OK, I get it. Maine has passed a “universal health care plan”. The plan had support (detractors to, but I assume you will find them financed by naughty people) so that seems to settle the issue for you. Great.
I’m not at all sure how this addresses a single point I posted earlier. If you could explain that to me, I’d appreciate it.
Well, I will grant you that that the fact that these studies come from the private insurance companies (or their friends at Cato, Fraser Institute, tec.) doesn’t a priori demonstrate that they are flawed. And, I never claimed that it did. However, it does serve to caution that one must look at these very carefully and consider ways in which they may be telling only part of the story. Or, to put it another way, let’s say that Canada’s medical system was unambiguously wonderful and in all respects better than that in the U.S., would it not still be in these folks’ best interest to try to present evidence that it’s not … Hell, one could argue that not doing so might be neglecting their fidiciary responsibilities given the sort of financial stakes involved for them.
kimstu, myself, and others on this board have sometimes dedicated large amounts of time to demonstrating ways in which claims from Cato and other such places are lies or deceptions. However, right now I don’t have the type of time to devote to this and this health care topic isn’t one I am really that on top of. So, I was content to point out that one should treat these studies with extreme caution given the obvious motives of those involved.
I noted the existence of both a very strong motive and some very deep pockets to support that motive. Nothing more. But frankly, I think that is considerably more than you’ve done with your vague statement that "Personally, I think it is about a massive power grab. The proponents hope to have the government become the filter through which a multi billion dollar industry must pass. "
One area where the U.S. health care system has much higher costs than most of the rest of the First World is in the bureaucracy surrounding reimbursement. As a doctor in Canada explained to me once, in his office of several doctors they had one secretary who spent some portion of her time dealing with reimbursement issues. He said that practices he knew in the U.S. of similar size had a few people dedicated full-time to this. This bureaucracy might be a jobs program of sorts but it is not necessarily a very efficient use of resources. For a less anecdotal take on things, here is a press release from a study that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine and found paperwork costs per capita in the U.S. were more than 3 times what they were in Canada.
I would like to comment on the new Maine system for a moment.This is a link to aspects of the original proposal and the changes which finally passed into law.
They are going to get a one time payment from the feds to cover the first year of these extra enrollees. After that they assume that these savings will cover the costs. My question is, if we are only getting 30% of 16% of premium payments as new money, doesn’t this amount to a paltry 5% of the money currently spent on health care? All we needed do to cover everybody is 5% more money? Why does this require a huge state structure to socialize health insurance? Does anybody believe that transfering 5% of the money currently spent on health care will really cover the 10-13% of the populace which is without insurance?
Also, there seems to b very little information about how much they think expenditures will increase after they enroll this 10-13%. Can any of you find the estimate they used? Surely they did not assume expenditure would remain static.
This is certainly true. Partly because of medicaid and medicare, BTW. Also, this is one reason you cannot compare medical expenses between Canada and America on a simple dollar for dollar basis. I mean by this that the overhead costs that the Canadian government spends on collecting taxes does not count towards its medical expenses. Meanwhile money spent by insurance companies on essentially the same thing is counted toward the amount Americans spend on health care.
I deeply regret beign forced into the position of defending the Cato Institute. I don’t believe many of the things they claim. I usually try to post a quote from links which I use and I usually try only to use that quote in my arguments. I never have (I don’t recall anyway) posted a link to one of their studies and claimed that it settled the matter. I only object to the claim that funding from industry demonstrates a clear bias.
If you investigate the funding of various liberal organizations you will find similar shenanigans. They are monetarily bound to promote certain issues just like the conservative organizations. Both types of groups, however, locate evidence and present their ideas. I try only to link to studies which contain copious bibliographies. And I try to only use points from such studies which reference other (hopefully objective) documents (I have decided agaist posting links to Cato papers which did not IMHO reference enough third party documents). I don’t always succeed but I do try.
I certainly don’t want to require that you dig deeply into reports from an organization which you don’t trust. All I ask is that when I present an argument you address it and not my source for it. That is if I bring up a specific point, then refute it please, don’t simply say that it came from a Cato paper so it cannot be trusted.
Also, I would very much appreciate if you have a link to a thread in which you cast serious doubt on Cato’s integrity.
That’s enough for this hijack. I did not even participate in the IMHO thread about what constitutes a good cite :dubious:
[hijack]
As a small late night hijack, let’s revisit one such example. Here, Cato’s Michael Tanner says:
Sounds pretty abysmal if I must say so myself! And, this factoid was picked up by Thomas Sowell and presumably many others. Now, here is a comment that Michael Tanner was kind enough to tell us, in a footnote in his book, “The End of Welfare” (1996), p. 136, but didn’t deem worthy of mentioning here:
Ah, so now we find out that payments not to the poor include any payment made to someone not poor on the poor person’s behalf for services or goods rendered. Hell, since the poor will pretty much go out and spend any money they are given and it will end up in the hands of someone wealthier, why not just save time and say "nearly 100% of the money given to the poor ends up going to someone else! In fact, one might attribute this change in distribution of government money to the poor to the government wanting their payments to be more accountable, e.g., a belief that if they pay a provider rather than the poor person directly they can be more sure the money is going for what it is being given for.
And, of course, I suppose that Tanner can claim that a careful reading of his statement on the web page never claimed that the 70 cents is wasted on bureaucracy. It just juxtaposed that 70 cents fact with the statement about bureaucratic overhead and inefficiencies and let you draw your own conclusions.
[/hijack]
As I now see, your wish was my command (even before I saw you wished it). I do appreciate that you treat Cato with skepticism. And, sure, it is true that liberal groups will distort the truth too…Although it seems to me that major liberal think tanks like Center on Budget and Policy Priorities are more careful…perhaps because they have to be…than their conservative breathren like Cato are.
Here is an interesting research project:
“Life expectancy versus universal health care”
According to the 2003 edition of The Economist’s “World in Figures”, the following countries, with universal health care (UHC), are among the top 15 countries with the highest life expectancy in the world:
Japan
Sweden
Iceland
Australia
Switzerland
Canada
France
Norway
Belgium
Spain
Italy
By contrast, U.S. ranks #28 in terms of highest life expectancy.
But then again, the US also fairs poorly when it comes to providing a livable pension for its senior citizens who have worked and paid taxes for 30-40 years. So, what else is new.
I hope the OP can see why UHC and livable pensions are such hot issues in the U.S. It is the question of life and early death.
And of course we all know that correlation equals causation, right Wake up call? Surely you have a link to that study, or a reference in a peer-reviewed journal?
Oh, please don’t invoke that self-contradictory document (though it looks like they’ve changed it recently–the HTML screwup wasn’t there last I checked):
Oops, there go taxes. So how are we going to fund:
You are absolutely correct. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. That was why I started my post by saying that “Life expectancy versus universal health care” would make an interesting research project, say, in a social science department of a university.
I wish I had a link or access to such study, if it exists, no matter what the conclusions of the study may be.
If any dopers here know of any such study, I’d appreciate a reference or a cite, for the sake of eradicating my own ignorance.
Having said that, I am open to discuss the comparative index of “quality of life” in the US versus the 11 countries mentioned, not only in regards to UHC, but also provision of such minimum social services as livable pensions, more than 2 weeks paid vacation per year, more than 2 weeks severance pay when an employer downsizes, etc. etc.
How about starting with the $87 billion Mr. Bush plans to spend on his adventures in Iraq?
How about redefining huge corporate profits as:
Future Profits = Current Profits less cost of financing Article 25
How about redefining gasoline tax as:
Future Gasoline Taxes = Current Gasoline Taxes plus the cost of financing Article 25
I am sure others can think of other ways of funding Article 25 in the US.
Wake up call, I think you totally missed the point of emarkp’s post.
Ah, apologies. I read it as “Here’s an interesting research project which has been done.” Sorry about the mistake.
And Max_Castle is right about that. The point was that the two articles in the UN declaration are contradictory. The whole document is like a middle-school student saying how he thinks the world should be without actually examining the logical conclusions of the statements.
I’m not picking on you, Wake up call you are not the first one to claim life and death in this discussion. I’m just using your quote as a starting point.
In regards to the OP, you are correct. The claim that universal health assistance is necessary to sustain life is the main argument that many consider it the yardstick of progress.
I’d like to examine the claim that socialized medicine is really about health (life expectancy) at all. Life expectancy is used (in these arguments) as a measure of the effectiveness of various countries health systems. Usually as Wake up call did by demonstrating that the US is 28th which I presume is derived from the World Health Organization’s Healthy Life Expectancy report. (Note this link is to the old report, but the numbers have not changed too much). You can get the detailed report by using this page and downloading paper number 38. Its big, but it has a cool map at the end color coding regions of the globe by life expectancy.
Now, the study in question basically takes the raw mortality numbers and “adjusts” them to show the effects of various diseases/injuries in their frequency, duration, and percieved value of life effects. Lets assume that they used fair adjustments amongst the various countries in question.
The range between the United States (67.6) and Japan (73.6) is 6 years or 9%. A more appropriate comparison might be (since United States and Canada are presumably in the same “mortality zone”) with Canada (69.9) with a 2.3 year or 3% difference.
So, given that health is not a competition, the ranking (28th) is not nearly as important as the difference (3%-9%). Although the ranking is certainly more inflamatory. (And I won’t even mention the inflamatory nature of the “40 million Americans without access to health care” kind of claim)
Certainly the difference exists, but is it really due to doctors or access to them?
If people live longer with cancer in the United States than in Europe, is it possible that this actually counts against the US? It seems that this is unlikely. But I cannot find a good cite for it.
My point is only that some of these issues have little to do with affordablility of insurance or “access to medical attention”. How will universal health care change the dietary habits of Americans which lead to heart disease? How will it lower the tobacco useage rates? And how will it address the problems of violence?
On this last issue, I’d like to make 1 additional point. It is certain that the United States health care system handles stresses which other countries don’t have. The questions that occur to me are:
Whether handling these stresses is a significant protion of the health or health care system. The WHO press release seems to suggest this without giving numbers for how much.
Whether or not saving the victims of violent death counts against the United States health care system because many of these people effectively live with a “disability”.
I also question the effectiveness of universal health care plans to handle these sorts of stresses.
Even if universal health care could address these issues, remember that we are only talking about a 3%-9% difference in “healthy life expectancy”. Assuming that changes to the health care system could address these issues, we are talking about modifications, not wholesale changes to an industry which accounts for something like 15% of our GNP. At the very least we should be talking about extending health care without severly limiting the free market. But somehow, this is never considered or given little more than lip service.
This is why I question the “health” portion of universal health care.
On the issue of Dogface’s language.
Is it ok to call posters from Europe Eurotrash? Is it ok to call other posters wannabee Eurotrash? Is there a way this could be interpreted as inoffensive or is this how we fight ignorance? Most forums would ban posters for such racist bigoted offensive language, at least temporarily. Im appalled that a poster can reach almost 2800 posts using this language.
Is anyone with me?
Key word: arbitrarily.
Doesn’t the US also have a much higher accidental death and murder death rate for young people than in many other countries, which contributes to a lower ‘average life expectancy’ for the entire population?
There are things other than health care issues that affect the measure of life expectancy, correct? So why is life expectancy touted as absolute proof that government run universal health care is the solution to all health care problems?
RE: Article 25.
Interpreting this language depends on what you mean by the word “right.” For a citizen of a state to have the right to X could mean either that (1) the state is under a duty to provide X or (2) the state must not unreasonably deprive a citizen of X or hinder a citizen’s access to X.
If you take the second definition of “right,” then the statement becomes pretty reasonable (althought the last part about security definitely looks like it’s leaning toward the first definition).
That makes no sense. How can one person have a right to another’s work? What if no one can provide it? Say you have ten people, and only five of them work? The five cannot produce enough to give the ten everything they have the “right” to receive. Do the five go to jail for not producing enough, for violating the rights of the five who do not work?
A “right” by nature cannot create an obligation on another person. If it does, it skates dangerously close to slavery.
Most Third World Nations could not provide all these needs if they taxed all incomes at 100%. Are First World countries denying them their “rights” by not providing for all their needs?
How in the world did that get approved? Did the delegates not read it? Or is it just like every other UN pronouncement, meant strictly for symbolic value and having no legal standing?