Oh, now I understand where you're coming from... you think the constitution is an outdated, antiquated document and applaud the fact that its completely ignored by government.
I acknowledge the fact that it isn't being strictly interpreted by anyone any more. The "promote the general welfare" clause is used to justify practically anything that the government wants to do, including providing a "public option."
I did know we were number one, that wasn't at issue, it was your numbers. Here's what you originally said:
According to the source you cited, you got some numbers wrong. The US is 15.5%, not 17%, it supports your claim of Canada at 10% but France is listed as being 11%, not 7%.
OK, my numbers stand corrected. My point is still valid, regardless. The US pays more than any nation that has "socialized" medicine.
If a Rolls Royce is so good, why doesn't everyone drive one?
Obviously, because of cost. People go to other nations for health care not because the cost is higher, but because it is a lot lower. Your question could be, if a Hundai is so inexpensive, why doesn't everyone drive one? There are a variety of answers to that one.
I never cited a single radio pundit but you did cite WHO. Leave the strawmen and stereotypes to the Radical Leftists.
Who else is saying that the US has the best medical system? You don't want to believe WHO, so who do you believe?
There is a wedge (insurance and government) between the consumer and the provider. The larger the wedge, the greater the gap gets between what we pay out of pocket and what the third party pays... in short, costs rise in direct proportion to the lowering of out of pocket expenses. As those costs rise, people push to make the wedge larger. Problem is, the wedge is the problem causing the rise.
OK, now that makes sense. If we want to bring costs down, then the way to do it is for the consumer to pay a greater share. That is an argument in favor of a catastrophic care package, whether it is provided by government or by the industry.
Personally, I'd like to see just such a package as a public option. the consumer would pay out of pocket until the costs reached a certain threshold, then the government subsidized care would step in. Such a system could bring down costs without anyone being bankrupted by medical expenses.
You missed the point of the analogy. Lets say there is food insurance. You
(the consumer) pay a monthly bill of $50 to an insurance company (the third party) and you get an insurance card with which you can use to purchase food your grocer (the provider). Suddenly, your options at the supermarket are unlimited, lobster, steak and caviar every night... what the hell, its only $50 a month, live it up!
Pretty soon, the grocers supplier has a shortage of steak, lobster and caviar, so the cost of those products rise in an effort to lessen demand (supply/demand curve). Because you're insulated (by a third party) from the rise in costs, demand remains high despite the higher costs.
Next thing you know, your insurance company is not bringing in enough money to cover your expenses, so they have to raise rates to $100 a month to stay in business. Well you won't stand for any of that, greedy bastards, so you get government involved and the problem gets exponentially worse from there....
Because costs are rising too fast and so many people can no longer afford the costs, government passes a law that requires all grocers to give food away to those who can't afford to pay and don't have insurance. Those losses are then absorbed by the grocer or shifted onto the government and the taxpayer picks up the bill. Well now the demand for steak, lobster and caviar is astronomical, so once again, the price goes up in a vein attempt to try and lessen demand.
Once again, your insurance company has to raise your monthly premium to $150 a month, greedy bastards, and you're not pleased with the costs rising out of control.
Now the insurance company, the grocer and you are all frothing at the mouth demanding government "do something" to bring costs under control.
Enter the Public Option.
Government creates a public option and sets their rates at $50 a month (and subsidize the rest on the backs of taxpayers), downright reasonable to you, and they pay the grocer his money so he can pay his supplier so everyone's happy... except the insurance provider who is now going out of business because he cannot shift his overages onto the taxpayer.
Well, government can't print money forever, so your taxes go up by $100 a month and you're fine with that because you want government to be fiscally responsible and its better than you giving $150 a month to those greedy bastards at the insurance company.
Another problem hits... The tax hikes aren't enough to cover the still surging costs and the overruns are now being pushed onto the federal debt. Because there has been no reduction of demand and the supply is dwindling, costs still continue to rise. So here comes rationing.
Before long, those greedy insurance companies are out of business, you're paying an extra $200 a month in taxes on top of the $50 a month premium you pay for the Public Option but you can only purchase crackers and bacon bits with your coverage.
Bottom line, when the free markets are not allowed to function according to the supply and demand curve - because there is a wedge separating the consumer from the provider - the result is exponential growth of costs on one end and an equally exponential diminishing of supply on the other.
OK, so the reason that medical care is so expensive, or at least one reason it has become so expensive, is that the consumer isn't paying for his/her own costs. That principle operates regardless of whether the payor is government or an insurance company.
What do you think is the best way to bring free market principles into play? Are you in favor of doing away with employer provided insurance entirely? Should we do away with Medicare? What would replace those programs?
I can see where you are coming from in an ideological sense, and you make good points. From a practical standpoint, however, how would the principle of applying market principles to health care work?
No one seem willing to just let people who can't pay die, so the public winds up paying the bills in one way or another anyway.
Once there is a public option, everyone has to pay into it whether they use it or not, so those not in the public option will be subsidizing the costs through higher taxes and will still have to pay for their own insurance as well.
There already is a public option. We call it Medicare/Medicaid. Only certain people are eligible for it, yet everyone supports it. Would you end those programs?
Or would it be more fair if everyone could participate in them, since everyone is paying for them?
Without Medicare, seniors would have no health insurance at all. No one but nobody would be willing to extend coverage to the most expensive demographic. Seniors would continue to work in order to keep insurance until they were physically unable to do so, and then what?
Government runs on taxes, they know who butters their bread.
Government runs on campaign contributions and on votes. They know who butters their bread.
The voice of the people doesn't matter to Washington politicians, they think they know what's best for you and they are pushing for the "greater good" of society. If that means you have to go with less, then that's a sacrifice you are expected to make as your obligation to the collective.
The voice of the people doesn't matter because money talks a lot louder than voices.
Medicare part A alone has 34.6 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. Medicare and Social Security together have 106.4 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.
That is because the money collected for Medicare and SS has been spent on other things. Now, it's time to start paying back those "loans" from programs that have been supported by payroll taxes for decades.
The welfare state is doomed to collapse and you cannot point to anything that suggests the trend will reverse itself.
You think there should be a revolt in America if we don't get Universal Healthcare... Wait till the bills for the welfare state start rolling in and then we will have a revolt on our hands.
I think you've arrived at the correct conclusion despite your premise being wrong on the source of rising costs.
I think you're right about the welfare state, but the fact is that the only entity that has the power to bring health care costs under control is the government. Of course, as I said, they probably won't do so, and any debates we have on the subject are simply academic. What will happen is that the costs will continue to escalate, the government will still be paralized by partisanship, and nothing that won't help the lobbyists or the party in power will actually be passed.
Still, it would seem we could do as well as the other nations of the world in providing health care at a more reasonable cost. Maybe when it gets to the point that only an elite few can afford health care, when we have to fly off to Timbuctu to get that life saving operation, then we will demand that something be done about it.