Universal Health System is Doomed to Failure

[Henny]

However, those on the left don't want to consider anything less than government controlled health care. Private just isn't good enough.

This is very narrow, Ami. Many countries have only semi-socialized healthcare, but the changes and improvements in those models has driven costs down for everyone.

[Amianthus]

So the data is incorrect?

No; I'm sure the government spends a shit-load of money on health care, but none of it on me or my family.

I'm pointing out that a government-run healthcare system is not necessarily better. I'm involved with a private model that is cheaper than Canada's system, for example.

[Amianthus]

But why does every comparison have to be to Canada? This is driving me crazy.

Because a Canadian made a snarky comment. ;-)

[Amianthus]

This is very narrow, Ami. Many countries have only semi-socialized healthcare, but the changes and improvements in those models has driven costs down for everyone.

As BT has pointed out numerous times now - nothing is stopping various counties and states from implementing a single payer system in their areas. Then the various systems can be compared to each other and any problems worked out.

Why does it have to be done at the Federal level?

Or, to put it another way, why make a Federal case out of it?

[Henny]

This is very narrow, Ami. Many countries have only semi-socialized healthcare, but the changes and improvements in those models has driven costs down for everyone.

As BT has pointed out numerous times now - nothing is stopping various counties and states from implementing a single payer system in their areas. Then the various systems can be compared to each other and any problems worked out.

Why does it have to be done at the Federal level?

Or, to put it another way, why make a Federal case out of it?

Why not explore both options? Why do people shut down the topic every time a Federal solution is suggested?

[Amianthus]

Why not explore both options? Why do people shut down the topic every time a Federal solution is suggested?

A Federal solution effectively precludes a local solution.

[Religious Dick]

Something in American healthcare is broken and it needs to be fixed. There are numerous examples throughout the world of how it can be handled, both good and bad, and we can take some of those good examples, improve on problems in others, or just start from scratch with our own.

Why is this so painful for people to swallow?

How about a real market-based system? Seems to be working so well for India that it's even attracting Americans and Canadians.

http://www.questmedtourism.com/?gclid=CNfQw8D-nY4CFRcbWAodv3KIYQ
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/medicaltourism.html

I have a friend who had kidney stones, and for the savings he realized it was cheaper for him to fly to India and have the procedure performed there. Same procedure, using the same equipment he would have gotten here.

I have another friend who routinely takes his family to Mexico to have major dental work done. Again, even with traveling and accommodations thrown in, and paying for it out of pocket, it's still cheaper than having it done in the U.S.

[Universe Prince]

I was under the impression that the Government represents the people. Or at least that is theoretically how this democracy thing is supposed to work. As individuals we haven't much of a say, but as a large group represented by our elected officials, we are supposed to have a great deal of influence.

Let's say this is correct. Does that mean if your group is large enough, you get to force other people to do what you want?

No, it doesn't require compassion, but neither does it require compassion for a pharmaceutical to offer a discount on its drugs. I suggest that compassion has a definition that far exceeds elementary dictionaries, and goes right to the root Latin (passio - to suffer; cum - with). In that context I don't think that compassion plays much of a role on either side of this argument.

Perhaps, though it seems to me that my point remains. The reason to have government do something about health care is so we as individuals don't have to do anything. We don't have to contribute anything, don't have to choose to do anything about helping others. All we have to do is let the government take our money, and then we can claim support for the program is the same as caring. I happen to disagree with that. I also happen to find something a tad wrong with coercively taking other people's money for a health care program, and "the government represents the people" is not sufficient defense for it, imo. If the government represents the people, then it shouldn't take money from people without their direct consent. You don't get to take money from people without their consent. I don't either. Why? Because that would be called stealing. If the government represents the people, then the government should be held to the same standard because government coercively taking money from everyone then amounts to you or me using government to take money from people without their consent.

Yes, the U.S. needs to do something about the health care system, but that the government represents the people is not a good enough reason to institute socialized health care. It is, in point of fact, the very reason why we should not institute socialized health care. Otherwise what you have is the government representing only the people with the loudest voice, and the minority is left unrepresented.

We have the means to create a nation-wide, private, decentralized network of insurance, charity, doctors, hospitals, discounts, pharmacies, et cetera, that would provide health care for anyone willing to take part. So why don't we? Is health care for everyone what we care about? Or is the important part making sure those wealthy bastards pay?

[_JS]

So the data is incorrect?

No; I'm sure the government spends a shit-load of money on health care, but none of it on me or my family.

I'm pointing out that a government-run healthcare system is not necessarily better. I'm involved with a private model that is cheaper than Canada's system, for example.

So it is just about you, a single individual?

[_JS]

Let's say this is correct. Does that mean if your group is large enough, you get to force other people to do what you want?

Yes. In some cases, where the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, and as long as no one is used as an end in and of himself, then absolutely...yes.

Perhaps, though it seems to me that my point remains. The reason to have government do something about health care is so we as individuals don't have to do anything. We don't have to contribute anything, don't have to choose to do anything about helping others. All we have to do is let the government take our money, and then we can claim support for the program is the same as caring. I happen to disagree with that. I also happen to find something a tad wrong with coercively taking other people's money for a health care program, and "the government represents the people" is not sufficient defense for it, imo. If the government represents the people, then it shouldn't take money from people without their direct consent. You don't get to take money from people without their consent. I don't either. Why? Because that would be called stealing. If the government represents the people, then the government should be held to the same standard because government coercively taking money from everyone then amounts to you or me using government to take money from people without their consent.

No. I don't buy into the taxes = slavery argument, neither did Locke and neither did Adam Smith. In this case von Mises and others are being their typical ivory tower selves. Pragmatism was not an exceptional trait of the Austrian school (and certainly let no one accuse Objectivists of living on planet Earth). In the real world of economics, taxes are nothing more than a collective payment for services rendered by the Public Sector. You may not like those services, certainly there are many who dislike the invasion of Iraq, for example, but the soldiers need water, food, gasoline, uniforms, tents, ammunition, on and on. The same holds true of public libraries, police, fire, and all sorts of other services that people collectively deemed necessary.

Whether you like it or not is inconsequential Prince. You aren't a slave to the United States Government, as you most certainly can relocate to another nation. Victor once asked me to relocate to Sweden

Yes, the U.S. needs to do something about the health care system, but that the government represents the people is not a good enough reason to institute socialized health care. It is, in point of fact, the very reason why we should not institute socialized health care. Otherwise what you have is the government representing only the people with the loudest voice, and the minority is left unrepresented.

Right...

We have the means to create a nation-wide, private, decentralized network of insurance, charity, doctors, hospitals, discounts, pharmacies, et cetera, that would provide health care for anyone willing to take part. So why don't we? Is health care for everyone what we care about? Or is the important part making sure those wealthy bastards pay?[/color]

So why haven't we? Why hasn't the private sector filled this market flaw? If it is as easy as all that, then I suggest they get their collective asses in gear and get to work. I know these charities exist, hell I know very well that they exist. And still people go without care. Still, we have websites set up with example letters of how to bitch to a private insurance company on why it is important that they help pay for a child to have birth defects in his or her skull corrected.

[Amianthus]

So it is just about you, a single individual?

No; there are thousands of people on my plan.

[Religious Dick]

So the data is incorrect?

No; I'm sure the government spends a shit-load of money on health care, but none of it on me or my family.

I'm pointing out that a government-run healthcare system is not necessarily better. I'm involved with a private model that is cheaper than Canada's system, for example.

So it is just about you, a single individual?

Actually, it's about quite a few of us individuals.

Who do you purport to represent?

[Universe Prince]

Let's say this is correct. Does that mean if your group is large enough, you get to force other people to do what you want?

Yes. In some cases, where the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, and as long as no one is used as an end in and of himself, then absolutely...yes.

Let me get this straight, you're saying if your group is large enough then you get to force people to do what you want, but you don't believe that taxes=slavery. That seems incongruous.

I don't buy into the taxes = slavery argument, neither did Locke and neither did Adam Smith.

Good thing I didn't make that argument then. I believe I compared taxation in this case to stealing, not to slavery.

In this case von Mises and others are being their typical ivory tower selves. Pragmatism was not an exceptional trait of the Austrian school (and certainly let no one accuse Objectivists of living on planet Earth).

That may be, but von Mises didn't type that post. I did. And I'm not an Objectivist. And I notice that you are trying to refute the people you think made the argument first, but not the argument itself.

In the real world of economics, taxes are nothing more than a collective payment for services rendered by the Public Sector. You may not like those services, certainly there are many who dislike the invasion of Iraq, for example, but the soldiers need water, food, gasoline, uniforms, tents, ammunition, on and on. The same holds true of public libraries, police, fire, and all sorts of other services that people collectively deemed necessary.

Believe it or not, I am not entirely opposed to taxation. I believe it can serve a purpose, though I'd like to see a lot less of it. And what I said before still stands. "The government represents the people" is not sufficient defense for taxing people to fund any and all programs you think are needed.

Whether you like it or not is inconsequential Prince.

If the government represents the people, then whether I like it or not should be consequential, JS, because I'm not the only one.

You aren't a slave to the United States Government, as you most certainly can relocate to another nation.

Living in another nation would not absolve me of paying taxes to the U.S. government. Even expats are expected to pay income tax.

We have the means to create a nation-wide, private, decentralized network of insurance, charity, doctors, hospitals, discounts, pharmacies, et cetera, that would provide health care for anyone willing to take part. So why don't we? Is health care for everyone what we care about? Or is the important part making sure those wealthy bastards pay?

So why haven't we? Why hasn't the private sector filled this market flaw? If it is as easy as all that, then I suggest they get their collective asses in gear and get to work. I know these charities exist, hell I know very well that they exist. And still people go without care. Still, we have websites set up with example letters of how to bitch to a private insurance company on why it is important that they help pay for a child to have birth defects in his or her skull corrected.

Let me put it this way, if all the folks campaigning for socialized universal health care would instead campaign for a a nation-wide, private, decentralized health care network, we might have one. You're still wondering why someone else hasn't done it yet. Me, I know exactly why I can't do it by myself. I haven't the skill or the money. I'm trying to drum up some interest, in my limited way, in hopes that other people with the skill and the contacts and the money will do something about it. And I don't mean just posting here. Do you know someone who could help? Why don't you talk to him or her or them about it? Would it hurt you to try? Would having a decentralized health care network be so frakkin' abhorent to you that you refuse to consider trying to help make it happen? I said it before and I'll say it again: Is health care for everyone what we care about? Or is the important part making sure those wealthy bastards pay?

[Henny]

Living in another nation would not absolve me of paying taxes to the U.S. government. Even expats are expected to pay income tax.

Denouncing American citizenship is easy enough. Just cut your passport in half and mail it to the nearest embassy. Taxation problem solved.

[_JS]

What gives your plan the moral highground here Prince? I'm not seeing it.

Would having a decentralized health care network be so frakkin' abhorent to you that you refuse to consider trying to help make it happen?

Quite frankly, I don't think it will or can work. It lacks any coherent pooling of resources and management thereof. Whereas, with the NHS (as an example) it has been proven, over time, to work effectively in providing care to the people, even to the poorest and most disadvantaged.

Your loose network of charities and generous doctors has never been proven to do anything more than help with a few cases here and there, which has great merit, please don't get me wrong - but in terms of equality and getting care to everyone who needs it - it just does not hold water.

You have not shown otherwise. You've given theoretical, ivory tower arguments. Some of your colleagues here have taken pot shots at other national systems, but of course ignoring the log in their own eye, so to speak (which in fairness you've not done).

I've heard whining about some individuals having to pay more. I've heard whining about not wanting to pay for someone else's healthcare. I've heard complaining that the taxes aren't transparent enough and that states must pay for this through sales taxes - which I find a purely puerile and bizarre argument.

I've heard defense of the current system as being incredibly expensive, but worth the money because it produces better results. That argument basically ignores all available data and reason.

What I have not heard is why other nations cover their entire population with less expense per patient and as a percentage of GDP than the United States, yet socialised medical care is some sort of nationalised evil that must increase costs because a few tiny economic professors said so.

What I have not heard is why most Canadians, Brits, and Swedes like their healthcare systems and find the American system to be backward. Meanwhile, arguments here try and claim the opposite is true - again in the face of all available data and reason.

Lastly, I have not heard a counter proposal that is proven to lower costs and provide equality in healthcare for everyone. I'm impressed that you have an alternative system in mind Prince, and I respect your point of view over many others, but you have no real evidence of its value. You have a patchwork system already in place that fails to do what you are asking it to do in much greater numbers.

It amazes me that a public pooling of resources is looked upon with so much disdain, whereas a private pooling of resources (which essentially is all an insurance company is) is looked upon with such respect by some.