Ironically, one excellent example of this is in the health care sector itself, specifically the VA hospitals system:
That, Crotalus, one crumb of the reason I asked. I’m a student. I’ve worked since I was 11, and I saved up my money. I’ve used this money to study. I’ve had some scholarships, and my parents funded my college, but I’ve used my money to get an even better education by going abroad, etc.
I will, I’m sure, be an asset one day to who so ever I work for. However, if I were to become gravely ill tomorrow, the piddly little life-insurance that I have wouldn’t help me enough to keep me out of serious debt. So, instead of making myself more marketable and hopefully being an asset to the American economy by doing the R&D I want to do, I would just be dead weight, someone trying forever to break even.
Is this not the right way to look at it? I’ll admit that I’m new to the whole idea of health insurance, because until the end of last school year (my senior year in college), I was on my parents HC plan.
It’s just stressful to constantly worry about having some sort of accident, knowing that it could break me.
xtisme, I think the first time I ever thought about it was when I read The World is Flat when he talks about the burdens on the economy caused by the uninsured kids of Wal-Mart workers.
Though, I’m nearly certain that Friedman himself was for the completely privatized system of health insurance…
xtisme:
But how many non-conservatives make that assumption with the same degree of religious fervor as conservatives do with the market? Moderates recognize that both the government and the free market have their limitations. The profit motive can spur innovations that can bring prices down, but those unable to pay are non-persons. Only the government can create a system that can guarentee services to everyone.
That said, these sorts of issues need a little more attention to detail and a little less ideological posturing.
Wow. I haven’t seen such a set of ideological blinders in years!
Despite many, many examples of countries with medical systems that are both cheaper and more effective (longer life expectancy) than ours, we’ve seen in this thread the constant refrain of “it can’t be so.” Why. Because that would go against their faith that government is bad.
We have the latest talking point, that our health care system is bad because people get treatment they don’t need for fun. I posted a while back the data that our Administrative costs are 31%, vs. 15% in Canada. That’s where the savings would come from. But, does anyone have a cite showing there is a problem with excessive unnecessary health care? Those of us with insurance get what we need - I don’t see being able to do more in a single payer system. Yes, those without insurance will probably get more health care, that they need, but unless conservatives think the poor should get sick and die for the sin of being poor, that has to be a good thing.
Why is it more expensive? Our insurance has spent about $100K on fixing my wife’s detached retina. 20 years ago she’d have probably gone blind in that eye. Anyone want to tell me this was a frivolous expense?
Now as for
When I was a kid. checkups usually did not get paid for, but the insurance companies soon discovered it was utterly freakin’ stupid to save $100 on a checkup and pay $1,000 to fix a problej the checkup could have detected early. That’s also why decent insurance for the poor would save money, both in reducing the amount of expensive work by early detection and by getting them out of expensive emergency rooms.
Would any conservatives like to make fact-based, as opposed to faith-based arguments?
I tend to agree. I think it’s a fear of the posturing, as much as posturing itself, that gets in the way of meaningful healthcare reform. That, and the perception that the subject is too complicated for mere mortals to understand. I actually think that we could approach this in a bipartisan way, study existing health systems around the world, and decide on an approach that achieves universality, efficiency, and respect for American norms. If such a system lowered the overall cost for business – not just in terms of direct outlays for health insurance or taxes, but in terms of the indirect costs of a subpar workforce – it would be seen as pro-business, and should be palatable to pro-business Republicans. And if it achieved universal coverage, it should find favor from socially-minded Democrats.
We just need a leader to make it happen.
I have no insurance and while I think Universal healthcare would be a nice thing, I just don’t see it happening. I don’t see many things that the government actually gets right especially on the social service end. (and that is not just Bush’s admin but also Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter,etc).
Voyager: “I haven’t seen such a set of ideological blinders in years!” and “…as opposed to faith-based arguments”
This works both ways. Liberals are just as much guilty of this as conservatives. I have a friend who lives in the Netherlands and he doesn’t like the healthcare system. It takes months to get in with a doctor and quality is usually not happening. He would rather have our system where we have some choice in the matter.
Where are you getting faith based arguements? Maybe I am thinking of the wrong kind of faith.
The arguement that what works in one country will work in this one is wrong. We have different populations, types of people, different types of governments and different people who run them. One big problem I see is that people (and I am sorry but this comes alot out fo the liberal camp) concentrate so much on what another country is doing that they would like to have done in the US, is that they don’t think about why or why not it would work. I cringe when I hear arguments that begin with “In Canada,…” “In Britian…” or “In Sweden…” We are not anothe country. Let’s stop paying so much attention to them and realistically look at what we can do.
Couple of things. First off, it was a joke…I was playing on rjungs knee jerk anti-market schtick. I DO recognize that both the government and free market have benifits and limitations. Neither is the ultimate evil, neither is a silver bullet.
WRT this particular OP I think that making the health care industry more market driven (i.e. deregulation) while at the same time using the government to provide the poor with direct expenditures from general funds for health care is the optimal way. It will greatly reduce (IMHO) the cumbersome and overly top heavy health care system we currently have, reducing costs while at the same time providing better service (from the free market side), while doing what you guys really want…which is to provide the poor with GOOD health care.
Seriously, I never have understood how folks can think that moving health care from the current, quasi-government controlled quasi-free market system we now have and placing it entirely in the hands of OUR government that this will somehow improve things…or cut costs. Maybe in the little Euro governments overseas they can put such things entirely in the hands of their governments and both cut costs AND increase the quality of care…but seriously, when does this happen in the US? Our government is really good at some things…but this ain’t one of em. IMHO…YMMV.
-XT
I doubt it. Friedman is pretty liberal on most isues (by US standards). He just happens to be smart enough to realize that although globalization can create some problems, most of the porposed cures are worse than the disease. I think people consider him a conservative because he (initially) supported the Iraq War, but he’s not at all shy about advocating government programs.
XT, if you remember me at all from other threads, you will know that I am pretty much a free market capitalist (but not a conservative). However, even though I love the free market, I see deregulated medical care as an even bigger disaster for the uninsured/uninsurable.
We both know that deregulation doesn’t mean no regulation, so a lot would depend on how the looser regulated environment works. I fear that the uninsured would be even worse off than they are now, and it would further separate the haves and have-nots.
It pains me to say so, but in the end I think that a government run solution would be best. It especially pains me because we have the best government money can buy, and the people a universal health care system should most help, can’t afford government representation. The best we could hope for would be to take a flawed system and make it less flawed, not perfect.
The VA Hospitals were mentioned. Social Security works damn well also. Most single payer proposals do not have the government taking over medicine, which I would oppose, for the disruption if nothing else.
That’s anecdotal. There have been many threads where people say the situation in Canada is awful, while some Canadian dopers say it is fine. What was your friend trying to have done? I need to schedule checkups months in advance, but emergencies get treated right away. I’ve got insurance - people who can’t afford health care tend to wait a long time.
By faith based I mean ignoring evidence that other systems work better because that would be socialism, or that would mean government can do things well, and such a concept would make their head explode.
Why wouldn’t it work here? By many metrics their systems work better. Our system is broken, for all but the well to do. (It’s not broken for me, but that doesn’t mean I don’t see it being broken for others.) Can we adapt some of their systems to make ours better? Give me some numbers showing that our system is better, or showing that things like Health Care accounts won’t make the problem worse.
I bet most of the US would say we have the best health care system in the world - which is part of the problem. We always like to be best, and we’ll listen to anyone who tells us that we are. Yeah, we’re not Sweden. We pay more for less. We’re suckers, that’s what we are.
Could you give me some examples of regulation of the health care system? The one I can think of is setting fees for Medicare and Medicaid payments, often so low to make the providers recover the money from others. There is of course some regulation of standards. I’d consider licensing a government regulation, in that practicing without a (privately) issued license is against the law.
But I don’t fill out a lot of government forms when I deal with the healthcare system.
Oh man, it’s a horrid idea. Horrid horrid horrid.
Imagine a system where you have to wait months to get an operation. Where the quality of healthcare, instead of improving, constantly degrades because there are no incentives to innovate. Where the healthcare you need is denied to you because a government bureaucrat decides it is too expensive, or doesn’t improve YOUR quality of life enough to justify. Where potential new medicines are never invented because government price controls limit the amount that pharmas can charge for their medicine.
Imagine a system that reduces both the length and quality of your life.
That’s universal healthcare.
Oh, but it is equal.
I have heard Fiscal Conservatives make the following arguments.
- Small Business is good for America
- UHC will benefit Small Business by making it easier for them to hire and retain good employees.
- Small Businesses have a harder time affording Employee Health care than large companies.
- Small Businesses already paying for Health care will gain a large benefit.
- UHC will greatly aid independent contracts
- It won’t hurt Big Business as much as it helps Small Business.
My take is UHC is a very good goal and we should strive to get there. The independent contractors I am friends with pay out over $6000 per year in Health Insurance alone and a lot more for family.
The small business owner I know can’t afford to offer Health Insurance and regularly loses good employees to Corporate America. He has actually had most of his employees tell him that they liked working for him and will miss the job but I need health care. Especially true for married employees.
Jim
Nice in theory, but in reality willl lead to increased health cost for everyone as well as slower advancement of medical technology.
What do you base this claim on?
Can you back it up with a logical argument and/or cites to credible studies?
Does the Swedish system not work and halt advancement?
The USA currently has the highest cost vs GDP in the World.
Here is one of many cites to back this up. PDF WARNING http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Non-PDF from another source
The U.S. has the best health care system in the world
We should avoid both the US & Canadian model and look at how the Europeans collectively handle Health care and try to build a system based on their strong points. Considering how much we already spend, we should be able to do UHC without increasing cost.
You see, this is exactly what I mean. People in UHC countries have longer life expectancies than we do. So, you need to give some evidence that UHC reduces the length of our lives.
Second - who is more likely to deny health care: an insurance person, whose bonus depends on the profitability of her company, increased by denying claims, or a government employee who gets paid the same whatever?
Price controls, if there would be any, would be negotiated with the drug companies. Exactly who is proposing that controls be put on pharmacies? You might want to look at how much drug companies pay for marketing vs. R&D.
Good OP by the way. I really would have thought that conservatives could have done better than this.
I am arguing on your side, probably for different reasons, but your last statement never helps a debate. Whenever you make blanket statements, you provide a ready excuse for those you are dismissing to ignore your arguments.
**Crotalus ** is a Fiscal conservative, did you read his post? He provides reasoned arguments on both sides of the debate.
But you are correct this is an excellent OP.
Jim
Yes, I’m quite familiar with your posts D_Odds and generally agree with what you are saying. In this case however I think a deregulated and privatized medical care system would be much more efficient…and give us much better overall choices in health care. As for the uninsured/uninsurable, I agree…it would be touchy.
My thought is that if you have a well run, efficient and high quality health care system then the majority of citizens will benifit more from it than either the current system or a proposed UHC system. As for the rest, I’m not sure…my thoughts were that the government could grant them some kind of allowance or credit toward health care (urgent care as well as wellness type care) in the event that they either can not work at all or have been layed off…i.e. a temprary stop gap while they get back on their feet. For those unable or unwilling to get back on their feet, or who work jobs that provide no health care, well, better to simply give them health care in a GOOD system than to monkey with it so that we ALL get a shitty system I suppose. Admittedly I haven’t thought it through completely…just kind of giving some random thoughts while at work. 
Bottom line I suppose I’m saying to monkey with health care via the government on the back end instead of the front end…i.e. allow health care to be privatized and work freely within the market and then fill in the holes with the minority of citizens who aren’t able to get health care through general funds. That way the we get a better overall health care system.
-XT
I guess I should have made it clear that I was referring to those dead set against a change. I thought his post was very reasonable.
And I did not mean to sound insulting. Given the large number of people opposed to UHC, I would think there is some solid evidence about problems with it. Certainly some implementations of it have not been successful. For instance, is there evidence of the increase in time required to see doctors for certain procedures under UHC? I’ve seen a lot of data about the benefits, and I expected to see data about the disadvantages.
I’m surprised at the visceral reaction of the conservatives posting here. They are doing an excellent job answering the OP’s question, but I’m not willing to say so quickly that is the only reason for opposition.
Before I get insurance through college, I have NO choice in the matter, come to think of it, while I was under a temp contract in my last job I had no choice either.
The faith is in the idea that by default government based solutions are bad, incidentally in a past discussion someone mentioned that Spain had troubles meeting demand and that state sometimes had to send patients to… the Netherlands to get better treatment. Somewhat related is the fact that even with all the hate, many old Cuban Americans go to Cuba to get affordable health care. And even my parents decided to go back to the El Salvador to get better care!
Of course not, but on the other hand, guess what was the other developed country that had no universal health care? South Africa, and that was because of apartheid, (IMHO a reason why Universal heath care was not obtained during the Roosevelt administration had do with racism, and I do think some of those feelings are still present with some decision makers)