|
On February 03 2012 08:10 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 07:40 Krikkitone wrote:
Someone had to pay for that. The doctors/nurses don't work for free, and the equipment/drug manufacturers don't work for free, and the researchers don't work for free (and their equipment isn't free either) yeah what you do is have a really, really big insurance program that only charges people enough to cover the cost of care and research. everyone has to buy in but everyone gets it. that way, the risk is spread over such a large group of people that no one person has to sacrifice much to make sure this little kid gets his meds. aka a single payer system. where the government is running a not-for-profit insurance program. like in civilized countries.
It wouldn't cost so much if there weren't so many hoops that the research had to jump through, and if the government didn't legislate against "alternative" medicine, and if the government liabilities were agreed upon between company and customer, and not settled by the government universally.
Every time the government is involved the prices sky-rocket...
Fannie and Freddie GSE's in housing? Housing bubble.
Government guaranteed student loans? Education prices heavily out-pace inflation.
Government in medicine? Health-care costs rise dramatically not at all just justified by improved quality or inflation.
Standard stuff.
And this purely-socialized medicine stuff... It's just another big government "solution." Sure let's exchange the already over-priced health-care that resulted from mixed economy medicine with Socialized medicine with that will inevitably be lower quality with long waiting lines.
|
On February 03 2012 08:35 Kiarip wrote:
Government in medicine? Health-care costs rise dramatically not at all just justified by improved quality or inflation.
Standard stuff.
And this purely-socialized medicine stuff... It's just another big government "solution." Sure let's exchange the already over-priced health-care that resulted from mixed economy medicine with Socialized medicine with that will inevitably be lower quality with long waiting lines.
that has not been historically true
furthermore, health care costs in America are considerably more expensive than in other civilized nations despite having a purely private system for most people under 65.
additionally, much of the research in this country is actually funded by the government, be it through tax breaks, subsidies or direct investment through the military (look into who is funding autism research).
you have said nothing, Im afraid, that is actually proven by the involvement of the government. if your points were necessarily true, then Scandanavian countries with considerably more government involvement in such things would be suffering worse than us. rather, all the cases you have mentioned are more a function of broken priorities by the government of this country which for 35 years has suffered greatly from cronyism whereby businesses that invest lots of money get government programs that are amazingly effective at padding their pockets.
it is not "standard" that government involvement will lead to higher prices. medical care is a service, not a production good. if youre going to throw intro to macro truisms at me, at least be dealing with the right goods.
and even if you had done that, historical data is still against your claims which should clearly trump any theory.
|
On February 03 2012 03:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 00:33 red_b wrote:On February 02 2012 21:59 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
What im trying to say is; does it really matter who wins when corporations and lobbyism are controlling politicians with money anyway? In a practical sense, yes. despite the terrible handling of the health care situation at least now I can stay on my Dad's insurance a few more years. before, I would have to buy health insurance. Same here. I have also received more grants for my university studies. I have certainly felt a very direct impact of Obama's presidency.
Good for both of you, im genuinly glad that something good is actually happening for the working class / middle class in the states.
On February 03 2012 06:40 Focuspants wrote:
Health care should not be a business. It should be an essntial service. Period. Corporations cut corners to maximize profits, they artificially inflate prices, they try to deny expensive services in an effort to make more money.
This. on Cuba, one of the really poor countries in the world, medicine is free. even for those who arent living in Cuba.
|
On February 03 2012 08:35 Kiarip wrote:
And this purely-socialized medicine stuff... It's just another big government "solution." Sure let's exchange the already over-priced health-care that resulted from mixed economy medicine with Socialized medicine with that will inevitably be lower quality with long waiting lines.
Queues, no matter how long they may be, are the only fair way of providing medical aid in most circumstances (even when there is prioritizing, it should only be done depending on medical condition of the patient). It will naturally be lower quality since a lot more people will require (and have a right to) medical services, but this is something that everybody simply has to live with.
There is simply no efficient way to provide medical care to everyone, yet the governments have an ethical obligation to provide exactly that for their citizens. So the least that can be done is to ensure that everyone is treated equally, regardless of quality and waiting times.
|
"In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.
Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)"
Conclusions
The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033
"A review in the inaugural issue of online medical journal Open Medicine, which was launched Tuesday by a group of doctors who left the Canadian Medical Association Journal last year over an editorial dispute, examined the results 38 major studies that compared health outcomes of patients in the two countries.
It found that while the United States spent an average of $7,129 US per person on health care in 2006, compared with $2,956 USper person in Canada"
"When all the studies were combined, the 17 doctors and researchers involved in the meta-analysis found Canadians had a five per cent lower death rate than people in the United States."
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=7af65822-8a73-46cc-afb6-808e49be3eff
"the United States has been the unwitting control subject in a 30-year, worldwide experiment comparing the merits of private versus public health care funding. For the people living in the United States, the results of this experiment with privately funded health care have been grim. The United States now has the most expensive health care system on earth and, despite remarkable technology, the general health of the U.S. population is lower than in most industrialized countries. Worse, Americans' mortality rates--both general and infant--are shockingly high."
http://vorg.ca/2283-Healthcare-battle-Canada-vs-USA
I dont know how you could question the lack of effectiveness of private industry running the health care system.
As for the issue of queue times. I have had a lot of experience with the ER, personal experiences with family members and family friends, and with friends I have workign in them, and I can tell you that the queue times only really apply to people with non threatening injuries. More people go to seek medical help because it is paid for already through taxes. This has 2 effects, the negative being people going and increasing wait times with extremely minor injuries, or simply worries about their health, and the positive, more people go to the doctor when something is off because they dont have to worry about costs, and problems are found before they get to be too bad. This is a factor in the increased life expectancy of someone in Canada.
It is an anomoly that someone in need of critical care doesnt receive it. Anomolies happen everywhere, and arent an accurate description of a system. Like I said, I have spent extensive amounts of time dealing with hospitals due to health complications with my grandparents, more than most people need to deal with, and I have nothing but positive things to say for the speed and quality of the care my grandparents have received. I think the queue time numbers are used as propeganda against the system. If you need URGENT help, you get it immediately. If your hand is stuck in a kettle, you might have to wait a couple hours.
|
On February 03 2012 08:45 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Good for both of you, im genuinly glad that something good is actually happening for the working class / middle class in the states.
I am not middle class. actually, middle class people very often do not have health insurance or do not have enough.
it is nice for me, and I do appreciate the goal and implementation of that particular measure.
but one or two bones to the working class dont matter very much in the grand scheme of things. the system ultimately does not work for people who make the median household income.
|
On February 03 2012 08:35 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 08:10 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 07:40 Krikkitone wrote:
Someone had to pay for that. The doctors/nurses don't work for free, and the equipment/drug manufacturers don't work for free, and the researchers don't work for free (and their equipment isn't free either) yeah what you do is have a really, really big insurance program that only charges people enough to cover the cost of care and research. everyone has to buy in but everyone gets it. that way, the risk is spread over such a large group of people that no one person has to sacrifice much to make sure this little kid gets his meds. aka a single payer system. where the government is running a not-for-profit insurance program. like in civilized countries. It wouldn't cost so much if there weren't so many hoops that the research had to jump through, and if the government didn't legislate against "alternative" medicine, and if the government liabilities were agreed upon between company and customer, and not settled by the government universally. Every time the government is involved the prices sky-rocket... Fannie and Freddie GSE's in housing? Housing bubble. Government guaranteed student loans? Education prices heavily out-pace inflation. Government in medicine? Health-care costs rise dramatically not at all just justified by improved quality or inflation. Standard stuff. And this purely-socialized medicine stuff... It's just another big government "solution." Sure let's exchange the already over-priced health-care that resulted from mixed economy medicine with Socialized medicine with that will inevitably be lower quality with long waiting lines.
I got a bone to pick about the reserach process, as it was already mentioned the primary reserach is usually done through university and therefore subtized by the government. What the pharma companies is usally take their reserach and refine a drug until it gets passed FDA standard. There is legimate argument that the FDA is too restricitve but saying its all the regulations fault is simply ignorant.
This article give a good overview into the problem
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/no-refills/8133/1/
|
On February 03 2012 08:23 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 07:40 Krikkitone wrote:On February 03 2012 07:19 ticklishmusic wrote:“Look, I want your son and everybody to have the opportunity to stay alive on much-needed drugs,” Santorum insisted. “But the bottom line is, we have to give companies the incentive to make those drugs. And if they don’t have the incentive to make those drugs, your son won’t be alive and lots of other people in this country won’t be alive.”
“He’s alive today because drug companies provide care,” the candidate continued. “And if they didn’t think they could make money providing that drug, that drug wouldn’t be here. I sympathize with these compassionate cases. … I want your son to stay alive on much-needed drugs. Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don’t have incentives, they won’t make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don’t.” Dafuq? No drug should be that expensive. The drug isn't expensive, the research is (chances are it is a drug that only helps a small number of people if it costs that much)
Anyone that thinks you should have to pay out the ass for that, or deal with corporations and insurance companies is out of their mind. Ive had many experiences with many family friends and relatives and the health care system, and I cant understand how a free market system is even remotely considered to be an option
Someone had to pay for that. The doctors/nurses don't work for free, and the equipment/drug manufacturers don't work for free, and the researchers don't work for free (and their equipment isn't free either) A true pure free market insurance system probably wouldn't work given the high levels of uncertainty and significant effects that an individual can have on their health. Of course somebody has to pay for it, but somewhere down the line, somebody is probably being paid too much. I remember reading an article about movie theatres and their business model, primarily on the fact that every product they sell is expensive and every low level pay they give is so small. Basically, it doesn't add up. With many movie theatres going digital, their film expenses have been lower than ever, but prices have continued to rise and pay has remained stagnant. Bottom line, there are people who make an absolute killing in the movie (theatre) business, and they prefer to keep it that way. The same applies in other business structures as well. Some more than others, but healthcare seems to be in the same boat. Some layers of the healthcare structure always seem to turn some level of profit, while others continue to struggle. As prices rise, it's eating into the reimbursement of frontend workers (doctors, nurses, and low level admins). Meanwhile, the manufacturers and research administrators make very safe returns on their investments, regardless of the usefulness or investment smarts on their part. The market competition is only working for half of the supply chain.
This is a nonsense idea of how markets work. How valuable would be gold if anybody could find it buried in his own backyard? How valuable would be the labour of an astronaut, if everybody had three of them living on his block? Even if every clerk working at a movie theater contributed to the rising profits of movie theaters, which is certainly not true, his productive contribution does not by itself determine his wages, nor should it. Of course, no matter how productive it is, if it's a job everyone wants to do, or a job that it's incredibly easy, for one reason or another, to find someone to do, the value of that work is driven down. By your logic, it would seem that the objective value of the work of a janitor changes, depending on whose floor he's cleaning. Of course it does change, but only depending on factors that reduce the pool of people capable and willing of the job. The main thing about people at the top of any company is that they're hard to come by, they're not easily replacable, and so they have greater bargaining power than the company which hires them and they can charge ridiculous rates. This is not, however, unfair. It is exactly what determines the value of any person's labour.
|
On February 03 2012 08:44 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 08:35 Kiarip wrote:
Government in medicine? Health-care costs rise dramatically not at all just justified by improved quality or inflation.
Standard stuff.
And this purely-socialized medicine stuff... It's just another big government "solution." Sure let's exchange the already over-priced health-care that resulted from mixed economy medicine with Socialized medicine with that will inevitably be lower quality with long waiting lines. that has not been historically true furthermore, health care costs in America are considerably more expensive than in other civilized nations despite having a purely private system for most people under 65.
Not with the mandates involved. The prices get jacked up when government starts guaranteeing these things, and then the private aspect of the healthcare also suffers. That's why I said it's mixed economy health-care, purely socialized health-care clearly isn't as obviously expensive but the quality suffers.
additionally, much of the research in this country is actually funded by the government, be it through tax breaks, subsidies or direct investment through the military (look into who is funding autism research).
Of course it's government funded. Politically directed research subsidized by the government, working under tight government regulations... That's why we're not seeing improvement in quality of health-care.
you have said nothing, Im afraid, that is actually proven by the involvement of the government. if your points were necessarily true, then Scandanavian countries with considerably more government involvement in such things would be suffering worse than us. rather, all the cases you have mentioned are more a function of broken priorities by the government of this country which for 35 years has suffered greatly from cronyism whereby businesses that invest lots of money get government programs that are amazingly effective at padding their pockets.
Yes, businesses are able to collect undeserved amounts, because it's government sponsorship rather than sound investment, and expanding customer-base that's fueling the research.
The Scandinavian countries do have completely socialized health-care but they experience long waiting lists, and the quality of their health-care isn't necessarily the greatest, but there's something to be said about its universality for sure. On the other hand Scandinavian countries are a lot richer per capita in natural resources, and although they pay high taxes their private sector is left alone to make fair, and market-competitive profits thanks to free trade policies, and minimum product regulation. In the United States large sectors of our economy are simply subsidized into existence by the tax-payers. So in total Scandinavia is much richer than US per capita, because even though they have lots of taxes, and some sectors are completely socialized, others are able to prosper and create wealth, but in America most sectors aren't actually globally competitive, and create little wealth, and with our huge population the labor laws are particularly harmful.
it is not "standard" that government involvement will lead to higher prices. medical care is a service, not a production good. if youre going to throw intro to macro truisms at me, at least be dealing with the right goods.
Pharmaceutical companies provide goods. And there's actually very little distinction between goods and services in this situation. Education is also a service, and look what the government has done to that.
and even if you had done that, historical data is still against your claims which should clearly trump any theory.
Historical data isn't against my claims. When talking about purely socialized medicine like you have in Scandinavia the costs are largely nominal, because if all doctors, pharmacies, nurses, and all other health-care related industry is employed only by the government the cost can only really be seen in the government spending, which comes from the taxes, and they in fact do pay a lot of taxes. Of course in a healthy economy paying a lot of taxes isn't anywhere near as painful as in a fucked up economy that we have here.
I got a bone to pick about the reserach process, as it was already mentioned the primary reserach is usually done through university and therefore subtized by the government. What the pharma companies is usally take their reserach and refine a drug until it gets passed FDA standard. There is legimate argument that the FDA is too restricitve but saying its all the regulations fault is simply ignorant. This article give a good overview into the problem http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/no-refills/8133/1/
The subsidies themselves are part of the problem. Guaranteed investment is never good for the quality of the research.
|
Im sorry but you are wrong.
flat out wrong.
You are trying to argue against my stance, which is based on reality, with ideology.
you say things which are general, and are hard to argue with on theoretical grounds but the problem is they are not reflected by the reality of the situation. the evidence is overwhelming and has been for at minimum 10 years; the single payer model of health care is superior. end of story.
your initial claim, that switching to a socialized system will produce inferior care, has no grounding in reality.'
every decently designed single payer system has greater payoffs than our system: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
I am done with this conversation. I have informed you of the facts, as have several other posters. If you wish to cling to your position in spite of that then this discussion has exceeded its usefulness.
|
Canada11268 Posts
That's why I said it's mixed economy health-care, purely socialized health-care obviously isn't as expensive but the quality suffers.
Is it though? Because isn't that what Canada has- mixed public-private? It's a single-payer system, publicly funded, but privately provided. In addition I think we have 20-30% paid through private healthcare- dentistry, prescription drugs, vision etc.
And as for lines. Sure lines are bad, but are your lines shorter simply because people can't afford to go? I don't think I would count that as a success if shorter lines are the result of exclusion due to affordability. And really, what is the quality difference between America to Canada or the Scandinavia countries? Is it THAT big a difference that it's worth spending triple what we spend?
|
This guy romney.. he has changed pretty much 95% of his views over the last 4 years.
Ron paul hasn't changed any of his views except 1 about capital punishment.
o america = /...
|
On February 03 2012 09:45 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 08:44 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 08:35 Kiarip wrote:
Government in medicine? Health-care costs rise dramatically not at all just justified by improved quality or inflation.
Standard stuff.
And this purely-socialized medicine stuff... It's just another big government "solution." Sure let's exchange the already over-priced health-care that resulted from mixed economy medicine with Socialized medicine with that will inevitably be lower quality with long waiting lines. that has not been historically true furthermore, health care costs in America are considerably more expensive than in other civilized nations despite having a purely private system for most people under 65. Not with the mandates involved. The prices get jacked up when government starts guaranteeing these things, and then the private aspect of the healthcare also suffers. That's why I said it's mixed economy health-care, purely socialized health-care clearly isn't as obviously expensive but the quality suffers. Show nested quote +
additionally, much of the research in this country is actually funded by the government, be it through tax breaks, subsidies or direct investment through the military (look into who is funding autism research).
Of course it's government funded. Politically directed research subsidized by the government, working under tight government regulations... That's why we're not seeing improvement in quality of health-care. Show nested quote +
you have said nothing, Im afraid, that is actually proven by the involvement of the government. if your points were necessarily true, then Scandanavian countries with considerably more government involvement in such things would be suffering worse than us. rather, all the cases you have mentioned are more a function of broken priorities by the government of this country which for 35 years has suffered greatly from cronyism whereby businesses that invest lots of money get government programs that are amazingly effective at padding their pockets.
Yes, businesses are able to collect undeserved amounts, because it's government sponsorship rather than sound investment, and expanding customer-base that's fueling the research. The Scandinavian countries do have completely socialized health-care but they experience long waiting lists, and the quality of their health-care isn't necessarily the greatest, but there's something to be said about its universality for sure. On the other hand Scandinavian countries are a lot richer per capita in natural resources, and although they pay high taxes their private sector is left alone to make fair, and market-competitive profits thanks to free trade policies, and minimum product regulation. In the United States large sectors of our economy are simply subsidized into existence by the tax-payers. So in total Scandinavia is much richer than US per capita, because even though they have lots of taxes, and some sectors are completely socialized, others are able to prosper and create wealth, but in America most sectors aren't actually globally competitive, and create little wealth, and with our huge population the labor laws are particularly harmful. Show nested quote +
it is not "standard" that government involvement will lead to higher prices. medical care is a service, not a production good. if youre going to throw intro to macro truisms at me, at least be dealing with the right goods.
Pharmaceutical companies provide goods. And there's actually very little distinction between goods and services in this situation. Education is also a service, and look what the government has done to that. Show nested quote +
and even if you had done that, historical data is still against your claims which should clearly trump any theory.
Historical data isn't against my claims. When talking about purely socialized medicine like you have in Scandinavia the costs are largely nominal, because if all doctors, pharmacies, nurses, and all other health-care related industry is employed only by the government the cost can only really be seen in the government spending, which comes from the taxes, and they in fact do pay a lot of taxes. Of course in a healthy economy paying a lot of taxes isn't anywhere near as painful as in a fucked up economy that we have here. Show nested quote +I got a bone to pick about the reserach process, as it was already mentioned the primary reserach is usually done through university and therefore subtized by the government. What the pharma companies is usally take their reserach and refine a drug until it gets passed FDA standard. There is legimate argument that the FDA is too restricitve but saying its all the regulations fault is simply ignorant. This article give a good overview into the problem http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/no-refills/8133/1/ The subsidies themselves are part of the problem. Guaranteed investment is never good for the quality of the research.
Cmon, man you can't just dismiss an entire argument like that with a broad and sweeping genralization like that. I would like you to backup your argument with specfic cases.We will limit reserach to primarily microbiology, molecular biology, organic synthesis, and rational drug design. Even just these 4 fields dont really cover the scope but for simpiciity sake we will use these.
Like some case study showing that the level of government funding is vastly disproportional to the value out of the reseach. I realize that is diffcult to quantify the true value of reserach just because you don't know what it can lead to down the road which is why I feel Government subsidy are nesscary. There are projects that the private industry is unlikely to take on just beacuse the immediate returns may not be apparent. If you like, I can compile a list of all the major accomplishment out of those field in the last 50 years. I can tell you right now the vast majority of these advancement come from government fundings.
What you need to understand is that government funding builds a foundation for primary reserach to be conducted. Pharma Industries stand on the shoulder of these reserachers. the private sector have benefited greatly from public work without paying it back. While a fair amount of reaserach appears to be dead end to be the general public, it may be a new path that will eventually lead to something that is benefical and pratical. I can say right now that private industries do not have the resources to laid down all these foundations and there is a reason why reaserach all over the world is mostly funded by the government.
|
On February 03 2012 09:59 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +That's why I said it's mixed economy health-care, purely socialized health-care obviously isn't as expensive but the quality suffers. Is it though? Because isn't that what Canada has- mixed public-private? It's a single-payer system, publicly funded, but privately provided. In addition I think we have 20-30% paid through private healthcare- dentistry, prescription drugs, vision etc. And as for lines. Sure lines are bad, but are your lines shorter simply because people can't afford to go? I don't think I would count that as a success if shorter lines are the result of exclusion due to affordability. And really, what is the quality difference between America to Canada or the Scandinavia countries? Is it THAT big a difference that it's worth spending triple what we spend?
I do have to say that it sucks for me. I do have insurance, I have major medical issues, and the current system is better than that in canada. The children of executives from canada were going to the states to have work done, so in one way, Canadian system sucks for the 1% of the population with really severe medical issues :|
In another sense, there is a cost to society of the uninsured.
Even though in terms of many things, I'm almost libertarian leaning, in terms of medicine having a mandate makes some sense to keep costs down. If you let people not get insurance, it just penalizes those who had congenital problems or injuries unfairly penalized.
THe korean system seems pretty darn good, government takes care of basic stuff, copay is low for anything additional. Then again doctors dont' charge so darn much there.
|
On February 03 2012 09:59 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +That's why I said it's mixed economy health-care, purely socialized health-care obviously isn't as expensive but the quality suffers. Is it though? Because isn't that what Canada has- mixed public-private? It's a single-payer system, publicly funded, but privately provided. In addition I think we have 20-30% paid through private healthcare- dentistry, prescription drugs, vision etc. And as for lines. Sure lines are bad, but are your lines shorter simply because people can't afford to go? I don't think I would count that as a success if shorter lines are the result of exclusion due to affordability. And really, what is the quality difference between America to Canada or the Scandinavia countries? Is it THAT big a difference that it's worth spending triple what we spend?
Well it's not purely socialized.
What I mean is if the government has a mandate, means everyone pays, and everyone gets coverage, and then the government picks the provider for you, it's pretty much socialized.
In the US what we have is that the private companies are trying to compete with the government promoted moral hazards in combination with added regulations on employers to provide one size fits all coverage.
|
On February 03 2012 10:07 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 09:59 Falling wrote:That's why I said it's mixed economy health-care, purely socialized health-care obviously isn't as expensive but the quality suffers. Is it though? Because isn't that what Canada has- mixed public-private? It's a single-payer system, publicly funded, but privately provided. In addition I think we have 20-30% paid through private healthcare- dentistry, prescription drugs, vision etc. And as for lines. Sure lines are bad, but are your lines shorter simply because people can't afford to go? I don't think I would count that as a success if shorter lines are the result of exclusion due to affordability. And really, what is the quality difference between America to Canada or the Scandinavia countries? Is it THAT big a difference that it's worth spending triple what we spend? I do have to say that it sucks for me. I do have insurance, I have major medical issues, and the current system is better than that in canada. The children of executives from canada were going to the states to have work done, so in one way, Canadian system sucks for the 1% of the population with really severe medical issues :| In another sense, there is a cost to society of the uninsured. Even though in terms of many things, I'm almost libertarian leaning, in terms of medicine having a mandate makes some sense to keep costs down. If you let people not get insurance, it just penalizes those who had congenital problems or injuries unfairly penalized. THe korean system seems pretty darn good, government takes care of basic stuff, copay is low for anything additional. Then again doctors dont' charge so darn much there.
Your example about the Canadians going south. Its not because of long waits for urgent ailments. In almost all cases, its because renowned specialists make TONS more money in the US system, and go there for their own monetary benefits. Ive had experience with extreme medical procedures including things like open heart surgery. They happen instantly and effectively. If you want to see the worlds foremost specialist on _______ and you have a ton of money, the US might work out better for you, but is that really worth sacrificing the day to day well being of the rest of your population.
|
On February 03 2012 09:58 red_b wrote:
Im sorry but you are wrong.
flat out wrong.
You are trying to argue against my stance, which is based on reality, with ideology.
you say things which are general, and are hard to argue with on theoretical grounds but the problem is they are not reflected by the reality of the situation. the evidence is overwhelming and has been for at minimum 10 years; the single payer model of health care is superior. end of story.
your initial claim, that switching to a socialized system will produce inferior care, has no grounding in reality.'
every decently designed single payer system has greater payoffs than our system:
I am done with this conversation. I have informed you of the facts, as have several other posters. If you wish to cling to your position in spite of that then this discussion has exceeded its usefulness.
data from 2000 and it has little explanation on how it compounds the ratings.
A lot of people go to US for high quality treatment, because of the lines involved in Europe.
I also like how you made a bunch of general statements in which you accuse me of making general ideology based arguments.
Single payer model of health care is only superior in theory, because the wider coverage is safer, but the Government bureaucracy and regulations tend to create monetary sinkholes, and the lack of options doesn't help the quality either.
And of course the pay-offs is greater than our system. Our system is incredibly inefficient because the Insurance companies are forced to compete with the cheating ways of the government. Having the private sector compete with the government has led to tons of problems in other sectors that I've mentioned as well:
Housing, Education, Military-Industrial complex...
|
Cmon, man you can't just dismiss an entire argument like that with a broad and sweeping genralization like that. I would like you to backup your argument with specfic cases.We will limit reserach to primarily microbiology, molecular biology, organic synthesis, and rational drug design. Even just these 4 fields dont really cover the scope but for simpiciity sake we will use these.
Like some case study showing that the level of government funding is vastly disproportional to the value out of the reseach. I realize that is diffcult to quantify the true value of reserach just because you don't know what it can lead to down the road which is why I feel Government subsidy are nesscary. There are projects that the private industry is unlikely to take on just beacuse the immediate returns may not be apparent. If you like, I can compile a list of all the major accomplishment out of those field in the last 50 years. I can tell you right now the vast majority of these advancement come from government fundings.
What you need to understand is that government funding builds a foundation for primary reserach to be conducted. Pharma Industries stand on the shoulder of these reserachers. the private sector have benefited greatly from public work without paying it back. While a fair amount of reaserach appears to be dead end to be the general public, it may be a new path that will eventually lead to something that is benefical and pratical. I can say right now that private industries do not have the resources to laid down all these foundations and there is a reason why reaserach all over the world is mostly funded by the government.
I thought I was mostly in agreement with you.
I don't see the private sector making investments in medical research as it is, if the government stopped regulating medicine. At least not for a while, because we've had so much money dumped into research, and the quality has barely increased, and only on the most expensive procedures. The costs have also not went down. If the subsidies end the free market would be hesitant to invest in medical research until the bubble in medicine deflates.
|
With the exception of housing, which is widely under debate at this moment, the programs you list do things cheaper than the private sector. Education tuitions rose because state budgets have refused to increase funding based on demand for nearly a decade. Military costs went through the roof because we turned to the private sector to help fight the war, instead of sticking to tradition and conscripting.
|
On February 03 2012 08:44 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 08:35 Kiarip wrote:
Government in medicine? Health-care costs rise dramatically not at all just justified by improved quality or inflation.
Standard stuff.
And this purely-socialized medicine stuff... It's just another big government "solution." Sure let's exchange the already over-priced health-care that resulted from mixed economy medicine with Socialized medicine with that will inevitably be lower quality with long waiting lines. that has not been historically true furthermore, health care costs in America are considerably more expensive than in other civilized nations despite having a purely private system for most people under 65. additionally, much of the research in this country is actually funded by the government, be it through tax breaks, subsidies or direct investment through the military (look into who is funding autism research). you have said nothing, Im afraid, that is actually proven by the involvement of the government. if your points were necessarily true, then Scandanavian countries with considerably more government involvement in such things would be suffering worse than us. rather, all the cases you have mentioned are more a function of broken priorities by the government of this country which for 35 years has suffered greatly from cronyism whereby businesses that invest lots of money get government programs that are amazingly effective at padding their pockets. it is not "standard" that government involvement will lead to higher prices. medical care is a service, not a production good. if youre going to throw intro to macro truisms at me, at least be dealing with the right goods. and even if you had done that, historical data is still against your claims which should clearly trump any theory.
Your wrong. US system purely private? Nono.
http://mises.org/daily/5066
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
