Why no free healthcare?

Great Debates
81

These statistics say nothing about universal healthcare. What it does is just prove universal healthcare would be a lot more expensive in America than in Canada.

Also life expectancy is an extremely poor way to judge health care.

The United States has several factors that would contribute greatly to a lower life expectancy number that have nothing to do with health care. For example America has a fairly high murder rate compared to the rest of the world (of course murders as a % of the population are too low to have a huge impact on the statistics) and we also have a very high automobile accident fatality percentage as compared to most other countries (European countries in particular because there is less car ownership) and this does contribute heavily to the lowered life expectancy because the number of traffic fatalities is staggering.

Also the figure of “healthy life expectancy” is fairly arbitrary and mostly useless as a real statistic.

82

Also probably the biggest factor is heart problems, which is not a function of American health care but a function of American cultural and social habits. I think we’d see our life expectancy rise dramatically if we could wage a successful war on overeating and unhealthy eating.

In many ways Americans are cursed by their own prosperity. More of us (raw and rate) die in cars because more of us own cars, more of us die from heart problems because Americans love and can afford huge portions of unhealthy meals.

83

I know this isn’t a very persuasive argument to detractors of the system, but it should be noted that in most countries with universal health care, none but the most ferociously right-wing would ever seek to dismantle the system. Conservatives and conservatives agree that to get rid of tax-funded, free-at-the-point-of-delivery universal healthcare is a Very Bad Thing, and furthermore, even if one wanted to, to do so would be political suicide.

Reform is always mooted, certainly (Israel’s version sounds like a very clever version of market dynamics applied to the concept), but never abolition. Thus, it is a highly popular policy with a massive democratic mandate. Populations that have it, love it.

That said, these arguments may be applied to unfettered gun ownership in the US, of which we have no comprehension either, so this argument may be a non-starter.

84

If you’re deciding for me, then it’s not my right; it’s your permission.

85

How?

Simply not true. Road deaths in the USA are little different to France, New Zealand or Spain, and kill only 0.015% of the population annually. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/blue/r-acc06.htm
And in any case, what alternative method of measuring quality of healthcare do you recommend?

86

I would want to mention an important element in the french healthcare system, that doesn’t seem to be considered in this debates : the importance of “mutual insurances”.

I mentionned I had a complementary insurance. However it’s not a conventionnal private insurer. Like the majority of french people who suscribe to a private complementary insurance, I picked a non-profit insurer. These organizations are indirectly managed by their “customers”, or rather members. The board of directors, for instance, is elected by the insured. Contrarily to private for profit insurers, their main concern, as a result, is the interest of the insured.
They’re large scale organizations, and as a result, they have a significant influence on public policies (call that lobbying, but I’d rather have an insurer that represent me lobbying than an insurer representing its stock holders). I can’t see why such organizations couldn’t exist in a non-public healthcare system, as main insurer instead of of a complementary one.
They could be an alternative to a purely market driven insurance system. I don’t know how they could be develloped from scratch, though, but I vaguely remember from an older thread that similar non-profit insurers already exist in the USA, though only on a small scale.
(by the way, they’re also largely present in other insurance markets : home insurance, car insurance, etc…).

87

Uh Lib since you feel the need to repeat your fairly meaningless mantra, could you please expound?

Do you ever decide on what rights you have? Rights decided by society. Did The Declaration of Independence give me permission or by virtue of being a statement of prinicipals for our society? No, it declared what are accepted as the foundation for other rights within our society. Is it your position that there are no rights, only permissions?

Or is your objection to the means by which I would achieve universal healthcare, to the limitiation of the freedom to go without coverage? Then your statement makes some sense, even though I disagree with it.

88

Per person average health care expenditures and %GDP statistics tell us nothing about the efficeny of a health care system. Lets take country A total privitized health care and country B totally government supported health care both with GDPs of 10000$.

In country A you have guys X Y and Z. Guy X and Y pay 50$ a year for adequate care. Guy Z is super rich and wants the best doctors in the world and pays 500$ for the best care in the world. Average health cost per person in Country A would be 200$ and be 6% of the GDP.

In Country B guys X Y and Z all recieve adequate care for $100 a person. Their total expenditure is $300 or 3% of their GDP.

Now country A is more effecient at providing adequate care but their total expenditure as a percentage of the GDP is higher becuase of super rich Guy Z. I am not saying this is what is happening becuase I don’t know. I am claiming that your stats tell me very little

89

For which word do you need the meaning?

(1) If (2) you’re (3) deciding (4) for (5) me, (6) then (7) it’s (8) not (9) my (10) right; (11) it’s (12) your (13) permission.

90

Paying taxes is not involuntary servitude, at least not for constitutional purposes. See the 16th amendment. Your argument would be laughed out of any courtroom in the country.

91

Cite :

92

Well just as you said it isn’t very persuasive. Many populaces have widely loved many things in the past that just plain weren’t good for them or the country. I’m not saying universal healthcare is bad or good at this point I’m just saying the fact that people like it really doesn’t prove anything other than it is appropriate for such a country to have it since the democratic will must be represented.

93

So then it is not that Canadians have a more efficient health care system than Americans, but rather that we live longer and healthier at less health care cost individually, less health are cost per capita to our government, and at less healthcare cost per capita to our GNP, because Americans are fatter, poorer drivers, and have a propensity to shoot each other? Interesting.

94

I don’t recommend any because I can’t think of any, that doesn’t mean I’m going to start judging health care based on one of the most wholistic and non-specific statistics you can throw out there.

I also mentioned one post after my traffic accident post that I felt heart problems were probably the biggest factor for reduced life expectancy in America, and has something to do with the cultural factor not the health care factor. Peole in other countries just do not consume the portions Americans do, and I know that just because I’ve lived in other countries and universally in every restaurant servings are smaller. Now I don’t know how people eat in their own homes but I doubt it varies greatly.

95

And as for how universal health care would be more expensive for Americans than Canadians is obvious.

Health care in the United States is already vastly more expensive than in Canada, both per capita and in raw numbers, universal health care would just increase costs overall and per capita, therefor making it more expensive. Don’t so how there is any question on that count.

96

I reckon it would — if it were my argument. Looks like you missed a post.

97

This sort of gets to the heart of it, doesn’t it? I mean, let’s face it, if all Americans really want to provide healthcare to each, they will–and the lack of a government program to implement it won’t stop them. clairobscur, it is clear to me that you think that all Americans should have “equal access” to healthcare. I just can’t help but wonder, does it matter at all to you whether anyone else agrees, or only that you are convinced that you are right? After all, if you can achieve your goal by means of taxation, it doesn’t matter what I think, does it? You’ll get my money anyway.

Let me just say that I am so fucking tired of people who are so noble and caring that they are willing to spend MY money to help others. If you care so much, why don’t you sell the computer you’re using or donate it? I have a sister-in-law who has no computer but could afford one if her taxes were lower. Why don’t you give her yours?

The reason why we value freedom in this country is because we, supposedly, want people to be able to make their own choices and set their own priorities. And there are always competing concerns. For instance, I actually DO care if there are sick children who don’t have the money to go to a doctor. I also care whether there are a bunch of people who are starving because they can’t find a job. I also care whether my daughters are able to go to college.

When I get a paycheck, the money is “divvied” out based on my priorities (I did earn the money, after all). The money will run out before I have distributed as much to as many places as I would like to. Ultimately, choices have to be made about how much money goes to college savings, how much goes to food, and how much goes to helping others. Interestingly, taxes get pulled out before any of these items. As a result, payments to the Social Security ponzi scheme, Medicare, funding of the god-awful DEA, corporate welfare, medical research, and the United States Soil Conversation Service (they dig a lot of ditches) all take priority over food for my family.

You suggest that people will not give enough to support your scheme as you would like. You never consider the possibility that they might have valid reasons for this–that there might be demands on their money that legitimately take precedence over your desire to hand out “free” healthcare. What I want to know is, what gives YOU that right? If you would rather own a computer than give the money to the poor, I see no reason to stop you. Yet, if I would rather buy myself a computer than contribute to your universal healthcare, obviously I am in the wrong. Best to just take my money and “allow” me to decide what to do with whatever might be left of it.

You want to continue talking about what is fair or what is right, you’ll have a lot better chance of getting my attention if you take your hand out of my pocket first. Have you still got a car? A computer? A house? A TV? What kind of food are you having for dinner? If you haven’t given all you can to this cause, I want to know what is your moral standing to take food off of MY table to support it? Why is it that what is important to you is required to be more important to me than anything else?

-VM

98

I’d like to also comment on this notion that we have a ‘right’ to education, or a ‘right’ to health care.

The fact is, health care and education can not be provided unless someone is willing to provide it to you. Therefore, there can be no ‘right’ to health care or education. I hate it when these terms get distorted because someone wants to score a political point by using a loaded term like ‘right’.

Economics is all about the allocation of scarcity. Health care, education, and other human-manufactured services are SCARCE. That means we don’t have as much as we could possibly want. I’d love free college educations for all, but we can’t afford it. I wish every person could have a personal nurse to look after their boo-boos and a personal physician who makes house calls. But we can’t afford it.

So given that we want more of these things than we can afford, the question is properly phrased as, “How shall we allocate these scarce resources?” Not, “Shouldn’t everyone have free health care?”

The market has proven to be the most efficient mechanism we have for allocating these resources. It MUST be kept in the loop. ‘Solutions’ that elminate market forces will lead to the long-term destruction of that you are wishing to save.

There are also questions of scarcity within the health field. There aren’t enough doctors and nurses. There aren’t enough CAT scanners. Many drugs are very expensive, because they cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. In a market system, these resources are allocated efficiently. Try to ‘improve’ it by government fiat will result in disaster.

For example, once the government is picking up the cheque for our health care, there will be pressure to cap doctor’s fees. But if you cap doctor’s fees, you’ll reduce the incentive to become a doctor. Likewise, if you hamstring doctors with a bunch of rules and regulations, you’ll restrict entry into the field. So now you’ve increased demand for health care and lowered supply. Bad idea.

I mentioned a while ago that there are waiting lists for up to two years for hip and knee surgery in Canada. You know why? A big reason is because we are chronically short of anaesthesiologists. Now, in a pure market system, when a shortage like that occurs, the price (wages) starts to rise, attracting more people into the field and correcting the shortage. But when the government sets a fee schedule, then shortages don’t get corrected. Then if the fees are raised, you eventually correct the shortage. But then what if there is a glut? Now you’re paying more than you need to, leading to inefficiencies.

Governments cannot manage large enterprises. They simply can’t. So whatever you do, don’t go down the path of turning health care over to the government. It must stay in the private sector, and the price mechanism that allows the market to work must stay in place.

99

That’s something else entirely, and is simply due to wages being lower in Mexico. I can go there and get my portrait painted for less money, too. And I hope you’re not arguing that a socialized healthcare system would make plastic surgery cheaper and more plentiful in the US.

100

Another reason why people go out of country for plastic surgery - so that their friends and neighbors don’t know they had it. There are a number of island resorts that are setting up to do this now. You can just tell everyone that you’re going to the tropics for three weeks. You go down, have the surgery, and by the time you come home the swelling is down and you can go out in public.