DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on August 29, 2007, 07:06:36 PM
-
Universal Health System is Doomed to Failure
In response to Merrill Matthews's Aug. 15 editorial-page commentary "Cost Control for Dummies1": Thank you for a rare breath of sanity and reality in the "universal health-care" debate.
I hear many individuals, including my own colleagues, wax eloquent about the supposed virtues of a government controlled health-care system. The issues outlined by the author are the first time I have seen a responsible opinion piece explaining why such a system is doomed to fail.
I believe that the American public is being steered into such an arrangement by well-intentioned individuals and cunning political grandstanders. My general impression is that the average person believes he will have all the benefits of the current medical system but none of the out-of-pocket expense. Of course, the devil will be in the details. But once a person becomes sick, he will surely find out the limits of "free" care as outlined in this sensible essay. But it will be too late for him.
Our current medical industry leaves plenty of room for improvement. But government control will only make the situation worse for everyone.
Daniel McDevitt, M.D.
Riverdale, Ga.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118826705386510612.html?mod=todays_us_page_one (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118826705386510612.html?mod=todays_us_page_one)
-
Stand by for the myriad of "what a massively stupid editorial" proclaimations :P
-
I had to laugh a little bit at this editorial, as today was largely taken up with my cardiac ultrasound, some kind of MRI-type chest imaging, and a stress test at a clinic about a ten-minute drive from my home, all in accordance with the instructions of my cardiologist, who I'll be meeting with as soon as the results come in. I reported in at 8:30 AM sharp and was out by 11:15, returned at 12:30 and was out just after 1:00 PM. All at a total cost of: Zero dollars. Which is exactly what all my cardiologist visits cost me.
Yep, this system sure is doomed to failure. It's the reason you Americans live so much longer than we Canadians - - oh, wait a second, I forgot: You don't. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
-
Yep, this system sure is doomed to failure. It's the reason you Americans live so much longer than we Canadians - - oh, wait a second, I forgot: You don't.
Good distortion of the facts, but you go with your strengths ;)
-
<<Good distortion of the facts, but you go with your strengths >>
Any particular facts you think were distorted, or is this your usual "deny it all" BS with no further elaboration, as a substitute for actual facts to the contrary?
-
<<Good distortion of the facts, but you go with your strengths >>
Any particular facts you think were distorted, or is this your usual "deny it all" BS with no further elaboration, as a substitute for actual facts to the contrary?
The fact of Canadians living longer fails to take into account many variables that have already been referenced here before, that occur here in the U.S. When I get home, I'll endeavor to present some of them again, so you can spin those rationalization wheels
-
I think when surveys in public use for decades establish differential rates of mortality, it should be obvious that the relative merits of each country's health-care delivery system would be only one of multiple variables producing the results. Obviously, it was facile of me to attribute Canada's superiority over the U.S. in the mortality tables exclusively to differences in our health-care delivery systems.
However, I don't see a whole lot of differences between the two countries apart from the health-care systems that could be expected to have any great influence on mortality rates.
-
Yep, this system sure is doomed to failure.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article3/nyt_logo_sm.gif)
Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb. 23:
The Cambie Surgery Center, Canada's most prominent private hospital, may be considered a rogue enterprise.
Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment.
But no one is about to arrest Dr. Brian Day, who is president and medical director of the center, or any of the 120 doctors who work there. Public hospitals are sending him growing numbers of patients they are too busy to treat, and his center is advertising that patients do not have to wait to replace their aching knees.
The country's publicly financed health insurance system frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity is gradually breaking down.
Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.
Dr. Day, for instance, is planning to open more private hospitals, first in Toronto and Ottawa, then in Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. Ontario provincial officials are already threatening stiff fines. Dr. Day says he is eager to see them in court.
"We've taken the position that the law is illegal," Dr. Day, 59, says. "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."
Dr. Day may be a rebel (he keeps a photograph of himself with Fidel Castro behind his desk), but he appears to be on top of a new wave in Canada's health care future. He is poised to become the president of the Canadian Medical Association next year, and his profitable Vancouver hospital is serving as a model for medical entrepreneurs in several provinces.
Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments are exploding and some cancer patients are waiting months for diagnostic tests and treatment.
But a Supreme Court ruling last June it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists ? appears to have become a turning point for the entire country.
"The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services," the court ruled.
In response, the Quebec premier, Jean Charest, proposed this month to allow private hospitals to subcontract hip, knee and cataract surgery to private clinics when patients are unable to be treated quickly enough under the public system. The premiers of British Columbia and Alberta have suggested they will go much further to encourage private health services and insurance in legislation they plan to propose in the next few months.
Private doctors across the country are not waiting for changes in the law, figuring provincial governments will not try to stop them only to face more test cases in the Supreme Court.
One Vancouver-based company started a large for-profit family medical clinic specializing in screening and preventive medicine here last November. It is planning to set up three similar clinics ? in Toronto, Ottawa and London, Ontario ? next summer and nine more in several other cities by the end of 2007. Private diagnostic clinics offering MRI procedures are opening around the country.
Canadian leaders continue to reject the largely market-driven American system, with its powerful private insurance companies and 40 million people left uninsured, as they look to European mixed public-private health insurance and delivery systems.
"Why are we so afraid to look at mixed health care delivery models when other states in Europe and around the world have used them to produce better results for patients at a lower cost to taxpayers" the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, asked in a speech two weeks ago
While proponents of private clinics say they will shorten waiting lists and quicken service at public institutions, critics warn that they will drain the public system of doctors and nurses. Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.
"If anesthetists go to work in a private clinic," Manitoba's health minister, Tim Sale, argued recently, "the work that they were doing in the public sector is spread among fewer and fewer people."
But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.
The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from 3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute, a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks from 5.6 weeks over the same period.
Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study.
Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment and 26 weeks for hip replacements.
But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization.
Dr. Day's hospital here opened in 1996 with 30 doctors and three operating rooms, treating mostly police officers, members of the military and worker's compensation clients, who are still allowed to seek treatment outside the public insurance system. It took several years to turn a profit.
Today the center is twice its original size and has yearly revenue of more than $8 million, mostly from perfectly legal procedures.
Over the last 18 months, the hospital has been under contract by overburdened local hospitals to perform knee, spine and gynecological operations on more than 1,000 patients.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=25bafd924c66a0ed&ex=1298782800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=25bafd924c66a0ed&ex=1298782800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
-
Any particular facts you think were distorted, or is this your usual "deny it all" BS with no further elaboration, as a substitute for actual facts to the contrary?
You never did answer my question as to what payroll tax percentage pays for this free health care.
-
<<You never did answer my question as to what payroll tax percentage pays for this free health care. >>
Sorry. I don't recall the question. But I don't know the answer. There isn't any specific payroll tax, only payroll deductions (a.k.a. "withholdings") on account of the individual's income tax obligations. The employee pays, the employer, in effect, collects and remits. Canadians pay a Federal income tax which is calculated differently for the residents of each Province so that although all of the income tax payment goes to the Federal government, my own income tax, for example, is calculated as the sum of Federal and Provincial (Ontario) income taxes. Then through tax-sharing agreements between the Federal government and the Provinces, some of the tax revenues are distributed to the Provinces and some are kept by the Feds. Each Province has its own Provincial health-care scheme (ours is OHIP) which must meet Federal standards as to universality, single-payer concept, etc. and is financed partly by Provincial funds and partly by Federal grants. The amount of the Federal financing is too complex for me to understand, but it's by formula and agreement, the overall scheme consisting of how much Federal revenue came from a particular Province, what that Province's entitlement is under Federal-Provincial tax-sharing agreements and so on. The general idea behind the agreement is that the richer Provinces contribute more taxes to the Federal government which shares it out to the poorer Provinces.
Since the taxes aren't (as far as I know) earmarked at the time of collection, so much for health-care, so much for National Defence, etc., I don't know that there is an easy answer. The subject has been studied extensively, but the most exhaustive study that I am aware of is the Romanow Commission Report. Roy Romanow, a former Governor-General of Canada, was given a Royal commission to study the health-care system and the Commission Report is the end result of numerous Royal Commission hearings, conducted (I believe) across Canada. I could never get through the Report because it's pretty dense reading, but from the newspaper summaries that I saw at the time, it seemed to indicate that the Canadian system was much more effective and equitable both in delivering health care and in equalizing the risk, than any private-enterprise model, because of its universality. My impression at the time was that meant it was more cost-effective, i.e. that the cost per capita was significantly less than the per capita costs of private health insurance. This made sense because while both systems would require an administrative bureaucracy, the private-sector in addition to paying for administration, would also have to show profits for the shareholders and the usual lavish over-compensation for its senior executives, who often were also owners. Furthermore, our system allows complete control over the provider payments, whereas private insurance schemes either leave the provider 100% uncontrolled as to his or her fees for services or more commonly now, exercise a looser control over them which in any event is not legally binding and does not affect providers outside of the scheme except indirectly.
-
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb. 23:
The Cambie Surgery Center, Canada's most prominent private hospital, may be considered a rogue enterprise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article might be more applicable in some Provinces than in others.
The health-care scheme is based on universality of access and single-payer payments to providers.
Like any scheme, it depends on enforcement by the government of the day. The private clinics are a death-threat to the system. If left un-checked they will lead to a return of the old system of excellent and state-of-the-art medicine for the rich, nothing for the rest of us and bankruptcy for the middle class if they are unfortunate in health. The only escape for the middle class being costly insurance policies, some of which require years of expensive litigation to make the insurers honour their obligations under the policy.
The federal government of the day is minority Conservative. The same political party which in 8 years of misrule in Ontario, managed to bring the Province to its knees, gutting the public health and public education systems and bringing us, among other goodies due to tax cuts for the rich, the SARS epidemic and the Walkerton water crisis, where due to drastic cut-backs in government water-inspection stations, about half a dozen people died of poisoned well-water. Thankfully, the Conservatives were finally thrown out in a landslide before they could do further damage.
Now we are blessed with a Conservative government federally. The federal government can easily require any Province to close down private clinics by threatening to cut off Federal contributions to the Provincial health-care scheme. For ideological reasons the present Conservative government is unwilling to intervene. Their object is the destruction of the existing system, which the clinics will weaken by draining manpower from it, thus creating longer waiting times (which the Supreme Court has indicated can be construed as a denial of Constitutional rights) and thus further weakening the legal underpinnings of the system.
The system works fine when it's enforced. What the Times is reporting, as superficially as ever, is the effects of governmental sabotage of a fine system for ideological reasons.
-
What amazes me is that people scrape the Internet to find articles critical of healthcare systems in Canada and Britain.
Of course you'll find them. Hell, the British are always complaining about the NHS - but try and tell them that the American system of private insurance providers is better.
I'm consistently amazed at people, many of whom have never been to these countries, who clearly hate and loathe universal healthcare first - then seek reasons to justify that ideological hatred.
-
I only wish the Times were as zealous in exposing the malfunctionings of the U.S. health-care system as it is in scouring the net for facts which it can misrepresent as failures of the Canadian system.
-
"Sorry. I don't recall the question. But I don't know the answer"
I believe it is about half of the taxes in Canada go to fund their failing health care system.
-
<<I believe it is about half of the taxes in Canada go to fund their failing health care system.>>
Do you recall the source of that?
Besides, our health is our most important asset. Why SHOULDN'T half my taxes go into it? What better use could the money be used for? Anything better than my health? Killing Arabs in Iraq maybe? Fuck that. You stay with your system, I'll stay with mine.
-
"Do you recall the source of that?"
CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml)
"What better use could the money be used for?"
Maybe a system that was not failing?
"Anything better than my health?"
Your system is doomed, can you not see reality?
Did you not read the article?
Private care is popping up every day in Canada.
The Canadian Supreme Court basically said care was so pathetic that citizens could go around the failing system to get help.
-
That is flat out untrue.
Canada spends 16.7% of its Government revenue on Health Care and that varies by province.
The United States spends 18.5% of its Government revenue on health care.
Romanow Report (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/romanow/stories/numbers.html)
It should also be noted that Canada's health expenses as a ratio of GDP growth is going down, the exact opposite of what is happening here.
-
Sorry. I don't recall the question. But I don't know the answer. There isn't any specific payroll tax, only payroll deductions (a.k.a. "withholdings") on account of the individual's income tax obligations.
So you don't know how much this "free" health care actually costs you?
What percentage of each earned dollar is subject to taxation on your paycheck and do any other sources of taxation like a federal or provincial sales tax goes into the kitty?
Sounds to me like your government is hiding the cost per worker of your UHC program.
-
That would be $0.167 per $1.00
-
"That is flat out untrue. Canada spends 16.7% of its Government revenue on Health Care and that varies by province"
(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/common/images/v2/logo_cbsnews.gif)
Canadian Health Care In Crisis
TORONTO, March 20, 2005
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
The system is going broke, says the federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in health care.
It calculates that at present rates, Ontario will be spending 85 percent of its budget on health care by 2035. "We can't afford a state monopoly on health care anymore," says Tasha Kheiriddin, Ontario director of the federation. "We have to examine private alternatives as well."
The federal government and virtually every province acknowledge there's a crisis: a lack of physicians and nurses, state-of-the-art equipment and funding. In Ontario, more than 10,000 nurses and hospital workers are facing layoffs over the next two years unless the provincial government boosts funding, says the Ontario Hospital Association, which represents health care providers in the province.
-
according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
I think I've spotted your problem.
-
That would be $0.167 per $1.00
What would that be?
17 cents for every dollar earned gioes to UHC?
-
No. That's how much of one's tax dollar goes to health care in Canada.
-
What amazes me is that people scrape the Internet to find articles critical of healthcare systems in Canada and Britain.
One, I don't believe one has to "scrape" the Internet to find these articles. Two, if other socialized health care systems are facing problems, don't you think that is information relevant to a debate about a possible adoption of socialized health care in the U.S.? Or do you advocate that we ignore those problems and forge ahead as if nothing bad could possibly come of it?
-
One, I don't believe one has to "scrape" the Internet to find these articles. Two, if other socialized health care systems are facing problems, don't you think that is information relevant to a debate about a possible adoption of socialized health care in the U.S.? Or do you advocate that we ignore those problems and forge ahead as if nothing bad could possibly come of it?
Of course it is relevant and I believe in gathering all worthwhile information.
What amazes me are those who seek a desired outcome and go searching for that information, all the while ignoring the rest of the data.
-
<<So you don't know how much this "free" health care actually costs you?>>
I do now. It's 16.7% of government revenues, varying by province. Thanks, JS. And the tax brackets vary, I believe the highest earners are in the 53% bracket but I wouldn't bet my life on it. There are so many tax schemes, tax dodges etc. that nobody really pays the percentage that the Income Tax Act allots to them.
<<What percentage of each earned dollar is subject to taxation on your paycheck and do any other sources of taxation like a federal or provincial sales tax goes into the kitty?>>
Federal and provincial sales taxes are very unpopular so they would virtually have to go into health care otherwise how would the government ever defend them? And who the hell counts how much sales tax he or she pays?
<<Sounds to me like your government is hiding the cost per worker of your UHC program. >>
All governments hide the cost of everything. When did YOUR government tell you the truth about what anything costs? Did they tell you how much Iraq was gonna cost?
<<So you don't know how much this "free" health care actually costs you?>>
Fucking right I know. I pay my taxes, have ALL my health-care needs attended to and still manage to live a pretty good life. Good roads, education, policing, public transport, roads and bridges. No I can't figure out what it costs me any more than I can figure out what national defence costs me or Canada's participation in the international trademark and copyright registration system costs me. I don't know what the fucking police cost me, either.
I know somebody I trust like Roy Romanow did an exhaustive study and lent his name to it, and the study concludes that I am getting my money's worth out of it. I know that a bunch of rich greedy scumbags (The Canadian Taxpayers Foundation) say that Romanow's wrong. I trust Romanow and I don't trust the Canadian Taxpayers Foundation. Weird, huh? Maybe you'd like to trust the Taxpayers Foundation instead of Romanow. That's your privilege. Go right ahead. After all, you trusted Bush, didn't you?
As far as CU4's articles are concerned, the "condemnation" of our system by the Supreme Court was by a 5-4 margin and refers to unacceptable wait times. These can be resolved in two ways: private clinics in effect violating existing legislation or raising taxes to pay for more public clinics. The current government for purely ideological reasons has permitted private clinics to operate without withholding federal payments to the provinces in which the clinics are operating. Once again what CU4 is reporting is not the failure of the system but the ideologically-motivated decision of a right-wing government to sabotage the system.
-
What amazes me is that people scrape the Internet to find articles critical of healthcare systems in Canada and Britain.
One, I don't believe one has to "scrape" the Internet to find these articles. Two, if other socialized health care systems are facing problems, don't you think that is information relevant to a debate about a possible adoption of socialized health care in the U.S.? Or do you advocate that we ignore those problems and forge ahead as if nothing bad could possibly come of it?
Prince, I agree with you that we should analyze other models while considering our own.
However, you have to admit that the attitude of some isn't the reasonable one that you've just described - they DO scrape for information to discredit other systems and use those findings as a reason to dismiss the idea that we could come up with anything better here.
-
Yep, this system sure is doomed to failure. It's the reason you Americans live so much longer than we Canadians - - oh, wait a second, I forgot: You don't. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I like these comparisons with countries that have maybe about 1/6th of our population, and most of it concentrated in certain areas. How about comparing us to a country with a similar population and demographics, and see how we stack up?
Actually, on a state by state basis, if you look at the states that border Canada, that is, those where the living conditions and demographics are similar, most of them have health care statistics comparable to or better than those of Canada. I believe I've posted that data here before.
-
It's 16.7% of government revenues, varying by province
I don't believe that is the same as taxpayer burden.
The question i have is what does it really cost a taxpayer in percentage of dollar earned.
In the USA we know that it costs a wage earner 7.65% to fund SS and Medicare. for the self employed i believe it is around 15%.
What is the apples to apples figure for Canada.
This should not be tha hard a number to find for a "free" health system.
Why are they hiding this?
-
It's 16.7% of government revenues, varying by province
I don't believe that is the same as taxpayer burden.
The question i have is what does it really cost a taxpayer in percentage of dollar earned.
In the USA we know that it costs a wage earner 7.65% to fund SS and Medicare. for the self employed i believe it is around 15%.
What is the apples to apples figure for Canada.
This should not be tha hard a number to find for a "free" health system.
Why are they hiding this?
They aren't.
It varies by province. Alberta for example, charges a fee for medical services. You're looking at it too simply.
-
I like these comparisons with countries that have maybe about 1/6th of our population, and most of it concentrated in certain areas. How about comparing us to a country with a similar population and demographics, and see how we stack up?
Actually, on a state by state basis, if you look at the states that border Canada, that is, those where the living conditions and demographics are similar, most of them have health care statistics comparable to or better than those of Canada. I believe I've posted that data here before.
What demographics change the overall money savings from universal healthcare?
Why can Sweden, Canada, and Britain pull this off at a savings compared to the United States? More population shouldn't make a difference if you understand statistics.
-
They aren't.
I think part of BT's question involved the semantics (and assumption) that all government revenue is from income taxes; it's not.
-
I think part of BT's question involved the semantics (and assumption) that all government revenue is from income taxes; it's not.
Erm...so?
-
However, you have to admit that the attitude of some isn't the reasonable one that you've just described - they DO scrape for information to discredit other systems and use those findings as a reason to dismiss the idea that we could come up with anything better here.
I think I'd say they do look for information to discredit socialized health care, but it seems to me there is plenty of that information out there. Though I will say that yes, many of them do seek excuses to do nothing about the U.S. health care system. Personally, I think that very much needs to be done and soon, but I also don't believe that socialized health care is going to be the solution that is going to solve our problem. I see report after report after report about other countries with socialized health care having to ration care to manage costs that are constantly rising. The reason people end up waiting for operations in Canada and Britain is not because people don't care, but because the governments have attempted to artificially keep prices down with regulations. Apparently, while the upfront price for the individual is nil, the actual costs of the health care have not changed.
If you want to talk about scraping, try looking for the articles about doctors who have lowered their costs by refusing to accept Medicare payments and have started charging patients according to what the patients can afford to pay. Finding information about that is difficult. But it does happen. And as I understand it some physicians who still accept Medicare have found that charging anything other the rate set by Medicare, and that includes not charging at all, can result in legal trouble. The government tends to call it fraud. So we've got wealthy people using Medicare who cannot be charged more, and poor people who cannot be charged less or given free care at the discretion of the physician. The government is trying to artificially set prices, and that doesn't solve the problem. And from what I've read about socialized health care in other countries, socialized health care doesn't solve the problem either.
What we need is a way to address the costs. One way would be to cut back on the length of drug patents. But even drug companies are offering drug discounts. There are also drug discount prescription plans available. And there are charity hospitals. We have a foundation upon which to build a private network of health care in this country that would be the equivalent of universal health care, and could reduce overall costs over time while allowing people with no insurance access to health care. So why are we not pushing for that? I'll tell you why I think we are not. I think that the populace in general would rather have the government do something so that they, the populace, don't have to do anything. Having the government take money and use it to whatever end requires no compassion and no action on the part of the individual whose money is taken. And that is what we want, isn't it? Well, we may just get it, but I think it will cost us more in the long run than most are willing to admit.
-
so?
So percentage of revenue spent is not the same as taxpayer burden.
What is that burden in this "free" system?
Why is that number hidden or at best so difficult to find?
-
I like these comparisons with countries that have maybe about 1/6th of our population, and most of it concentrated in certain areas. How about comparing us to a country with a similar population and demographics, and see how we stack up?
Actually, on a state by state basis, if you look at the states that border Canada, that is, those where the living conditions and demographics are similar, most of them have health care statistics comparable to or better than those of Canada. I believe I've posted that data here before.
What demographics change the overall money savings from universal healthcare?
Why can Sweden, Canada, and Britain pull this off at a savings compared to the United States? More population shouldn't make a difference if you understand statistics.
I was replying to Michael Tee's statement that Canadians live longer than Americans, not the comparative financial costs of the health care systems. And given that our larger population embraces a greater variety of living conditions, life-styles, and genetic diversity, I'd say it's very much relevant to the evaluation of our health as a nation. As I pointed out, in areas of the U.S. where we have similar living conditions, and a similar demographic to Canada, we also have similar health statistics, socialized health care notwithstanding.
Further, the savings are going to be realized by whom? Having only visited a doctor exactly once in the last 5 years, I can assure you a national health care system is going to cost me more than the present one. I'd be really interested in knowing what, if anything, you "for-the-good-of-society" types are contributing to my experience as an American, and to your beloved "society" at large, that gives you standing to demand the rest of us pay into a national health care system because it will cost *you* less money?
-
so?
So percentage of revenue spent is not the same as taxpayer burden.
What is that burden in this "free" system?
Why is that number hidden or at best so difficult to find?
No one considers it "free." It is not "hidden" and I've explained why it might be difficult to find, though I really don't know. Have you actually tried?
-
re: I think I've spotted your problem.
No I think reality has "spotted the problem" and Canadians are attempting to flee that problem and that is why private care is growing so fast in Canada.
-
I was replying to Michael Tee's statement that Canadians live longer than Americans, not the comparative financial costs of the health care systems. And given that our larger population embraces a greater variety of living conditions, life-styles, and genetic diversity, I'd say it's very much relevant to the evaluation of our health as a nation. As I pointed out, in areas of the U.S. where we have similar living conditions, and a similar demographic to Canada, we also have similar health statistics, socialized health care notwithstanding.
"A greater variety of living conditions?" What does that even mean?
Genetic diversity? I disagree. Show me a city in the United States with more "genetic diversity" than Toronto.
Further, the savings are going to be realized by whom? Having only visited a doctor exactly once in the last 5 years, I can assure you a national health care system is going to cost me more than the present one. I'd be really interested in knowing what, if anything, you "for-the-good-of-society" types are contributing to my experience as an American, and to your beloved "society" at large, that gives you standing to demand the rest of us pay into a national health care system because it will cost *you* less money?
Oh no, I'm a "for-the-good-of-society type."
I don't know that it will cost me less money. It may cost me more. I don't care how often you go to the doctor. The cost savings is on a national level. You're individualism is quite frankly, not my concern.
-
Having the government take money and use it to whatever end requires no compassion
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.
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.
-
No one considers it "free."
Nonsense. We just read an account from Mikey where he visited his cardiologist and didn't pay a dime.
Perhaps it would be easier to see what it costs a Jordanian since theirs is based on a VAT.
Henny?
-
No one considers it "free."
Nonsense. We just read an account from Mikey where he visited his cardiologist and didn't pay a dime.
Perhaps it would be easier to see what it costs a Jordanian since theirs is based on a VAT.
Henny?
Free at the point of service.
I think people here are intelligent enough to understand what that means.
-
I think people here are intelligent enough to understand what that means.
Is it really free at the point of service if the service has been prepaid?
I think the people in this forum are smart enough to know that it isn't.
-
Free at the point of service.
I think people here are intelligent enough to understand what that means.
Hmm, guess my health insurance is "socialized" then, too, since it too is "free".
All of my co-pays are $0. Prescriptions included.
Costs me about $220 a month, with a similar payment from the employer.
-
I think people here are intelligent enough to understand what that means.
Is it really free at the point of service if the service has been prepaid?
I think the people in this forum are smart enough to know that it isn't.
Yes, it is. Free at the point of service means exactly what it says. It is simply that you don't pay at the point of service.
-
Hmm, guess my health insurance is "socialized" then, too, since it too is "free".
All of my co-pays are $0. Prescriptions included.
Costs me about $220 a month, with a similar payment from the employer.
I could have sworn this said $320 a second ago, but still...wow, that's expensive. Is that single coverage or does that cover more than just you?
-
I could have sworn this said $320 a second ago, but still...wow, that's expensive. Is that single coverage or does that cover more than just you?
Yeah, it was a typo.
That's for family coverage. Everyone in the family is covered under that. Should go down when my daughter moves out. ;-)
-
That's for family coverage. Everyone in the family is covered under that. Should go down when my daughter moves out. ;-)
Still seems expensive, but at least it isn't for just one person!
-
No one considers it "free."
Nonsense. We just read an account from Mikey where he visited his cardiologist and didn't pay a dime.
Perhaps it would be easier to see what it costs a Jordanian since theirs is based on a VAT.
Henny?
I think it would be harder to see in a VAT system - it costs per person what a person can afford.
VAT is not applicable to food and items necessary for survival - but if you want to buy a new TV or stereo, you are paying for healthcare too.
-
but still...wow, that's expensive.
$440 x 12 = $5,280. Coverage is for 3 people, currently.
$5,280 / 3 = $1,760.
What was it that Canada is spending per capita? ~$2,600 last I heard. And my plan pays for prescription medication, not currently covered under Canada's federal mandated plan.
Don't know why you think it's expensive. I've paid up to $600 / month in the past, for a worse plan.
-
but still...wow, that's expensive.
$440 x 12 = $5,280. Coverage is for 3 people, currently.
$5,280 / 3 = $1,760.
What was it that Canada is spending per capita? ~$2,600 last I heard. And my plan pays for prescription medication, not currently covered under Canada's federal mandated plan.
Don't know why you think it's expensive. I've paid up to $600 / month in the past, for a worse plan.
Maybe in relation to your salary it's not that expensive. But the guy in the mailroom with a family who earns $8.50/hour might have something different to say.
-
Maybe in relation to your salary it's not that expensive. But the guy in the mailroom with a family who earns $8.50/hour might have something different to say.
Well, then, get rid of FICA. He'll save over $100 a month. And so will his wife, if she's earning a similar amount.
Then the cost will be pretty much covered.
-
Maybe in relation to your salary it's not that expensive. But the guy in the mailroom with a family who earns $8.50/hour might have something different to say.
Well, then, get rid of FICA. He'll save over $100 a month. And so will his wife, if she's earning a similar amount.
Then the cost will be pretty much covered.
Initially. But do you really think that would be a permanent solution? My thought is that it would be no more than a bandaid.
-
Well, then, get rid of FICA. He'll save over $100 a month. And so will his wife, if she's earning a similar amount.
Then the cost will be pretty much covered.
What if his wife does not work?
-
What if his wife does not work?
Then he's getting an EIC which will pay for the cost of his health insurance. Even if his wife is working, he's probably still getting an EIC.
-
Initially. But do you really think that would be a permanent solution? My thought is that it would be no more than a bandaid.
Your solution? Pay MORE, like Canada?
-
Your solution? Pay MORE, like Canada?
You're basing that on per capita expense. No one pays more per capita for healthcare than the United States.
-
You're basing that on per capita expense. No one pays more per capita for healthcare than the United States.
And yet, I'm paying less. I understand that some of my income is taken from me and used to pay for others, but I'm not counting that. For the healthcare plan I use to pay for my family's expenses, I pay less than Canada spends per capita. And my coverage is greater. It can be done, in the US, now.
However, those on the left don't want to consider anything less than government controlled health care. Private just isn't good enough.
-
You're basing that on per capita expense. No one pays more per capita for healthcare than the United States.
And yet, I'm paying less. I understand that some of my income is taken from me and used to pay for others, but I'm not counting that. For the healthcare plan I use to pay for my family's expenses, I pay less than Canada spends per capita. And my coverage is greater. It can be done, in the US, now.
However, those on the left don't want to consider anything less than government controlled health care. Private just isn't good enough.
So the data is incorrect?
-
Initially. But do you really think that would be a permanent solution? My thought is that it would be no more than a bandaid.
Your solution? Pay MORE, like Canada?
I'm not convinced that Canadians pay more in the end. But why does every comparison have to be to Canada? This is driving me crazy.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
But why does every comparison have to be to Canada? This is driving me crazy.
Because a Canadian made a snarky comment. ;-)
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
So it is just about you, a single individual?
No; there are thousands of people on my plan.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
It is more volentary , do you prefer to be told what is going to happen or do you prefer to be asked ?
-
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.
It is more volentary , do you prefer to be told what is going to happen or do you prefer to be asked ?
Well Summized, Plane 8)
-
What gives your plan the moral highground here Prince? I'm not seeing it.
Possibly nothing. But I am not a fan of the notion that people who care want socialized health care. I'm sure that some people, you included, who want socialized health care do want it out of a concern for others. But I don't like the implication that concern for others=wanting socialized health care. I don't believe you intentionally implied it, and maybe this is inference on my part, but it always seems to be the underlying notion of the "how can you object to socialized health care" question. And too often what I see played out in other discussions about socialized health care or welfare or similar programs is that eventually the focus shifts from concern about others' wellbeing to concern about wealthy people having too much money and how unfair that is and how the wealthy need to be forced to fork over more money. What it comes to be about is not helping people but about making sure other people pay for being so unfair as to have more. And if taking money from other people is the goal of how we're going to use government in the name of government representing the people, then I will not support 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.
No, it just lacks a centrally controlled pooling of resources. It leaves the pooling and the management down closer to the level where people live.
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.
Has it? Last I checked, NHS was struggling to balance the books (http://tinyurl.com/2nc3oe), was neglecting the elderly (http://tinyurl.com/2uffuq) and had one of the worst cancer survival rates (http://tinyurl.com/2e9xxt) in Europe. I'm not so sure NHS is a model to look up to.
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.
Maybe because it hasn't been tried in the manner I'm talking about. We can send doctors and nurses to do charity work in Africa, but we can't make a from-the-ground-up network here? We should be ashamed of ourselves.
You have not shown otherwise.
Kinda difficult for me to give you hard data when the idea hasn't even been tried yet.
You've given theoretical, ivory tower arguments.
Ivory tower? I'm trying to address this issue in the most practical, starting-at-ground-level manner I know how. I'm trying to propose a flexible, adaptable system that would not only help people get the care they need but create the sort of dynamic in the medical industry that would drive prices down over the long term, resulting in a stable system of more affordable health care. How the frak is that ivory tower? To me the impractical, ivory tower solution is the top-down, centrally planned and controlled, socialized health care. As I look at the results of it in other countries, it seems entirely impractical as a long term solution.
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 believe the argument is that state or local governments are in a much better position to create health care systems that meet the needs of the people. Which is neither puerile nor bizarre. Do you think Washington D.C. is going to create a flexible and responsive system that meets the health care needs of people in Wyoming as well as the people in New York City? Don't you think a more localized approach would be more responsive to day to day working issues that will surely crop up? And many people think sales tax is one of the least intrusive ways to tax people because the rates are generally kept fairly low, and wealthy people are, by the very nature of the system and society, going to end up paying more. How is that puerile or bizarre?
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.
I don't know who is claiming it increases costs. I'm not. I'm claiming it doesn't reduce costs or stop them from climbing. It artificially reduces the price people pay, but that is not the same as reducing the actual costs of the care.
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.
Then again, most Americans are, in poll after poll, satisfied with the health care they receive. I'm sure that people do like getting health care for what seems to be free, but that doesn't mean there are not problems in those systems that we would be well advised to acknowledge and address before we adopt such a system here in the U.S.
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.
No, I have a starting place from which to begin a more serious and more connected network that will grow to fill in precisely where you think the system that exists now is failing. In a nutshell, that is the plan. You're right, have I no evidence it will work, but then I have no way to get evidence if it is never tried. I have no means to do more research, but I'm hoping I can find people who do. Not that I would propose to be in charge. But hopefully I can get others to see the value in trying.
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.
For one thing, the pooling of resources you're talking about is involuntary. An insurance company, on the other hand, is entirely voluntary, except maybe in Massachusetts.
-
Denouncing American citizenship is easy enough. Just cut your passport in half and mail it to the nearest embassy. Taxation problem solved.
U.S. taxation perhaps, assuming I want to surrender my citizenship (which I don't, at least not yet). I doubt it would solve all taxation issues.