# Bush Set to Veto Kids' Health Insurance **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 16, 2007, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-set-to-veto-kids-health-insurance/411998 "2007-07-16T16:49:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-set-to-veto-kids-health-insurance/411998/181 "2007-07-21T12:33:54Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] :dubious:There are a number of unsupported assumptions here. I don’t think that a “bloated and incopetent bureacracy” is a feature of government run health plans in general. In fact our private enterprise health care system spends 31% of the total percapita medical expense on administration while Canada’s government plan spends only 16.7% for the same thing. [/quote] Canadians can’t sue their health care provider the way US citizens can. Take tort costs out and then compare apples to apples, and I’ll bet that number will swing the other way. > [@](#): > > However, it does seem that the mantra “socialized medecine” has a strong effect even though many nations have socialized medecine and their national health condition is no worse than ours and in some cases better as shown by such things as infant mortality numbers. In order to make an argument hear, you’d need to show me examples, demonstrate a correllation and then link it to causation. I’m not big on asking for cites, but I think you’d have a tough time demonstrating that the difference in infant mortality rates between two given countries can be can linked to degree of socialization. I would guess that the biggest factors would be the degree of availability of health care and the degree to which was sought, not whether or not a given country was socialized. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-set-to-veto-kids-health-insurance/411998/182 "2007-07-21T12:56:29Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Certainly a novel definition of the nature of human rights. Hume? Locke? Burke? **Scylla**? Really, sez who? [/quote] Sez me. All rights are essentially property rights. It’s obvious and self-evident. It should also be easy for you to refute if you disagree. All you need to do is show one that is not. > [@](#): > > Mercy, what a wretched analogy! We’re talking about insurance plans here, how the hell do you take 5% of a kidney and disperse it over 300 million citizens? It’s a great analogy. There are a lot more people with two healthy kidneys than there are people who need a kidney. Don’t you think the government should take these extra kidneys that people don’t need and give them to those that do? No need to dodge the question. Just answer it. > [@](#): > > Sure! I even said so, couple posts back. I hold certain truths to be self-evident, as do you. What of it? Mine actually are self-evident, consistent and rational. Yours are demonstrably not. > [@](#): > > It is an article of faith amongst some, and seemingly shared by you, that any government enterprise must, by some metaphysical force, be doomed to inefficiency. If that is not an unproveable dogma, its getting pretty darn close. I conceed the point. I guess that it is conceivably possible that at some point somewhere the government might actually do something efficiently and well. However, since governments have a long and storied track of failing to do so, it is irrational to suddenly expect that they will. Look at it this way. You wish to turn our health care system over to the same organization that responded to Katrina. Yeah. Great idea :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > In terms of inherent inefficiency, a for profit insurance enterprise has one built right in, its the profit motive. Some of the money is siphoned off to pay investors, however modest that sum may be, it is still lost in terms of effect. Which in no way varies from a socialized health care system unless you are proposing a system in which the health care providers will not be paid in any fashion. > [@](#): > > And, of course, a for profit enterprise is built to maximize that “inefficiency”, by any means they can get away with. While it’s true that private enterprise seeks profit, this is a good thing. Competition ensures efficiency. You are proposing a government run monopoly which removes competition creating just this inneficiency you are complaining about. > [@](#): > > Even if a government system has some inherent deficiency (being comprised of humans, a pretty safe bet…), there is no built in mechanism for _maximizing_ that deficiency. Yes there is. The lack of competition. > [@](#): > > Pure _ad hominem_. My abundant character flaws have no bearing whatever on the argument. Sure it does. You were the arguing that you were going to show me what it meant to be charitable. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-set-to-veto-kids-health-insurance/411998/183 "2007-07-21T14:50:49Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] Sez me. All rights are essentially property rights. It’s obvious and self-evident. It should also be easy for you to refute if you disagree. All you need to do is show one that is not… [/quote] No one can “refute” a definition. It is dogma, an article of faith, the only possible arguments are “Is too!” and “Is not!”. > [@](#): > > …It’s a great analogy. There are a lot more people with two healthy kidneys than there are people who need a kidney. Don’t you think the government should take these extra kidneys that people don’t need and give them to those that do? No need to dodge the question. Just answer it… It is a reduction to an absurdity, as dishonest a tactic as was ever born. To scorn such a tactic is not “dodging”. > [@](#): > > …Mine actually are self-evident, consistent and rational. Yours are demonstrably not… By definition, something that is self-evident is not demonstrable, that’s what it means. That’s a true fact, you could look it up. > [@](#): > > …I conceed the point. I guess that it is conceivably possible that at some point somewhere the government might actually do something efficiently and well. However, since governments have a long and storied track of failing to do so, it is irrational to suddenly expect that they will. > > Look at it this way. You wish to turn our health care system over to the same organization that responded to Katrina. Yeah. Great idea :rolleyes:… Whereas you want to rely on the same “free market”…excuse, insufficient awe…Free Market that produced New Coke and the Edsel. Hey, this reduction to absurdity trick is nifty, **Scylla** , no wonder you are so fond of it! > [@](#): > > …Which in no way varies from a socialized health care system unless you are proposing a system in which the health care providers will not be paid in any fashion… Huh? > [@](#): > > …While it’s true that private enterprise seeks profit, this is a good thing. Competition ensures efficiency. You are proposing a government run monopoly which removes competition creating just this inneficiency you are complaining about… Not complaining about inefficiency. Complaining about injustice. > [@](#): > > …Yes there is. The lack of competition… A recitation of the capitalist catechism, a statement of faith offered as evidence. > [@](#): > > …Sure it does. You were the arguing that you were going to show me what it meant to be charitable. Oh, I see! I make a joke, and you pretend to believe it a serious suggestion. My son, the Err Apparent, used to do that. Till he was about 8. Then he outgrew it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-set-to-veto-kids-health-insurance/411998/184 "2007-07-21T21:11:09Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] No one can “refute” a definition. It is dogma, an article of faith, the only possible arguments are “Is too!” and “Is not!”. [/quote] It wasn’t a definition, but yes a definition can be refuted as incorrect. If you to dodge the point rather than simply admitting that all rights pertain to property than that’s ok with me, but I doubt you’re fooling anybody. > [@](#): > > It is a reduction to an absurdity, as dishonest a tactic as was ever born. To scorn such a tactic is not “dodging”. It’s not a reduction to absurdity. You said it was good to take from people that have more than they need to help those that need. It is logical to ask if this also applies to things like kidneys, and if not, why not. Again, you chose not to answer. As your stance seems indefensible, and you are unwilling to concede it as such, this is your only other alternative. > [@](#): > > By definition, something that is self-evident is not demonstrable, that’s what it means. That’s a true fact, you could look it up. In epistomology, a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning. “I think therefore I am” would be an example of a self-evident proposition in this sense. Another self-evident proposition is that an apple and an orange are not the same thing. We could demonstrate this by comparing an apple and an orange. I go with the epistomological definition. Before you suggested I look it up, you should have done so and saved yourself the embarassment. > [@](#): > > Whereas you want to rely on the same “free market”…excuse, insufficient awe…Free Market that produced New Coke and the Edsel. Hey, this reduction to absurdity trick is nifty, **Scylla** , no wonder you are so fond of it! That’s an excellent point. The free market did produce New Coke and the Edsel. It also dispensed with them. Bad government programs don’t go away so easily (and again, this wasn’t a reduction to absurdity argument I made.) > [@](#): > > Not complaining about inefficiency. Complaining about injustice. Which you wish to solve by making other people make sacrifices to pay still other people to do things which you are unwilling to do yourself. Hardly virtuous. > [@](#): > > A recitation of the capitalist catechism, a statement of faith offered as evidence. I’ll happily defend it the day you offer an actual counterargument. > [@](#): > > Oh, I see! I make a joke, and you pretend to believe it a serious suggestion. My son, the Err Apparent, used to do that. Till he was about 8. Then he outgrew it. I don’t think it funny. You see a problem with some people’s health care and because of this you want to take away **everybody’s** right to chose, give the government a monopoly, let the government decide how to care for us… and you think of this as charity. Not funny at all. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-set-to-veto-kids-health-insurance/411998/185 "2007-07-21T21:37:36Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] …You see a problem with some people’s health care and because of this you want to take away **everybody’s** right to chose, give the government a monopoly, let the government decide how to care for us… and you think of this as charity. Not funny at all. [/QUOTE] I said this? Cite? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2007, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-set-to-veto-kids-health-insurance/411998/186 "2007-07-22T05:30:02Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] Canadians can’t sue their health care provider the way US citizens can. Take tort costs out and then compare apples to apples, and I’ll bet that number will swing the other way. [/quote] [This cerainly doesn’t read as if Canadians can’t sure their health care provider.](http://www.victorialaw.bc.ca/injury/medical-malpractice.htm) By “can’t sue the way US citizens can.” do you mean that malpractice damage awards are lower or what? > [@](#): > > In order to make an argument hear, you’d need to show me examples, demonstrate a correllation and then link it to causation. I’m not big on asking for cites, but I think you’d have a tough time demonstrating that the difference in infant mortality rates between two given countries can be can linked to degree of socialization. I would guess that the biggest factors would be the degree of availability of health care and the degree to which was sought, not whether or not a given country was socialized. You have taken my button > [@David Simmons](#): > > However, it does seem that the mantra “socialized medecine” has a strong effect even though many nations have socialized medecine and their national health condition is no worse than ours and in some cases better as shown by such things as infant mortality numbers. and sewed a whole suit of clothes on it. I don’t need any proof that their infant mortality rate is better than ours because of socialized medicine because I didn’t say that was the reason. Up thread a way when I compared per capita Canadian costs to US costs someone, maybe you, responded that it was like comparing a Yugo to a Rolls. Canadian health care being the Yugo and US health care being the Rolls. Here are[infant mortality rates in deaths per 1000 live births](http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html) according to the data available this year. These countries all have a better infant mortality rate than the US at 6.4: Austria (4.5), Australia (4.6) Canada (4.6), Czech Republic (3.9), Denmark (4.6), Finland (3.5), France (4.2), Germany (4.1), Ireland (5.2) Italy (5.7), South Korea (6.1), New Zealand (5.7), Norway (3.6), Portugal (4.9), Spain (4.3), Sweden (2.8), Switzerland (4.3), United Kingdom (5.0). If you check life expectancy at birth the US lags a lot of countries in that category too. Not by much, but by enough to show that socialized medicine doesn’t necessarily result in inadequate medical care. And the private enterprise system doesn’t necessarily result in superior care for the general run of the population. However I would suspect that the availability of national health care increases the frequency of adequate prenatal care in the low income groups. That seems to me a good way to improve the viability of newborns all by itself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-set-to-veto-kids-health-insurance/411998.md?page=9)