A federal soda pop tax. Higher levies on beer, wine and hard liquor. Taxing some health insurance benefits. Those are among the options the Senate is considering to pay for revamping health care. What ideas or solutions are practical to you?
Printable View
A federal soda pop tax. Higher levies on beer, wine and hard liquor. Taxing some health insurance benefits. Those are among the options the Senate is considering to pay for revamping health care. What ideas or solutions are practical to you?
Many economists and lawmakers confess they are fresh out of new ideas for slowing health spending. Nevertheless, in the next few decades, the United States must slam the brakes on rising health costs or begin slashing spending in other areas in order to afford health Hit care.
Until now, rising health costs have seemed relatively affordable — at least for middle- and upper-income people — because prices have been rising from a relatively low base in the 1960s, says Michael Chernew, a professor of health management and policy at the University of Michigan. Today, however, with health spending already consuming more than 16 percent of GDP, rapid growth in health costs quickly translates into something the country almost certainly cannot afford, he says.
Even if the growth of Previous HithealthNext Hit spending could be slowed through the year 2075 to a rate just one percentage point faster than GDP — about half as fast as it's grown historically — the United States still would spend a little more than half of its cumulative annual income increases on Previous HithealthNext Hit. That's steep, but not completely unaffordable, since nearly half of each year's income growth would still be left over to spend on other priorities. Footnote 73
But if health spending continues to grow two percentage points faster than GDP each year — the historical average — big trouble looms quickly, Chernew explains. Under the 2 percentage-point scenario, 44.9 percent of the increase in per-capita income between 1999 and 2010 goes to health care. Then, from 2010-2050, health care eats up 87.8 percent of income growth. “You get to use only a little over 10 percent of your new raise for anything” else, Chernew says. Then from 2050-2075, things would get even worse: 165.6 percent of the increase in GDP would go to health care. “In other words, spending on everything but health care would actually drop” year to year, even though incomes kept going up, he explains.
If that happened, the United States would have to resort to some kind of health care rationing, even though the U.S. Previous health care system currently has no idea how to use clinical evidence to parcel out health care rationally, says Aaron of the Brookings Institution. “We need to acquire a great deal of knowledge,” he continues. The nation will face choices that “will strain the democratic fabric” of society, because of the “emotional content and economic stakes involved.”
On the bright side, says Chernew, the question is how to cut future growth in health spending, not how to give up current spending levels. “The prospect isn't as scary as some may think,” he says. “Things will still get better, just less better than they otherwise might.”
Despite arguments that physicians and insurance companies make too much money, “this isn't a villain situation,” says Jack Meyer, president of the nonpartisan Economic and Social Research Institute. “Is it a problem that a neurosurgeon earns $500,000 a year?” he asks, pointing out that Yankee third-baseman Alex Rodriguez earns $25 million a year — “50 times what the neurosurgeon is making.”
Rather than searching for a villain, Meyer says, we must acknowledge, “we have met the enemy and he is us.” Americans expect unlimited health care with little financial pain, he says. Generous insurance benefits enjoyed by well-insured people drive up premium costs for everyone, and many workers expect to retire early, even though Medicare would be easier to sustain if the eligibility age were nudged up by a few years.
For the hard answers, “we have to look in the mirror,” says Meyer. “Americans don't like being told to wait, let alone being told, 'No.' ”
In the end, we can't afford private health care, and we can barely afford universal, if even that. So we might as well suck it up and go universal.
Thank you Congressional Quarterly.
My question has always been - you don't mind paying for public school, why do you mind paying for health care? I just don't get it.
(This is probably unrelated; did not read walls of text. Sorry.)
Hang on, you guys pay for public school?
Is that how it is everywhere?
Wait, just figured out what you meant. Carry on.
Jem.
We just raped this thread.
CARRY ON.
Its fine, the entire wall was summarized by the line:Quote:
Originally Posted by solecistic
"In the end, we can't afford private health care, and we can barely afford universal, if even that. So we might as well suck it up and go universal." And by the end I mean within 10 years tops.
To pay for it? The liberals will raise taxes on the rich, and the GOP will...wait a minute...they want to lower taxes and further privatize health care. So basically they screw the entire idea over until they realize at the last minute what needs to happen. I'm not sure if the Dems realize that we have to go Universal yet, but hopefully they will figure it out, and hopefully this nation will stop being so scared of slight socialization in order to save its healthcare system.
Schools lead to productivity which leads to the creation of money. The creation of money leads to a higher standard of living. Honestly though, I do mind paying for public schools too. I have yet to see a government program/service that comes anywhere near the efficiency possible in a truly free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by solecistic
Defense is probably an obvious example. There's no way that a private company or any other non-governmental group could ever possibly provide the services of national defense that the United States government currently provides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan
EDIT: On the topic of health care, government health care programs in various European countries provide medical care at a substantially lower per capita cost than does the US system of private insurance companies. I'm not sure what you mean by "efficiency", but they are cheaper and don't leave 15% of the population uninsured, so that's a plus.
Well, the US government uses a lot of contractors for that work these days. Under normal circumstances though, I would agree that defense is one of the very few roles that the government should undertake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
So, their shitty system is mildly better when it comes to cost than the shitty system we have now. How about we try a real free market health care system? One in which I can call around to clinics and hospitals and get real pricing information. I wouldn't take my car to an auto shop that wouldn't tell me their pricing, but I have to get my health care that way.Quote:
EDIT: On the topic of health care, government health care programs in various European countries provide medical care at a substantially lower per capita cost than does the US system of private insurance companies. I'm not sure what you mean by "efficiency", but they are cheaper and don't leave 15% of the population uninsured, so that's a plus.
"Mildly"? US per capita health care costs are $6000 per year. For most developed European countries, it's around $3000 per year or less. They also don't leave nearly 50 million people uninsured, as the US system does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan
Are you saying that in this system, people would pay for their medical care out-of-pocket on an as-needed basis, rather than having medical insurance? That's what it sounds like you are implying when you talk about calling around and checking prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan
OK, Trojan really doesn't seem to understand healthcare so, instead of going down that road, I'll instead mention France's system.
Basically they have socialised medicine in that it's paid for by the government only it works on a reimbursement process. Basically you go to your GP and etc. etc. and then you pay. Then you are pretty much immediately paid back (I think at least 80%) by the government. Also, with their system, you can have multiple GPs so if you don't like what one says you can always go to another one (this is why French doctors listen to their patients). There are many downsides to this system but, basically, it retains enough cash in the system to keep it afloat (and French public service workers tennd to be against changes unless they're striking for them).
How about a system somewhat like that?
It sounds great. Will the unicorns fart puppies or rainbows?Quote:
Originally Posted by simonj
Lemon Sherbet. Which, until now, I had always spelt 'shebert'.
I'm going to try to stay away from saying how cold this sounds, because I suppose it's not relevant to the discussion. So let's put it into your terms, where money is all that matters. If a person is dying or sick, they cannot be productive. They cannot contribute to the economy, and so cannot contribute to your standard of living. If anything, I'd expect you to be in favor of supporting their health rather than their education if you had to choose one (clearly, you'd choose neither, but if the choice were forced upon you).Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan
So, in this "real free market health care system", you'd expect it to work how? Only those who can afford health care get it? Beyond the fact that this would leave more than half of all people without health care of any kind, what about the folks who can just barely afford it? Do they get to go see med students or quack doctors? Are there any regulations at all? With the "real free market", there is presumably no regulation, so now we're talking back-alley clinics and dirty surgery instruments unless you can afford to go to a real doctor and get real care. That's really a better alternative to you? Why? Because you happen to be one of the people who could afford real medical help?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan
What happens to emergency rooms? Do they get to refuse treatment now to anyone without cash in hand? Do people start going to prison because they can't pay their medical bills? Forgive me if I'm starting to head down a slippery-slope argument, but I'm truly not sure what the hell you mean when you say that we should apply true capitalism to healthcare.
If it's already working in another country, how on earth is it the stuff of fantasy? What a useless post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel
There are a many good reasons why American healthcare costs so fucking much. Here are a couple of them:
- ridiculously high markups by insurance providers
- prescription of expensive but unnecessary procedures by physicians
- insane regulations that encourages physicians to become specialists instead of GP (more GPs means more preventative, cheaper care... more specialists means more expensive care after illnesses have progressed)
- the end of home visits by physicians (many patients don't have to be transported by ambulance to an emergency room if doctors would just perform home visits, which are much cheaper on the system)
- an over-reliance on emergency room care due to a lack of access to non-emergency medicine (emergency visits cannot be turned down by hospitals and are very expensive compared to standard care)
There's just so much fucked up about the American system compared to that of other nations.
Can I just say, I don't think the issue should be providing Universal healthcare.
I think the issue should be providing affordable healthcare to everyone.
That includes making sure that all common procedures are available at the lowest cost possible and that major expensive procedures are available at a cost that can be borne over an affordable period of time, or defrayed (if necessary) from the public purchase.
I am from the UK, here we have the National Health Service (NHS), which is a socialised model. People pay national insurance in the form of tax and this money is then used to fund the healthcare system. The only time when you need to pay a bill is when you need entirely elective procedures, dental care and in some cases prescription charges (if you can afford them). The system has its flaws.
Alot of people take it for granted, waste valuable time with minor complaints. There is a problem with waiting lists for operations. At the moment I am waiting to see someone, god knows how long that will have to take. But I will wait, and I won't complain, as this beats having to pay in full out of my own pocket, I just cannot afford it. Of all the possible uses of tax money, this is probably the least objectionable in my opinion. I feel comforted knowing that people in my country get taken care of when they need it.
Trojan, the free market does not have all the answers. If I am lying injured, I don't have time to shop around, there is only one thing on my mind and that is getting medical attention. And I am glad I live in a country that recognises that. In the UK, healthcare is a right not a privelage. That will enrage alot of Americans, and it dissapoints me that it would, it is a very cold attitude toward healthcare, and indeed their fellow citizens when they would deny them healthcare if society as a whole needs to pay for it via very small deductions from their income that wouldn't cripple them. The idea of viewing healthcare as nothing more than a comodity as opposed to an essential service disturbs me to an extent. I find it exceptionally cold hearted.
This is because you are not allowed to object to it, under pain of a prison sentence sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by gismo
My problem with the NHS is that if it fucks up, you can't go somewhere else. You instead have to pay for the NHS AND for a private hospital if you're (understandably) pissed off with the NHS.
NHS does have its (many) problems. America needs to learn from the UK's mistake and form a socialized system that is more efficient and effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by benzss
We also need to learn from what NHS does correctly, since our health care system is FAR more fucked up than yours, as difficult as it may be for you to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens!
That said, I also believe that kittens should never, ever have to pay for their own health care.
Yeah, as many problems as NHS has, the American system has more--again, it leaves 15% of the entire American population (50 million people) totally uninsured, so NHS's problems like waiting lists or whatever are fairly minor in comparison.
...and god only knows how much of that 85% "insured" population is severely under-insured. I've heard horror stories of people who thought they had insurance not being able to get necessary medical treatment, and coverage of services by insurance is getting worse and worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
The NHS has just become a massive black hole for investment; if each hospital was made independent and eventually privatised, but national insurance was actually used as insurance rather than 'a little bit more tax to go towards the nhs', then I reckon things would be a lot better.
But obviously that has nothing to do with the American system so I'll shut up now.
Actually it is very relevant, because eventually America will be moving in that direction and we need to pay for it efficiently and effectively.
I thought Canada had a pretty good healthcare system. Can't you just rip off their system? Or just invade them and take it. It's practically the same country already.
That isn't why I find it unobjectionable - I find it one of the least objectional uses because it helps people in need. I won't argue with you, we clearly sit on 2 different sides of the fence, but I just wanted to clear that one up.Quote:
Originally Posted by benzss
The UK is one of the top 5 richest countries in the world, the general idea behind the NHS (put crudely) is "we are gonna take care of our own". I think this is an important sentiment. And if you are rich enough to do something like this, I do think it is important to go for it. The US is richer than the UK. It has the resources, it can learn from other countries, what they do well and do wrong.
I think it would be interesting to see how smaller businesses would do without the burden of providing health care for their employees. I'd like to believe it'd lead to better wages, and that would propel the economy a bit further but I'm more of a realist then that.
Umm this is all ready happening. Not every business is required to carry health care even for it's full time employees. It only makes the rich richer & the poor poorer because they. (the poor) get stuck in a dead end job with no hopes of being able to afford health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries
Yes because everyone needs to get a fabulous job. No, I'm thinking about the working class family who could use $10 dollars an hour instead of $7. I'm not saying this will magically make everyone afford a corvette, but I do believe the quality of life would increase. I honestly don't care about the rich getting richer and I believe if the "poor" are happy to be able to provide for their family better then before, then it is all worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fectual~
Sounds like you're talking about increasing the minimum wage... what does this have to do with healthcare?Quote:
Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries
This kind of misses the point. We can't afford the out of control insurance system; however, history implies that we could afford private care. Why don't we at least attempt to fix the insurance industry instead of hiking taxes and spending even more money we don't have? That just seems irresponsible given that current programs are either underfunded or dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens!
This is the most sensible way to do things, but such clear thinking isn't what people want.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
2, 3 and 5 are byproducts of 1; care givers/insurance companies are largely able to charge/prescribe whatever they want, since someone will cover it. In the past doctors were able to make house calls and keep charges down because patients paid out of pocket, and doctors that charged high fees would lose business to the first guy to undercut them.Quote:
Originally Posted by sycld
What do you say if someone DOES mind paying for public schools? Hopefully not an ignorant statement similar to "oh well then you're just crazy."Quote:
Originally Posted by solecistic
No, I wouldn't simply say, "oh, well then you're just crazy." At the same time, people who really mind paying for public schools are probably more on the fringe when it comes to political opinions. That's not to say their opinion is totally irrelevant in a democracy, but someone that extreme probably isn't someone I have any reason to discuss this with because we're never going to come to any sort of agreement. Insisting that American government should be altered to exist only to protect the people from outside invasion is extreme libertarianism, and most people don't fall into that mindset.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
Well, to be fair, our govt has been exponentially expanded beyond it's original role; we've been insisting on paradigm shifts for years. Picking and choosing which expansions are 'good' is largely arbitrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by solecistic
Although, I do agree that anyone holding contempt for public education, police etc is probably a bit fringe.
Yeah, they would be in agreement with people like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Today their views are considered fringe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
You do realise that the original role has expanded exponentially because the people have voted for governments based on the expansionist policies they promoted (or opposed). It's not arbitrary at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
Sure, but Benjamin Franklin and other framers also held any number of views which most people would consider fringe now. So what? Benjamin Franklin and other recognized that times change as does the opinions of the people; hence they created a Constitution which allowed laws to be created, modified and revoked, as well as which allowed itself to be modified.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
I'm not sure exactly what views you are trying to attribute to Jefferson and Franklin here, but people who, for instance, hold public education in contempt are definitely not in agreement with Jefferson and Franklin. Both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were outspoken proponents of public education. Just google their names and the words "public education" and you'll find out all about it. As for police, I'm not sure what their views were, but would be quite surprised if they had contempt for the idea of the government organizing a force to prevent crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
I didn't say the changes were arbitrary, I said their valuation as "good" or "bad" was arbitrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrShrike
Again, you miss my point. Syme already explained it pretty well.Quote:
Sure, but Benjamin Franklin and other framers also held any number of views which most people would consider fringe now. So what? Benjamin Franklin and other recognized that times change as does the opinions of the people; hence they created a Constitution which allowed laws to be created, modified and revoked, as well as which allowed itself to be modified.
Yes well they certainly did. Just like Jefferson said: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." They realized that people would have to earn their liberty and be willing to fight to keep it. Though as Jefferson predicted, we are willing to make plenty of small compromises in liberty to let mommy government take care of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrShrike
I did this, and found a quote that seems to sum up Jefferson's views quite nicely: "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
This DOES include the use of a government-organized police force to ensure people don't harm one another, which is perfectly in line with libertarian views. But yeah it looks like I found out about it, they don't agree with using force to have people pay for the education of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
"I... [proposed] three distinct grades of education, reaching all classes. 1. Elementary schools for all children generally, rich and poor. 2. Colleges for a middle degree of instruction, calculated for the common purposes of life and such as should be desirable for all who were in easy circumstances. And 3d. an ultimate grade for teaching the sciences generally and in their highest degree... The expenses of [the elementary] schools should be borne by the inhabitants of the county, every one in proportion to his general tax-rate. This would throw on wealth the education of the poor."
--Thomas Jefferson in his autobiography, 1821
"The less wealthy people,... by the bill for a general education, would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government; and all this would be effected without the violation of a single natural right of any one individual citizen."
--also from Thomas Jefferson's autobiography
"I think by far the most important bill in our whole code, is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness... The tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786
"[No] tax can be called that which we give to our children in the most valuable of all forms, that of instruction... An addition to our contributions almost insensible... in fact, will not be felt as a burden, because applied immediately and visibly to the good of our children."
--Thomas Jefferson in a note to the Elementary School Act, 1817
"My bill proposes, 1. Elementary schools in every county, which shall place every householder within three miles of a school. 2. District colleges, which shall place every father within a day's ride of a college where he may dispose of his son. 3. An university in a healthy and central situation... To all of which is added a selection from the elementary schools of subjects of the most promising genius, whose parents are too poor to give them further education, to be carried at the public expense through the colleges and university."
--Thomas Jefferson writing to M. Correa de Serra, 1817
Libertarians like to try to paint Thomas Jefferson as a minarchist because of quotes like the one you gave, but the fact is that although he may have sometimes expressed minarchist philosophical sentiments, he was no minarchist in practice and clearly believed that government monies could be put to legitimate use in fields like public education. His conception of the proper role of government did not stop at the defense of the populace, it included other things beyond that. Next time, try to find out a little more about it.
Weird, I wasn't able to find any of those quotes. Well I guess I misjudged the man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Society's imperative is to ensure that it's members are as well equipped to integrate into that society as possible. Ignorance begets violence, poverty and ultimately over reliance on the government. Your knee-jerk idealism greatly misses the point (as is often the case with big-L Libertarians).Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
And, of course, you are factually incorrect.
If you have a point then state it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
I think his point is exactly what he said: "Society's imperative is to ensure that it's members are as well equipped to integrate into that society as possible. Ignorance begets violence, poverty and ultimately over reliance on the government." He is defending the idea of public education, in response to your suggestion that public education is not a valid role for government.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
That quote doesn't at all look like a point to me, but ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
I didn't say it was my view that public education is not a valid role for government. However, based on government's track record of programs, they are really good at making things worse whenever they control more. If education is to be public (which there's no way the public would even CONSIDER anything else at this point even if it made way more sense), then there at least needs to be some sort of voucher system in place to ensure competition between schools. Competition is what makes things better, but a government monopoly where you must go to a certain public school if you live in a certain district encourages mediocrity. Not to mention the stupidity of teachers unions. Sure they are great for the teachers (or so some would say), but not so great for the kids.
....If a direct assertion of a principle and an explication of it's merits, offered as a counter-argument to a previous (implied) argument, isn't a point, then what is??Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
Who said that's society's imperative?Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
You could've just put a little thought into that comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
OK, so your argument is that bureaucracy ruins everything. I can agree with that, but it seems to be a necessary evil in most cases. I agree that parents should be able to choose within a district.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
Unions are a double edged sword, really. On one hand, lower education has some of the most horrid wages in academia - 30k/yr is generally considered very good for lower education. On the other, you have unions that potentially act as thugs. I don't know what can be done here to actually make progress, rather than simply realigning ideology. Any input?Quote:
Not to mention the stupidity of teachers unions. Sure they are great for the teachers (or so some would say), but not so great for the kids.
I'd say stuff like NCLB needs to go first, as does the over-reliance on standardized testing. From what I've seen (family full of teachers of all levels), kids are taught to pass these test and nothing more; they don't learn critical thinking or problem solving - just rote memorization.
Well, I did. :p Look at the evolution of social structures and you'll notice that the one thing they require is complex language (and to a lesser extent the reference that comes from this.) I can't think of any better way to evidence the importance of education than this. Education 'for all' is a social imperative, as it's the only way to make a best effort in assuring that citizens are productive members of said (modern) society.Quote:
Originally Posted by benzss
I'd argue it's necessary in very few cases. I linked to a very interesting speech awhile ago dealing with these ideas: http://www.casualdiscourse.com/forum...ghlight=speechQuote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
Allowing schools to compete (i.e. school vouchers) coupled with getting rid of the unions I think would ultimately make things better for everyone. Competition makes things better. Having teachers competing to get paid based on their performance rather than falling into a lull of mediocrity as is often the case with unions is great for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
Yeah we studied NCLB extensively in one of my public policy classes, and some of the actual things in it are just ridiculous. I'm not sure if saying that kids are just taught to pass the tests and nothing more is a worthwhile argument against it though. If the tests are designed properly, critical thinking and problem solving will be required to pass them, short of knowing all the answers and giving them to the students. Though the tests are likely not designed in the ideal way, and NCLB is certainly crap that's for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
I'll watch the speech later, but I think you're going to have a hard time showing that these ideas will work in practice, given that we don't have a real world libertopia to look to.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
Perhaps you haven't heard of the US insurance system.Quote:
Competition makes things better.
Teachers already have standards to meet for employment criteria, so I'm going to write this off as ideology until you expand. Let's say we remove unions, now what?Quote:
Having teachers competing to get paid based on their performance rather than falling into a lull of mediocrity as is often the case with unions is great for everyone.
Good thing that wasn't my point. :)Quote:
I'm not sure if saying that kids are just taught to pass the tests and nothing more is a worthwhile argument against it though.
Well it seems to have done pretty well in Hong Kong when it went closer to that type of system on the economic side of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
Could you please explain what you mean here?Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
What do you mean? Are you asking how things can work without unions? Just like any other non-union job.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
No, he was saying that it is ideological to claim that teachers unions remove any incentive for teachers to excel and lull them into mediocrity, and that it is possible to attain the desired level of teacher competence by having mandatory standards for them to meet, rather than by having them compete with each other (though I personally do support the idea of merit pay for teachers).Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
Tbh, I can't remember what point I was trying to make there. Perhaps it was an idiot moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
Basically what Syme said. I'm open to merit-based pay, but I was looking for your explanation of why it's better, rather than simple off-hand dismissal of unions as evil. I shouldn't be expected to accept your assumptions.Quote:
What do you mean? Are you asking how things can work without unions? Just like any other non-union job.
I do not understand how someone can philosophically supports the concepts of free market capitalism in the form of companies, but in the next breath decry workers unions as evil.
Particularly given that a significant portion of the working conditions they almost undoubtedly enjoy can be directly attributed to the historical activities of workers unions.
If this is AI then I don't need to read the thread to realize that it's probably devolved away from the original argument into something more philosophical.
My points are this:
- In a single-payer system there is actually more choice and freedom for patients
- While efficiency does not equal low overhead, the government has indeed had some success managing medicaid.
- An income-tax-like bracket system for health-care?
I don't understand how this is different from saying: "I don't see how someone philosophically can be a democrat, but in the next breath state their support for Barack Obama."Quote:
Originally Posted by MrShrike
I don't at all understand your first point, please explain how that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
For your second point, what successes are you referring to?
I think I'd rather stay away from your third point for now.
1. In a private network you are referred to a doctor this doctor is connected with certain hospitals you must visit. Each doctor refers you to his network of specialists and physicians regardless of quality. With the other choice you have many more options based on your personal preference and seek your own quality of care without being subjected to the limitations of the private network.
2. Medicaid has actually reduced their overhead and some consider it a fairly efficient system..run by the government.
In a broad sense, sure, but certain HMOs have more freedom. For example, Oschner in my area gives you pretty much free reign, even outside of their facilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
In my experience, referrals were generally done between doctors with at least working relationships. I won't say that 'blind' referrals don't happen, but you're making a pretty big assumption here.Quote:
Each doctor refers you to his network of specialists and physicians regardless of quality.
I've actually been on Tricare. Dependents definitely do not get much say in where they go etc. And any govt-employed doctor is immune to malpractice suits.Quote:
With the other choice you have many more options based on your personal preference and seek your own quality of care without being subjected to the limitations of the private network.
Some meaning proponents of UHC... ? I'd have to look at the numbers again, but I'm pretty sure Medicaid is slated to run out of funding somewhere around 2015.Quote:
2. Medicaid has actually reduced their overhead and some consider it a fairly efficient system..run by the government.
Who?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
I think we can all agree that UHC in the US, whatever form it eventually takes, will not simply be a bigger version of Medicaid.
I disagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by gismo
Well that was an insightful first post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Paulson
Well gismo's post was basically an appeal to tradition and an appeal to emotion. Can't see anything insightful for anyone to reply to.
Yet if anyone made the same comment in response to a right-oriented post you wouldn't be the first to jump down said offender's throat?
Hypocrisy is urprisingly easy to live with, isn't it?
Ok...
???
Relax. I'm fiddling with ya.
This particular sentence disturbs me. You're saying then, that you have a right to someone else's labor. Which I can see how someone would be in agreement with, but that certainly isn't freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by gismo
Would you then argue that people have no right to, say, police protection against criminals (which is provided by the labor of policemen), or military protection against foreign invasion (which is provided by the labor of soldiers)? These are two things that even the most hardline libertarians usually accept as legitimate functions of government. Would you say that the provision of these services "certainly isn't freedom"?Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
What is your definition of freedom?Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
Do you feel entitled to your mail?
Correct, I wouldn't say police protection is an inalienable right, or that we have a right to "military protection against foreign invasion." If a country were to invade I would certainly be out there risking my life to protect my freedom, but I would absolutely NOT consider it my right to have other people risk their lives for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
I do see what you were getting at though. However, my assertion was simply that you don't have a RIGHT to someone else's labor, and I really don't see how someone can reasonably think that they do.
I think the most hardline libertarians believe in the private provision of security, but y'know
I see your point in turn, but I think that describing government-provided services as a "right to someone else's labor" is somewhat obtuse. Let's take your statement that you would willingly enlist if a foreign country invaded; if this happened, and you really did enlist, you'd be providing your own labor to other people, whether that was your intent or not. Your labor would be helping to ensure the protection of the rest of your country's citizenry, including the ones who didn't enlist to protect their own freedom. If someone becomes a doctor in a country with UHC, aren't they doing the same thing? Willingly providing their own labor when they know that it will be used by the government to serve the citizenry?Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
Well, isn't that the difference between tax and charity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Not sure what you mean. A volunteer soldier, and a doctor in a UHC country, are both willingly entering professions where they know that they will work for the government in order to provide services to the public. Unless the soldier is a draftee, or the doctor was forcibly enrolled in med school, their labor is not being extracted from them against their will. Whether someone else "has a right to their labor" strikes me as immaterial, since the labor is being voluntarily given. UnreasonablyReasonable seems to be laboring under the misapprehension that if we have UHC, government thugs will force doctors to work against their will because someone else "has a right to their labor".Quote:
Originally Posted by benzss
I figured UnreasonablyReasonable was referring to the means the government uses to pay these doctors and soldiers, i.e. confiscation of property from private individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Those who choose to work aren't being coerced, but it's easy to argue that the money that pays them has been.
And maybe you could read something into the sewing up of the market which happens with UHC but that'd be a bit tenuous.
Yeah, the taxation angle occurred to me, but his comment about having a "right to the labor of others" was in specific reference to the idea of health care being a right, and he said it's why he was disturbed by the idea of a right to health care, so I figured he was talking about the labor of doctors rather than of taxpayers. I guess we'll have to wait for him to clarify, though.
Whoops, I apologize that it sounded like I meant that. I was just saying that having a right to healthcare translates itself into having a right to someone else's labor. I'm not saying that just because they're employed by the government that we have a right to their labor. I wouldn't say that these government programs are things we have a right to, therefore I wouldn't consider myself to have the right to the work that government employees perform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
I hope that makes sense. I'm afraid I may be very poor at articulating my thoughts.
It may translate into having a right to another person's labor, but that person has willingly decided to put themselves into a position where it's their job to provide that labor. So what's the problem? I mean, if you personally feel that you don't have a right to the labor of government employees, that's fine for you, but it's no argument against UHC or any other government program.
AhemQuote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
Right, I wasn't trying to say it was an argument against it. Just an argument against the thought that it's a right to have healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
As far as UHC goes, John Stossel made every point better than I could hope to in his 20/20 special "Sick in America." It can be seen on Youtube for anyone particularly interested in the matter (though I understand not wanting to watch it, I'm a lazy son of a bitch as well).
http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.c...-know-best.htm
Here's some hilarious reading
So of course there is more of this health care debate in the news recently...especially about people fearing that the big bad government will come and kill you if this bill is passed. Are mudslingers today the greatest spin doctors ever, or are people just getting dumber?
Mouth-breathing idiots are so convinced of the evils of universal health care that they will eagerly and unquestioningly accept whatever lies they are told about it, no matter how ridiculous. E.g., people who fervently believe that Medicare coverage for end-of-life counseling (which is purely voluntary, for fucks sake, and which people already get all the time) means mandatory euthanasia for grandma. I don't think people are actually getting dumber; they're no dumber than they've always been. I just think that this issue is pulling all the dumb ones out of the woodwork and giving them lots of great opportunities to demonstrate how dumb they really are by parroting nonsense that Rush Limbaugh fed them.
EDIT: So yeah, the mudslingers who make up ridiculous shit about UHC are good at what they do.