Universal Healthcare

[peritonlogon]

Is there an actual pragmatic argument against universal healtchare? I know a lot of people would argue against UH from an ideological perspective, but, from a pragmatic perspective, has anyone made a convicing case for our current healthcare system? Is it not clear that the USA and it's citizens would have more money at the end of the day and better healthcare? It would also put US international businesses on more even footing with international competition that does not have to foot this bill. This would not proclude a higher level of care for those who could afford it.

This http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html#10 (skip the social security part, scroll a couple pages down for the universal healthcare part) puts forth a pretty convincing economic and pragmatic argument for universal healthcare.

[iron81]

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] universal health care, but I think the argument against is that health care that externalizes its costs onto the taxpayers will lead to overuse. Of course, the cost is already externalized onto a combination of taxpayers and businesses, but whatever.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] universal health care, but I think the argument against is that health care that externalizes its costs onto the taxpayers will lead to overuse. Of course, the cost is already externalized onto a combination of taxpayers and businesses, but whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the pragmatic reply to this is that, right now, poor people on medicare (or is it medicaid?) drastically weigh down the system because they all go to the emergency room (which will always take them) instead of making appointments and going right to a physician. Relieving this burden alone, by directing medicare (or medicaid) more efficiently (to any clinic) would relieve a large portion of the weight already, and could (I'm just guessing right now because I don't have the stats in front of me, and I'm a little lazy) actually save money.

[ojc02]

I would always argue against universal health care on ideological grounds but for the purposes of this discussion I will cripple myself by arguing on their "outcome" level.

The study that they show trying to link life expectancy to per capita health care costs is laughably moronic. There are a great many confounders for this study, including genetic differences between the populations listed, climate differences, and most importantly, cultural differences such as the amount and quality of food eaten in each of those populations.

Even assuming those confounders didn't exist, all they can show is correlation, NOT causality.

This bit I love:
[ QUOTE ]
"Companies that continue to cover most of their workers’ health care costs will be at a serious competitive disadvantage with firms in other countries that incur only a fraction of the expense to cover workers’ health care costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I see, universal health care = free health care. [/sarc] The companies will only be [censored] if the government *forces* them to cover worker health care costs, otherwise it will just be part of the bargaining package for workers along with their salary.

[ QUOTE ]
If the United States allowed free trade in physicians’ services, opening the door to qualified doctors from around the world, salaries in the United States would adjust to world levels, saving close to $100 billion a year in health care costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually didn't realize that the Government restricted this. If they do then I agree that is a terrible thing and should be lifted. This does NOT mean that Socialized health care is the answer, it just means that the private sector is being restricted by the government.

[ QUOTE ]
If the research costs for drugs, and also medical instruments such as MRI scanners, were paid up front through public funds, and all innovations were then placed in the public domain, drugs and medical equipment and supplies could be sold in a competitive market.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I don't think I can argue this without getting ideological. What they are ignoring is that this is totally [censored] over the research companies, there will be less incentive for people to become industry scientists because there will be no potential reward there - becoming a scientist is already a pitifully low reward occupation, if the potential for discovering something which might make you rich disappears then being a scientist would be very depressing - I should know.

[ QUOTE ]
Since each insurer will have its own set of forms and reimbursement schedules, hospitals, nursing homes, doctors’ offices, and other health care providers must employ staff who can deal with all the various forms with which they are presented. This additional administrative expense is equal to approximately 19 percent of national health care spending, making total administrative expenses in the United States approximately 31 percent of health care spending.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a free market solution to this. A company (or group of companies) is going to get very rich by lowering this inefficiency. I strongly expect the "waste" number to go down. There is an incredibly strong free market incentive to make this happen. Again, NOT a reason to implement socialized health care.


Ok, I need to stop, this is taking too long, I could write a book about how terrible this article is but I don't want to waste my life doing that. Suffice to say, socialized health care is a terrible, terrible idea both practically, and *especially* ideologically.

[ojc02]

Just one last quick point...

Does nobody realize that we actually already have socialized health care in many US states (eg where I am, in MA).

Legislation is underway (maybe already in place) to *force* companies to provide health insurance to all their workers. This is identical to having socialized health care (except only for those who have qualifying jobs).

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there an actual pragmatic argument against universal healtchare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, removing the moral arguments, it's still socialism vs. capitalism and capitalism makes the country wealthier in the long run. Universal healthcare makes things look good over the short term, but it does tremendous damage to the economy in the long term and results in poorer service overall. By removing the motivation for profit, people who would have gone to school to become doctors end up going to school for something else. Pharmaceutical companies stop testing new drugs. Also, because people see it as "free" they'll go to the doctor for any little thing that might bother them making it harder for those who need real care to receive it. Universal healthcare looks wonderful (to statists) in the short term, but in the long term, it's disasterous.

[ QUOTE ]
has anyone made a convicing case for our current healthcare system?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the government is too involved currently and botching it all up.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there an actual pragmatic argument against universal healtchare? I know a lot of people would argue against UH from an ideological perspective, but, from a pragmatic perspective, has anyone made a convicing case for our current healthcare system? Is it not clear that the USA and it's citizens would have more money at the end of the day and better healthcare? It would also put US international businesses on more even footing with international competition that does not have to foot this bill. This would not proclude a higher level of care for those who could afford it.

This http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html#10 (skip the social security part, scroll a couple pages down for the universal healthcare part) puts forth a pretty convincing economic and pragmatic argument for universal healthcare.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not about to argue for the status quo. It sucks, largely because of the current government interventions in the market.

First, there is the employer tax exemption for health care benefits, which acts as a kind of subsidy for health care, and as a result employers are incentivized to make health care benefits as high a percentage of their employees' pay packages as possible. As a result many employees have insurance packages that cover...everything, really, with leads to overconsumption of health care for the reasons Iron mentions. Two fixes of this would be to either repeal the exemption or, my preferred intervention of repealing the income tax entirely.

The second major intervention gone awry is the HMO Act of 1973, in which the government both subsidized the creation of HMOs and mandated that employers offer HMO care to their employees. And in the 1980's they basically shepherded the vast majority of Medicare patients into the HMO's. As with any coercive monopoly this has lead to increased costs and decreased satisfaction.

Finally, the AMA is yet another travesty, in terms of creating a shortage of doctors and medical professionals through its coercively-enforced standards, leading to, again, higher prices and lower quality.

Universal health care doesn't fundamentally change any of this...centralization and government monopoly inevitably leads to some combination of higher costs and lower quality. The solution to the health care isn't more of the same...it's a systematic repeal of all the government interventions in the health care industry.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Is there an actual pragmatic argument against universal ____________?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's use shoes, shoes work. Let's socialize shoes. Taxes pay for them, and you can simply get new shoes whenever you need them. No more bare feet. What's going to happen here?

[Poofler]

I like the notion, but hate the practicality for American government. I think it's the kind of endeavor that will be extensively mismanaged, unresponsive, and has enormous potential to bankrupt our state (more). I'd imagine a lot of long-term thinking ACers might actually want this to happen. From a statist perspective, we've got financial demons too big looming in the near future and I'm not sold that it wouldn't create more aggregate harm than good anyway (even to those it would help).

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there an actual pragmatic argument against universal healtchare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Poison the well much?


[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot of people would argue against UH from an ideological perspective, but, from a pragmatic perspective, has anyone made a convicing case for our current healthcare system?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is called a false dichotomy. (hint: opposing universal health care in no way implies a support for the current set of laws and regulations around health care)

[ QUOTE ]
Is it not clear that the USA and it's citizens would have more money at the end of the day and better healthcare?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is called begging the question.

[ QUOTE ]
It would also put US international businesses on more even footing with international competition that does not have to foot this bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is called a red herring, it's not related to the argument for or against universal health care. Assume for a minute that you KNEW universal health care would result in worse care for all. Would you then still give a damn that businesses are a bit more competetive? It's not the issue and I think you know that.

(It also sounds like fishing for reasons to support a foregone conclusion.)

[ QUOTE ]
This would not proclude a higher level of care for those who could afford it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you conceding that universal health care leads to lower levels of care? (also note that equivalent levels of "higher" care available today would cost the patient MORE under universal health care, simply because he's already paying for the lower care and now must pay on top of that to get the higher level of care he once had. It's the same as paying for private school after getting taxed for public school. Total education costs for quality education would be CHEAPER to the buyers under a system without public school. Same for health care.)


[ QUOTE ]
This http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html#10 (skip the social security part, scroll a couple pages down for the universal healthcare part) puts forth a pretty convincing economic and pragmatic argument for universal healthcare.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to read it but I have a hard time believing any argument for universal health when the facts speak for themselves. In countries where universal health care exists, the wealthy go travelling when they are sick. End of story.

Edit: Oh I see the article is by Dean Baker. Say no more. He's a frothing at the mouth leftist ideologue and not very bright either. His writings on Social Security have approached outright lies in my opinion. I'll read the article but I'm prepared for some hilarious reading.

natedogg