shown this is incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, how are socialized systems handling malpractice? Does the government payout tens of millions in damages to a patient who had the wrong kidney taken out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doctors or hospitals take out malpractice insurance. Why should it work out any differently?

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's worth bearing in mind hat the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than any other nation on the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. also has socialized medicine. Your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

That the US also spends as much again on private insurance and there are still many millions without any cover.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The main role of government is to intervene in cases of market failure like this. I can't see why you would not want to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to do it because I reject your premise that you base that accusation on. The main role of government is to protect the citizens from fraud and coercion, not "intervene in cases of market failure."

Also, please define "market failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

Market failure occurs where the workings of the marketplace stray far enough from the economic concept of 'perfect competition' that gross inefficiency is assured. This may occur because one side has much less information than another, or in a variety of other situations.

You may not agree that governments should intervene in conditions of market failure. However I would encourage you to investigate economics before making that decision. In cases of market failure government intervention may make everyone better off.

[Emperor]

Health Care articles at CATO

Enjoy!

Also Links to CANADIAN waiting lists, some people are waiting over a year to get treatment..

Canadian Wait Times for Healthcare.

Quality of care in the United States is years if not decades above these other countries.

"The United States had the highest breast cancer survival rate, the highest cervical cancer screening rate and the lowest smoking rate. For breast cancer survival rates, the United States at 86 percent was 11 percentage points better than the worst country, which was the United Kingdom. For cervical cancer screening, the United States at 93 percent was 26 percentage points better than the United Kingdom, the worst country. The United States tied with Canada for having the lowest smoking rate" - Johns Hopkins University
Gazette

My favorite Economist Walter Williams, loves to educate socialists on HealthCare

Walter Willams discusses HealthCare

[Jamougha]

Emperor,

fwiw nothing here actually now relates directly to he points I was making, and I hate dealing with a rolling series of points with no real core argument to be decided. But since you're making it so easy...

[ QUOTE ]

Also Links to CANADIAN waiting lists, some people are waiting over a year to get treatment..


[/ QUOTE ]

In the US some people are dying without ever getting close to being treated appropriately.

[ QUOTE ]

Quality of care in the United States is years if not decades above these other countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

As your quote shows, cancer treatment in the US is exceptionally good; that shouldn't be taken as a reflection of the overall quality of healthcare of course.

WHO rated the world's healthcare systems in 2000. Results and some analysis here; http://unitas.wordpress.com/2007/06/...-world-health/ It might take some searching to find the USA as it's down a number 37.

For comparison, Singapore is 6th. They have a 'light touch' system that could actually reduce the involvement of the government in health while providing pretty reasonable universal care. And, as i think I've shown, for less money. Does this start to appeal to you yet?

[ QUOTE ]

My favorite Economist Walter Williams, loves to educate socialists on HealthCare

Walter Willams discusses HealthCare

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm lol, the first link I opened was in 'Capitalism Magazine' and he quotes a report by the FFI as evidence. Ideologues are not actually convincing to people who are not already convinced.

[jws43yale]

The big problem with a nationalized healthcare system is that in-shape and healthy people would be subsidizing the worthless obese unhealthy idiots. I completely agree with providing care to those who can't afford it and have some major medical problem, but I do not feel that we should have to all ship in to pay for the morbidly obese person who can't work as a result and needs huge amounts of healthcare paid for.

We have the best medical care in the world, and yes some people still don't get fair treatment. There is no perfect system and I would rather have the personal responsibility to stay in shape and keep relatively healthy.

Edit: I am friends with a girl who is going to have a Kidney transplant in the UK. She said it is nice because expensive treatment is paid for, but she is from an aristocratic family and is getting treated at the best hospital in London and still has trouble getting things scheduled. She needs the transplant ASAP (and has her uncle lined up to be a donor) but has been trying for more than two months to get the actual surgery scheduled. She may have to go on dialysis in the meantime where anyone in the US with her fiscal situation could schedule the surgery almost immediately. I don't want to be forced to wait for a treatment in a nationalized system I would have the ability to afford (or have private insurance for) in ours.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

Medicine is like a three legged stool -
-- leg one --- cutting edge technology
-- leg two --- immediate care (on demand)
-- leg three -- for free, or pretty close for free.

The deal is, you can have any two of the three - but not all of them.

Immediate care for free - third world medicine - you may have someone shaking a chicken over your head to cure your brain tumor, but the price is right, and you can have it today.

Cutting edge care for free (or low cost) - to some degree, the socialized medicine countries do this. You may wait 8 mos to get your gallbladder out, or not be allowed dialysis if you're over a certain age. Does keep the costs down, at some social cost.

Cutting edge today - our current model, for the most part. INSANELY expensive, but pretty good care, when you need it.

BUT YOU CAN'T have all three. As a society, we have elected to ignore this.....which is why we're in the spot we're in.

[/ QUOTE ]

My impression is that most state-funded health care systems in the world have both "immediate care for free" and "cutting edge care for free", they just don't have "immediate cutting edge care".

You can get rare and expensive procedures, but you have to wait, as you point out. But you can also get any procedure that can be done in a an emergency room or a general practioner's office much faster than you can in the US. And this isn't third-world medicine....it is totally effective at solving probably 98% of people's medical problems.

As for the US, I don't know if people would describe waiting five hours in an emergency room, or a month for a check-up with their family doctor as "immediate care".

One of the biggest problems with the free-market structure of the US system is that it encourages doctors to go into specialties where there is a lot of money, but not necessarily a lot of patients. As a result, there are an overabundance of doctors willing to do rare and expensive procedures (and an overabundance of companies creating equipment for rare and expensive procedures), but not enough doctors to do the routine stuff, because it is much more of a pain getting paid for the routine.

[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]


You can get rare and expensive procedures, but you have to wait, as you point out. But you can also get any procedure that can be done in a an emergency room or a general practioner's office much faster than you can in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I'd like to see proof of this, particularly for people with private insurance. (Not trying to be snarky or insulting here, I would be genuinely interested. I just have my doubts.)

[ QUOTE ]

As for the US, I don't know if people would describe waiting five hours in an emergency room, or a month for a check-up with their family doctor as "immediate care".


[/ QUOTE ]

You think this is bad now? Do you think that utilization of these services will go down after health-care costs are subsidized? People on public aid are often the worst in terms of abusing the system at the moment, since they don't have to care how much their care costs. Emergency room and appointment waits are standard these days. Very few people are dying because they wait too long (and the ones that do are highly publicized) so I don't see the problem. Clearly it would be better if people didn't have to wait but just because it's inconvenient doesn't mean it's terrible.

[ QUOTE ]

One of the biggest problems with the free-market structure of the US system is that it encourages doctors to go into specialties where there is a lot of money, but not necessarily a lot of patients.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the socialized aspect of medicine that has caused this problem. Insurance companies take a lot of cues from Medicare - Medicare is what decides reimbursements, and curerently primary care is devalued compared to specialty care. The government not really knowing what they are doing has been the problem, and I don't see that getting magically better if a universal health care system is put in place.

[renodoc]

You mean BlueCrap/BlueShit ?