But best is a comparative term, not an objective one. I mean, you could have a choice of systems, all of which are terrible, yet the opportunity to select the best one. There’s always going to be a “best” and a “worst”.
Interesting that you consider World Health Organization stats as bullshit. Just little poor little Rand Rover making a stand alone against the World Health Organization.
Oh, and I’m a he, not that it affects the veracity of the WHO stats.
If you would read what I posted, you would see that I don’t consider the WHO stats bullshit at all. I’m just saying they don’t paint a complete picture. They don’t present a complete argument in favor of UHC, for the reasons I discussed above (and you apparently ignored–are you worried about reading something that could challenge your beliefs?).
The complete picture being that given the choice of two systems, in both of which the patient decides which doctor to use, you prefer the administratively more expensive system. I don’t think I’m crossing the no-medical-advice line by saying you are bat shit crazy.
You reject a system that has been factually shown to significantly reduce Bureaucratic inefficiencies (see cite above), in favour of one that costs everyone a whole lot more (because it is inefficient)
And you do so, because your ideology demands that you must think that the “free market” is better.
Damn the facts and the money savings! Full speed ahead!
You’re an absolute hoot, do you know that! You are absolutely hilarious!
Tell me that you were forced to eat napkin sandwiches as a poor youth!
I know, I just know in the sub cockles of my heart I’m setting you right up. But I’m going to place the ball on the tee and mix my metaphors anyway.
Is the insurance provided to you by your job the one you think to be best for you and your family? Why is that?
Yes, I prefer the system with more administrative costs, but not because it has more administrative costs.
Let me ask you this: if the government controlled the complete food system (i.e., growth of crops and livestock, manufacturing, distribution, retail (i.e., grocery stores and restaurants)), do you think the administrative costs in the food delivery system would go down? I think it would. Do you think for that reason alone that the government should control the complete food system?
No, it’s because the administrative costs are not the only thing to be considered in picking one system over another. Do you think the food production system should be taken over by the government?
Hell if I know. My family is covered by the insurance offered by my wife’s work. I would like the opportunity to choose the insurance that is best for us, but our system ties insurance to employment (due to government interference). I would like insurance to be sold on as free a market as possible–i.e., remove the incentive for employers to provide insurance, allow insurers to sell across state lines, and no state mandates for coverage.
In the last month, I have had two visits to the orthopaedic surgeon of my choice, a series of x-rays, and two MRIs. The only thing not covered by universal health care was the hour of sleep that I missed due to the scheduling of one of the MRIs.
Sucks to be you. Here in Canada, we are free to purchase private insurance if we wish, without regard to employment.
I love it when this gets brought up. It’s like it’s an attempt to show up liberals as stupid by saying “you guys interfered before and look what it got us.” While this might be a valid tactic at any other time, a big reason for wanting UHC right now is to break that tie between employment and insurance.
So in this you’re actually in agreement with liberals. I understand if that causes you pain.
Unemployed and out of benefits? Fuck you, I’ve got mine.
Senior citizen on a fixed budget? Fuck you, I’ve got mine.
Single mother, struggling? Fuck you, I’ve got mine.
Got sick? Fuck you, I’ve got mine.
Regards,
Rand Rover.
I never said that lower administrative costs were the ONLY reason to pick UHC over the mess you currently enjoy. Just one of the many reasons. Superior health of the population being another. Medical insurance coverage for EVERYONE in the country being another. Lower insurance costs for everyone being another.
Note that in UHC countries, the government has not taken over “the entire medical system”. It has provided a single insurer with a pool of insured that covers the entire country. You might be surprised to know that in Canada it’s not the Soviet Union with a 5-year plan for health and government assigned doctors.
The entire country paying less for better health outcomes for everyone seems to be a pretty good thing. I guess if your personal belief system is so strong that you will not see this as a good thing, and would rather actually pay more than have “the government boogie man” have any part in health care insurance, then there’s not much more to say.
Your comment, and this thread, remind me of a column I read recently:
Better care delivered more efficiently and accessible to everyone seems like a winning combination to me. But then I see markets as a tool to bring about good outcomes where they’re appropriate, and not an idol to be worshiped and taken as the foundation of virtue. (Not that that I mean to paint all Americans, or any particular poster, with that brush.)
Fair enough. Me neither - it was political showmanship by a guy with nothing to lose. His point was valid though, to an extent, and maybe served a useful purpose and teachable moment to this board: not adding to the deficit and our crushing debt is extremely hard. The Democrats couldn’t find a measly $10b to cut to fund this (I’d have taken it out of unspent stimulus dollars). Or, if they wanted to be intellectually honest about things, find a $10b tax to raise.
I agree that the tie should be broken, but UHC isn’t necessary to break that tie. It’s much simpler to simply break the tie directly.
There you go, that’s a good “I hate you” post. Next time try to work in a reference to how I would love living in Somalia. Also, “Fuck you, I’ve got mine” bears as much relationship to my beliefs as you bear to a fully functioning intelligent human being (which is not fucking much).
Hey EP, I don’t think that just repeating yourself is a good debate strategy, but if that’s all you’ve got then I guess that’s all you’ve got. I discussed each of these points upthread–they don’t prove that UHC is better in the least.
Hey EP, I don’t think that just repeating yourself is a good debate strategy, but if that’s all you’ve got then I guess that’s all you’ve got. I discussed each of these points upthread–they don’t prove that UHC is better in the least.
Why do you want to live in Somalia?
Muffin, people often respond to me by saying that I would sure like it in the Libertarian paradise of Somalia (i.e,. they have very little government there). It is of course a stupid-ass response. Somalia has essentially no functioning government–I want a government to provide for military and police and courts.
So you’re one of those authoritarian types.
And that’s the only action taken? Okay. Now we’re stuck paying a premium 5 times what it usually is since our employers are no longer subsidizing it. The rate of uninsured people skyrockets dramatically since it becomes a choice between paying for the potential of future health care and food and clothing. Premiums for the insured continue to rise because of all the healthy people who’ve gotten the hell out of the risk pool. The number of people receiving preventive care plummets, while the number of people clogging up the emergency room doubles or triples. Health care costs continue to rise in general to attempt to pay for all those people using the ER and refusing to pay their bills.
Now here’s where I actually start speculating. This imbalance continues until it reaches a breaking point, and the conservatives start pushing to repeal whatever law it is that forces ERs to admit patients without insurance or proof of ability to pay. ERs start turning people away in droves, leaving them to die in their homes or on the streets. We enter a severe depression due to the simple lack of numbers in the workforce and lack of ability to produce. America collapses. Thanks a ton for your ‘simple’ fix.
Well, I suppose I shouldn’t be so negative. Conservatives aren’t that unfeeling; they’d only reinstitute debtor’s prison and allow people who don’t pay their ER bills to be locked up. Same situation, only now the people that would be dead are in prison instead.
The point is, taking actions based solely on simplistic ideology is fucking retarded.