Perhaps I misread your earlier posts somehow. My mistake. The rest of the debate has been neglected too long and I have work tomorrow, otherwise I’d happily continue it.
No sign then of the causal relationship between US defence spending in Europe and the cost of medicine there.
I don’t know about a sign, but there’s a direct logical implication — a very simple one: if you don’t have to pay as much for your defense, you can pay more for your health. The whole of Europe spends only two-thirds of what the US spends on defense, while the US accounts for 85% of NATO military and adminstrative capacity. I could show the arithmetic, but it’s not that hard to calculate. The only way to argue it differently would be to assume that money appears from nothing, and that the US is squandering its magic beans.
But since you like the New York Times, one of its reporters, three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman makes the exact same point in his report, Does Europe Hate Us? You can Google for the text, or for times it might be broadcast in your area.
Speaking as a liberal myself, I cordially invite YOU to move to a fascist state where YOU’LL fit right in. I plan to stay here and duke it out with conservatives, boyo.
How true and how completely irrelevant. As a statement of capability, it tells you nothing about what Europe does pay.
If anything it’s further credit to the Eurpoean health scheme. Having the US pay for its defence and corresponding baths of surplus cash everywhere, Europe nonetheless pays less for its health. Not more. Less.
The US defence contribution is immaterial. Unless someone has some proof of a causal nexus, yet to be seen?
Sure it does. It tells you that Europe pays less than the US.
Let A = US money
Let B = EU money
Let C = Total money
A + B = C
A/C + B/C = 1 (C != 0)
A/C > B/C -> A > B (C != 0)
QED
Who said it pays more? The premise is that were it to bear its own defense costs, it would have less to spend than it now has, meaning that it could no longer support its present level of health care. So, unless its doctors are willing to make even less money than they do now (which is less than in the US, according to your report), then it will be unable to maintain the same number of doctors. And so on.
I’m still waiting for the “causal nexus” showing that the US is a free market. There are no magic beans. Your assertion that the cited report shows that a free market cannot support efficient health care has been proved false. Even the report itself draws no such conclusion.
I’m afraid you won’t get any of the fancy economics talk from me, but the point made by wonderwench combined with the assertion by the OP that he would pay taxes if only he wasn’t forced to intrigued me.
I think an analogy can be drawn between paying taxes and contributing to charities (and I’m sure someone will point out if my analogy is, in fact, utter pants!) … people claim that they would pay taxes out of the goodness of their hearts but I don’t believe they would. Just like a lot of people believe that they would give to charity but in practice they find reasons not to and the reasons are very much the same. Most people want to take care of their own families first which is understandable … my point is at what stage of ‘taken care-ness’ does a person start thinking about giving money to the less fortunate? In my experience as a charity worker, most people have to be pretty gosh darn ‘taken care off’ before they consider what they think of as ‘giving money away’. Whatsisname’s Hierarchy of Needs suggest that basic food and shelter is enough but it isn’t. If people have extra money, they buy a better car (or a car at all), have better holidays (or a holiday at all), eat out etc. etc. It takes quite a lot of ‘being okay’ before the money goes to others.
All of the above is, of course, just in my experience. I’m quite sure the majority of ‘dopers’ are generous people who give to charity and would happily pay taxes for services they use. But the point is; the majority of people, in my view, wouldn’t, and I tend to include the OP in that. Since he can’t choose what his money goes to or ensure that his money only goes to causes he agrees with, I suspect that he would rather not pay at all. And I think that this would be a fairly common view.
Here in Blighty we’re coming up for a General Election (oh, the ennui!) and taxation will, as always, be a hot issue. Me? I believe in nobless oblige , I believe that those that have should help those that don’t. I believe in socialism in theory, if not in practice! But if you ask me if it grates that I have to pay for services I will never use, then I admit that it does. Social Security fraud makes me want to kill the perpetrators with my bare hands. But I would rather pay for the occassional fraud rather than genuine people go hungry.
fiercesheep
p.s. all this economics debate is really fascinating, by the way! Not sure I understand a word of it, of course … 
It’s an odd criticism of the article that agrees with its method and conclusion. Confusion might have been avoided had you pointed out your agreement earlier.
That conclusion is no more than speculation, wild speculation at that. Show some data. By way of assistance, think on: the gross and *net * US military spending in Europe; the policy decisions the EU might make in an alternative circumstance; the fact that US public health spending is already on par with the EU, a community with a higher tolerance for taxation.
Now it is I has allowed a misundertanding to survive :
. This controverts the argument that free market is necessarily more efficient which is the OP’s propostion you may recall, and a common delusion, particulary in the US. Krugman never suggests the free market is never more efficient. You’ll have to wait another day to conceed that argument.
The US is modelled on a free medical market. Govt spending is auxillary. Whereas the universal coverage systems are modelled on the idea that free market prices are auxillary to universal public coverage as the primary health care. So this isn’t perfect data but it needs a certain perversity to assert the data doesn’t add to a cogent understanding of free market vs public funding. In any case, the theoretical debate is abstract. It is more involving to compare empirical models as Professor Krugman does.
BTW to put things in perspective, you may wish to look at this thread:Health Care in the US
I’m going to post here, against my better instincts, but I’m going to do it with a very simple counterargument that even you, RI, might be able to understand.
If you do not consent to the government’s “theft” of your pennies, you have every right to opt out of our tyrannical system.
People do all the time- they move to Idaho, fortify a homestead, and take up subsistence farming. So long as they don’t do anything silly- like show up at Aryan Nations picnics, the federal government doesn’t bother them.
If you choose to reject the social contract, do the same- move somewhere quiet, declare your house the Republic of Yourselfia, and stop paying taxes. Quite simple, really.
Of course, when you’re too old to work, or your kids need educating, or you decide showering with well water sucks, you’ll be pretty fucked. But hey, you’ll get to keep your whole paycheck!