More Thoughts on Universal Healthcare

[thegreekdog]

I can't take credit for finding this, but I find it's a pretty interesting critique of universal healthcare in the United States:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 97552.html

[joecoolfrog]

In Britain we have the National Health Service, which provides healthcare for all, but also a thriving private healthcare system which is utilised by those who wish to pay for more privacy/comfort and ,in the case of minor operations , jump any waiting lists. In very basic terms why could this not work in the USA and who would have a problem with such a dual system ?
One other point , that I have not seen discussed, is the matter of prevention rather than cure, the NHS constantly drives home this message and it appears to be working in respect of levels of heart disease for example. Do the US Insurance companies drive home this message or is it left to the government, the financial aspect of this needs to be logged into any overall health cost equation.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think the issue is whether there are healthcare problems in the US. In fact, I believe the author of the article acknowledged that. I'll also acknowledge that.

What he did say was the for those people who could not afford health care, healthcare would be provided by the government. His issue (and mine) is not with providing healthcare (including preventative care) to those that cannot afford it. His issue (and mine) is with going to government-provided healthcare for all as the first and only step in fixing these problems. So, when the President states that X millions of Americans are without healthcare, let's whittle that down to those without healthcare who cannot afford healthcare. Let's provide for them. Then, let's go back and look at all the rest of the US citizens and determine how best to fix the problems in the system (for example, malpractice judgments).

I don't want to throw stones, but it appears you did not fully read the article. I admit that it's long, but it's interesting and at times amusing.

[StiffMittens]

...read the article. I admit that it's long, but it's interesting and at times amusing.

It's also horribly biased and obvious right wing noise machine propaganda.

[thegreekdog]

...read the article. I admit that it's long, but it's interesting and at times amusing.

It's also horribly biased and obvious right wing noise machine propaganda.

Yes... and? I'm not sure what you're point is. I'm also not sure what the difference is between the president's speeches and this. I'm also not sure what the difference is between the president's free advertisements and this. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[Nobunaga]

... From Boortz. Great stuff.


I happened to catch some of the prepared remarks from Barack Obama. I just love how the AP describes it: "President Barack Obama sought Wednesday to cast the intensifying health care debate in terms that matter to ordinary people, promising to offer more savings, security and treatment to millions." Oh there you go ... using the word "security." We'll give Obama credit for that. He knows that the word "security" is much more important to the majority of Americans than the word "freedom." That would be why Hillary's attempted takeover of health care in 1993 was called the "Health Security Act." Much of governance today revolves around finding the right trigger word that resonates with the government-educated dumb masses. Get the right trigger word; like "change" for instance, and you can sell crap in a bag to most people.

If you're a bit more advanced in your ability to engage in rational thought - a disappearing trait - you will understand that Obama really gives a flying Krispy Kreme about the healthcare of "ordinary people." What Barack Obama wants to do is promise people "security" so that they will buy his takeover of almost 20% of our econmy and, thereby, become even more dependent on government. That's what this debate is about .. not about healthcare!

But back to the prepared remarks .. Obama wanted to remind Americans that "This debate is not a game." Pretty clever. He says, "This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they cannot afford to wait for reform any longer .. They are looking to us for leadership. And we must not let them down." Looks like PrezBO is consulting his team of behavioral scientists again. Obama is trying to paint a picture that he and the Democrats are the only ones who are taking things seriously in Washington. His opponents aren't really serious, they're just playing games. They're just screwing with him because they lost, and the people need to realize this or our country is doomed. For months now Barack Obama has made a point of telling the government-educated dumb-masses that the fate of our economic future is tied to healthcare reform. Not a bad tactic, actually. He knows that not many people are really feeling the pain of a broken system of health care, but the pain of our economic downtown has been spread pretty widely. So .... It's simple! Tie his takeover of health care to the economy, and the people will get on board!

Barack Obama and the Democrats keep reminding us that the healthcare industry comprises about 16% to 18% of our economy. Question .. is this necessarily a bad thing? David Gratzer, a physician and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says that regulation is in fact our biggest problem with healthcare. Here's a peak:

Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000.

The stark difference has nothing to do with each state's health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state's insurance pools are regulated.

In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin's insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.

The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention--not too little--is what's distorting prices from one market to the next.

So.... Just thinking out loud here ... but what if the people who live in New York were allowed to buy their health insurance from a company in Wisconsin? Do you think the competitive pressures from the Wisconsin insurers just might drive the cost of insurance in New York down? Now that's a free market solution .. and if there's anything missing from the Democrat side of this health care debate, it's free market solutions. By now you should know why. This isn't about delivering health care. This isn't about making health insurance more affordable. This is about making people dependent on government for their health care. You don't do that by making it easier for them to buy their health insurance in the free marketplace.


AND WHAT OF THE UNINSURED?

What's the number we hear tossed around? Let's settle on 47 million. OK, a few questions:

How many of the uninsured are illegal aliens. Answer ... about 25% of them. They came here illegally, they stay here illegally, they work here illegally ... and we're supposed to be upset that they can't afford health insurance? If they get hurt patch them up and send them home.

How many of the uninsured are young and just not buying health insurance because they think they're pretty much bulletproof right now? I've seen estimates as high as 20 million .. almost one-half of the uninsured. Hey, they made their choice ... let them suffer the consequences. Why do I have to sacrifice my health care freedom because some nimrods decide it is more important to pay for that new BMW and the flat screen TV than it is to take care of their health needs.

How many of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid or Medicare and just haven't signed up for it? Millions. So ... sign them up? Instead of taking over our health care, get these people signed up and take care of them under the programs we already have.

And how many of the uninsured are in a transitional state ... moving from one job to another and waiting for the new policy to kick in. Millions more. We're going to turn out health care system over the government because of people changing jobs? How about just passing some laws that make health care insurance more portable?

Remember .. there are solutions out there. The only solution acceptable to the Democrats is one that makes government more powerful.


THE INFLUENCE OF THE WHITE HOUSE

In January, the Congressional Budget Office reported that healthcare legislation drafted by the Senate would add $1 trillion to the federal deficit and only reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 16 million. Then in July, the CBO reported that healthcare legislation drafted by the House would add $239 billion to the federal deficit and actually increase healthcare costs.

Now, Barack Obama wants a meeting with the director of the Congressional Budget Office. After these CBO numbers .. which some Democrats have described as "devastating" .. it's time to pull out the big guns. Get this guy a meeting with the President. So the director of the CBO Doug Elmendorf went and had his sit-down with Barack Obama.

The Republicans smell something fishy. They believe that the Obama administration is trying to influence the CBO in order to get a more favorable cost projection on healthcare reform proposals. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell says, "It strikes me as somewhat akin to an owner of a team asking the umpire to come up to the owner's box." Finally ... something compelling from Mitch McConnell. A GOP aide says, "In all of CBO's 35 years, this is the first time a CBO director has ever been called into the White House to meet with a president in this way."

Do the Republicans have a point? Do you think that the Obama administration would be willing to use their influence and star power to cajole this guy into giving his proposals more favorable reviews?

Do a hog love slop?


THE WHITE HOUSE LOGS

Then we get this little battle brewing .. also dealing with healthcare. So Barack Obama campaigned on this whole idea of "transparency" and "openness." What a bunch of horsesqueeze. Take this, for instance. The Obama administration is blocking the public from seeing White House visitor logs, which include the names of healthcare executives that have been with the president and vice president. A nonprofit group has requested the logs, particularly for 18 people who are heads of various medical, insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The White House is pushing back, ironically using the same argument that the Bush administration used and was highly criticized for.

[StiffMittens]

...read the article. I admit that it's long, but it's interesting and at times amusing.

It's also horribly biased and obvious right wing noise machine propaganda.

Yes... and? I'm not sure what you're point is. I'm also not sure what the difference is between the president's speeches and this. I'm also not sure what the difference is between the president's free advertisements and this. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Well, one is speaking from the left and the other is speaking from the right. I'm sorry if it's confusing.

As for my point. You can't trust that rubbish any more than you can trust what the president says (you can't trust anyone now that Cronkite is dead).

[thegreekdog]

...read the article. I admit that it's long, but it's interesting and at times amusing.

It's also horribly biased and obvious right wing noise machine propaganda.

Yes... and? I'm not sure what you're point is. I'm also not sure what the difference is between the president's speeches and this. I'm also not sure what the difference is between the president's free advertisements and this. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Well, one is speaking from the left and the other is speaking from the right. I'm sorry if it's confusing.

As for my point. You can't trust that rubbish any more than you can trust what the president says (you can't trust anyone now that Cronkite is dead).

I agree completely with everything you just typed. I just think the article is interesting and at times amusing. I happen to agree with him. Anyway, I'm still not sure what your point is... are you saying you disagree with the article because of its writer or subject matter? Are you saying you're dismissing the article because it's "speaking from the right?" Are you dismissing the president because he's "speaking from the left?" C'mon, man... out with it!

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think the issue is whether there are healthcare problems in the US. In fact, I believe the author of the article acknowledged that. I'll also acknowledge that.

What he did say was the for those people who could not afford health care, healthcare would be provided by the government. His issue (and mine) is not with providing healthcare (including preventative care) to those that cannot afford it. His issue (and mine) is with going to government-provided healthcare for all as the first and only step in fixing these problems. So, when the President states that X millions of Americans are without healthcare, let's whittle that down to those without healthcare who cannot afford healthcare. Let's provide for them. Then, let's go back and look at all the rest of the US citizens and determine how best to fix the problems in the system (for example, malpractice judgments).

I don't want to throw stones, but it appears you did not fully read the article. I admit that it's long, but it's interesting and at times amusing.

You keep missing the fundamental problem. Its not that people are simply "too poor" to get insurance. In fact, most of the truly poor, particularly kids, actually get very good coverage in the US. They even get dental, eye and behavioral health coverage! Few insured get those! The REAL problem is that right now, insurers can elect not to cover people. So, they happily ensure anyone who is healthy and refuse to cover those who have serious problems, unless they are willing to pay rates that NO ONE except the truly wealthy can afford.

Also, right now, we effectively force people to lose their homes, everything they work for and even lose their jobs or get divorced, so they finally are "poor enough" to qualify for free care. BUT, these are not people without insurance. They are people who cannot afford the care they need even with insurance.

[thegreekdog]

Player, what exactly about the president's (or anyone else's) plans make you believe that these discrete issues will be solved? And if this is a problem, which I agree with you that it is, let's solve that problem without mandating government healthcare for all.

[StiffMittens]

...read the article. I admit that it's long, but it's interesting and at times amusing.

It's also horribly biased and obvious right wing noise machine propaganda.

Yes... and? I'm not sure what you're point is. I'm also not sure what the difference is between the president's speeches and this. I'm also not sure what the difference is between the president's free advertisements and this. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Well, one is speaking from the left and the other is speaking from the right. I'm sorry if it's confusing.

As for my point. You can't trust that rubbish any more than you can trust what the president says (you can't trust anyone now that Cronkite is dead).

I agree completely with everything you just typed. I just think the article is interesting and at times amusing. I happen to agree with him. Anyway, I'm still not sure what your point is... are you saying you disagree with the article because of its writer or subject matter? Are you saying you're dismissing the article because it's "speaking from the right?" Are you dismissing the president because he's "speaking from the left?" C'mon, man... out with it!

I'm not "dismissing" anything, per se. I am simply pointing out that the truth is rarely how ideologues (either left or right) describe it. Also, I am speaking obliquely about the sad state of journalism these days. That is to say, how journalism has become simply back and forth editorializing from opposing ideologues. I'm not sure why it's taking you so long to process that notion.

[Nobunaga]

... Look to Boortz, man! As quick to bash the Republicans as the Dems.

http://boortz.com/

... Nobody says it better. A true Libertarian. I guess being all about personal responsibility and freedom to make our own choices many here would call him a right-wing idealogue, but he'll bash anybody - any party, when they piss on the Constitution.

...

[thegreekdog]

I'm not "dismissing" anything, per se. I am simply pointing out that the truth is rarely how ideologues (either left or right) describe it. Also, I am speaking obliquely about the sad state of journalism these days. That is to say, how journalism has become simply back and forth editorializing from opposing ideologues. I'm not sure why it's taking you so long to process that notion.

It takes me a long time to process notions that are common sense, but yet are posed in such a way as to make the author seem enlightened. This is why my first response was, "Yes... and?" Because, really, your original comment means nothing in the conversation regarding universal healthcare.

From what I can gather, you object to this article because you believe it is ideological propaganda. Similarly, you dismiss the president's comments because it is ideological propaganda. Therefore, I have to assume you have no opinion on the subject of universal healthcare or else your opinion is something that you cannot put down into words.

[The1exile]

#1 is fallacious in saying that "They just want to pay 1950 prices for 2009 health care" and then suggesting it's impossible. The point of mass production (and indeed pretty much all technological advancement) is that you do pay the same price for a better product. That's why, for example, my current phone has a 5 Mpx camera and mp3 player when a phone costing the same thing that I had 8 years ago didn't even have a colour screen.

#2 is irrelevant and I have never relied on it to argue for healthcare. I do however find it very arrogant to suggest that the fixed costs are only paid by the american public ("If we all tried to be Canada, it's a non-working perpetual motion machine and no miracle pills ever get made because there will be nobody to pay the fixed costs.") when in actual fact most of the medical research is probably funded by Canadian govt grants.

#3 is, as joecoolfrog points out, a ridiculous exaggeration. Not only does socialised healthcare (and stop shuddering at the word "socialised", if that's your problem with it) work in other countries, many countries still allow private healthcare. Many jobs will offer you private health insurance. The reason health insurance companies in America are so against basic healthcare for all is that they will no longer have a monopoly, no longer be able to offer atrocious deals to get you a bare minimum of healthcare for a disproportionately large cost. We also, once more, have the "the US is pushing the world's healthcare forwards!" line.

#4 - oh dear god. Here are some of the relevant propagandist lines from this part:

"If I'm right about the US subsidizing the world of course their costs would be lower!" - fallacy
"Freedom sometimes ain't sugar‑free." - irrelevant, and cancelled out by the subject of the paragraph after next
"if you have a simple problem like this, you fix it, you do not say "hey, let's try communism."" - ah, I wondered when we'd get pointing and saying "COMMUNIST!". But it;s not a simple problem, and all capitalist countries in the western world have socialised healthcare.
"But, I can not see disallowing free people from spending their own money on their last few months of life." Nor are they. See #3 (and #5)
"But, again, they only measure what they can see and fail to account for the massive cost of "defensive medicine" we force doctors to practice in anticipation of these tort lawyers." - not only does this have nothing to do with the matter at hand, the cost of training in or using "defensive medicine" is not cited at all.
"Really? Wow, even writing this essay, I just didn't think anyone could really believe that" - not even open to consider that they're wrong, and the rest of the world has already proved that actually, yeah, it is possible.
"But a dictatorial socialist system is unnecessary for this purpose. It's only necessary to enslave the population." - Dictators? Socialism? Enslavement? Oh my! And it started so well...

#5 well, the whole thrust of this is mostyl addressed in #3, but what the hell. First, though, this sticks out:

"The New York Times disagrees with me, thinking the two can co-exist. But the New York Times still thinks Stalin was a pretty decent Joe."

Can't even hold off ad hominem - and almost certainly not accurate ad hominem either - for a paragraph? For shame.

"to get as inefficient as the government they'd have to prescribe enough CAT scans to turn you into Spider-Man if conveniently bitten by an arachnid along the way"

Same as before.

We then continue with a string of "but public and private can't coexist!" when they already do, before finishing with the petulant "it won't be America anymore."

#6 creates a massive strawman, and then duly knocks it down, in the process calling everyone at all related to the healthcare debate "optimistic innumerates".

#7 launches into rhetoric about how health care is apparently impossible, equating it to faster than light travel. When approaching the issue at all, all we get is "well then the government will have to decide what basic healthcare is". OK, although really it would be fairer to say "the doctors who are still going to be doctors, and in fact doing the same thing as now except without the need for things like prescribing extraordinarily expensive treatments, will decide what basic healthcare is". And what?

[PLAYER57832]

Player, what exactly about the president's (or anyone else's) plans make you believe that these discrete issues will be solved? And if this is a problem, which I agree with you that it is, let's solve that problem without mandating government healthcare for all.

The problem is profit.

As long as the insurers need to make a profit, they cannot provide reasonable care for all. Even when profit is eliminated for basic care, there will still have to be cuts, until preventative care, etc catch up.

Further profit actually impeded innovation where it is really needed. It is no cooincidence that we see all sorts of ads for viagra, erectile dysfunction and "weak bladder" issues, but not for breast cancer or childhood cancers. A weak bladder or male part are certainly important, but are they really as critical as saving kids lives? I don't begrudge the pharmaceutical companies the chance for a profit, but things have been weighted far too much in their favor.

Further, though the president's plan is not a single payor system, the largest percentage of a health provider's costs right now are simply completing paperwork. All that would be heavily streamlined under a single-payor plan.

No Obama's plan is not a full cure, but it is a step in the correct direction. I would love to see a fully government, single-payor plan with the option to pay extra care for those who wish.

[thegreekdog]

Excellent...

(1) You have a point the1exile. He also has a point. So, it's not a "fallacious" argument he's making. Rather, he's not identifying that there are some efficiencies that exist as we advance technologically. The point he is making is that, generally, speaking, as one pays for better things (i.e. a big screen television), one has to pay more. Now, once that better thing is created (i.e. a big screen television), after a few years, one can purchase it at a lesser price than one could purchase it for years ago. That's simply production efficiencies and/or lack of demand for that paricular product. Further, there is evidence to suggest that many of the rising costs come from health insurance companies themselves. I would argue that the next step in the evolutionary process of US healthcare is to fix those rising costs that are unrelated to economic realities, at least before universalising healthcare in the US.

(2) It's not irrelevant. It's very much relevant. Perhaps you need to peruse around more. At least listen to the president's "Red pill, blue pill" speech. I have a number of clients who are pharmaceutical companies. Their research and production costs are borne here in the United States. None of them have grants from the Canadian government. This is pure speculation on your part, after trying to dismiss this argument as being irrelevant.

(3) The United States is not like other countries, though apparently many people want the US to be. With that being said, take a look at the examples he uses as ways the US government "competes" with private companies. From a logical perspective, if you have two options, one which you, by law, must pay for, and one which you can pay for by choice, the only reason to not use the former is because the quality of the latter is greater (and you have the money to afford the latter). However, if the federal government makes it so onerous to use the second choice, private healthcare will be extinct (much like private legal gambling).

(4), (5) Your arguments to his points are irrelevant and attack the author's language rather than the author's points. I would be happy to discuss these two issues with you if you come up with something more compelling than "Oh noes... he's acting like an ideaologue."

(6) Agreed on number 6. Although I hate the term "strawman" with the fire of a thousand suns.

(7) No, he's saying healthcare is not a right. I think this is his most well written argumetn. Many people have determined that healthcare is a right. Not just healthcare, affordable healthcare. This is just simply an incorrect argument. Free speech, a right, is not something that needs to be paid for or taken from someone else to provide. Affordable health care, however, is something that must be paid for and taken from soneone else. Therefore, it's simply not a right.

[PLAYER57832]

(2) It's not irrelevant. It's very much relevant. Perhaps you need to peruse around more. At least listen to the president's "Red pill, blue pill" speech. I have a number of clients who are pharmaceutical companies. Their research and production costs are borne here in the United States. None of them have grants from the Canadian government. This is pure speculation on your part, after trying to dismiss this argument as being irrelevant.
.

Except you make no mention at all, disregard the HUGE input of US government funds into health care research. As point of fact, many of the real advances now marketed by drug companies originated not with their research, but government/NIH research. The drug companies, however, get to take the profit, no matter who pays.

This is one of the biggest fallacies in the who debate.

[thegreekdog]

(2) It's not irrelevant. It's very much relevant. Perhaps you need to peruse around more. At least listen to the president's "Red pill, blue pill" speech. I have a number of clients who are pharmaceutical companies. Their research and production costs are borne here in the United States. None of them have grants from the Canadian government. This is pure speculation on your part, after trying to dismiss this argument as being irrelevant.
.

Except you make no mention at all, disregard the HUGE input of US government funds into health care research. As point of fact, many of the real advances now marketed by drug companies originated not with their research, but government/NIH research. The drug companies, however, get to take the profit, no matter who pays.

This is one of the biggest fallacies in the who debate.

I heard something interest on the radio today... at what point do we start and at what point do we stop telling companies that they can or cannot make a profit? And by "we" I mean the government and by "telling" I mean creating laws.

[Nobunaga]

... You must've been listening to an idealogue.

...

[PLAYER57832]

(2) It's not irrelevant. It's very much relevant. Perhaps you need to peruse around more. At least listen to the president's "Red pill, blue pill" speech. I have a number of clients who are pharmaceutical companies. Their research and production costs are borne here in the United States. None of them have grants from the Canadian government. This is pure speculation on your part, after trying to dismiss this argument as being irrelevant.
.

Except you make no mention at all, disregard the HUGE input of US government funds into health care research. As point of fact, many of the real advances now marketed by drug companies originated not with their research, but government/NIH research. The drug companies, however, get to take the profit, no matter who pays.

This is one of the biggest fallacies in the who debate.

I heard something interest on the radio today... at what point do we start and at what point do we stop telling companies that they can or cannot make a profit? And by "we" I mean the government and by "telling" I mean creating laws.

Easy. At the point when they stop benefitting society and start causing serious, irreversable harm.

Problem is, too many of those consequences get dismissed.

I hesitate to quote this here, because I don't want it misconstrued, but "all it takes for evil to persist is for good men to do nothing". In this case, the "good men" are company executives (male and female). That is, they don't have to be evil, but if they are not actively identifying and preventing against it.. if they are so busy making money they just "don't have the time" or the education, to really and truly understand the consequences of what they do, then we all suffer.

This is true in pollution, it is true in water uses, it is true in highway building and trains, it is just plain true. It is definitely true when it comes to the impact of having a population without healthcare.

[Night Strike]

Great article.