Health Care and Public Education....Rights?

[Dr.Who]

The question is as simple as the title of the thread. Do you think that health care (insurance) and Public Education are rights? If so Why? If you don't think so Why Not? I don't see where either are located in the constitution. Although the state of NC has amended it's constitution to say that Public education is a state right.

There are different kinds of rights. Neither of these are constitutional rights. There are laws that make education available to all children so this becomes a law given right. A right only as strong as the law the authorizes it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Health care and public education are not rights as such.

Right.

Is it more efficient to provide public education to all, or would it be more efficient to have many different private institutions offering to educate children for profit? Should the government step in to pay for children whose parents can't pay? If not, should poor children simply be allowed to grow up on the streets?

The ONLY reason public schools are efficient at all is because 100% of the population is forced to buy it whether they have kids or not or even if they decide to send their kids to private school. It is not too hard to be 'efficient' when you get paid for work not performed - oh wait, apparently it is hard cause some public schools are just horrible.

Restore competition to the school system and it will get more efficient. Many private schools educate a child for far less per year than the public schools do. It is insane to think that the public schools are efficient with the amount of money they need to educate a child.

Is it more efficient to provide one entity that pays for health care for all, or is it more efficient to have health care tied to employment?

So far there are no countries with more efficient systems than ours. But the others have the added bonus of being immoral because they coerce people into buying a product they might not want to buy. If wal-mart operated like this even 1% of 1% as much they would be brought before the district attny.

Does having health care tied to employment make it easier, or more difficult to start a small business?

It makes it harder. But it also makes it much more expensive than it needs to be since the person buying the insurance is not the same person who is using the insurance. The person directly paying the doctor is not the same person seeing the doctor. When was the last time you (any employer insured person) asked your doctor if there was a cheaper drug for what you needed? Never, you don't need to cause the pharmacy charges you the same copay no matter what drug you get.

If universal health care is a less efficient system, why does every nation that has adopted it pay less than the US for health care?

Because long waiting lines result in deaths and other ways to reduce costs.
Because a bunch of Americans buy "designer" insurance policies by choice when they could just get the HMO's which are even better than what is available in many other countries. Because lifestyle issues effect health costs and it costs more to treat people who eat at McDonald's five times a week than those who eat kippers for breakfast.

Humankind got along for centuries without public education and universal health care. The question is, are we willing to go back to those good old days?[/QUOTE]

YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! And if you want a government insurance policy then go get them to design one you can buy. But I don't want it and it is wrong of you to make me get it. WRONG!! As you admitted above it is not a right to get education and health insurance. But it is a constitutional right for me and everyone else to keep the money we earn and not have it taken away.

See how that works? The right to own property trumps the not right for universal health insurance.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Humankind got along for centuries without public education and universal health care.

You mean, like....The Dark Ages?​

".....a period of cultural decline or societal collapse that took place in Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the eventual recovery of learning."​

"While Europe abandoned the ideas of classical medicine in the Dark Ages, Islamic medicine developed them further. The ancient texts of Greece and Rome had been translated into Arabic in the 5th century by the followers of Nestorius, who had been thrown out of Constantinople in 431 for his heretical teachings and lived in exile in Persia (modern Iran). The foundation of Islam in the early 7th century, and subsequent appearance of strong, centralized empires, made the Muslim world more stable than Europe at this time. Medicine and public health flourished. Doctors were trained in universities and hospitals and the great libraries of Baghdad and Cairo allowed access to classical and new ideas.

While the practice of medicine developed among the learned and wealthy in society, the majority of the population continued with their traditional superstitions, beliefs, and remedies.

Religious belief in the cause of disease was strong. Scrofula, a tuberculosis of the lymph glands, was known as the King's Evil. Monarchs would tour their lands to touch the victims of scrofula in the belief that their closeness to God would allow them to cure the sick. When the Black Death (bubonic plague) swept across Europe in the mid-14th century, killing between one-third and half of the population, it was commonly believed that the disaster was a punishment from Godhttp://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Medieval+diseases. Blame for the plague was also attributed to the Jewish communities of Europe or to unusual events such as earthquakes. Christian flagellants toured Britain and Germany in prayer and penance for the sins of the world, stripping themselves half-naked and whipping themselves constantly."​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You see if you don't pay the doctors, if you refuse to give medical services to people like the elderly, if you pick and choose who gets service, and if you make certain medical conditions exempt from medical attention you would naturally spend less money.

.....Or, you could get really creative, and turn corporate-America loose, on those-people!!!​

 

[PLC1]

Right.



The ONLY reason public schools are efficient at all is because 100% of the population is forced to buy it whether they have kids or not or even if they decide to send their kids to private school. It is not too hard to be 'efficient' when you get paid for work not performed - oh wait, apparently it is hard cause some public schools are just horrible.

Restore competition to the school system and it will get more efficient. Many private schools educate a child for far less per year than the public schools do. It is insane to think that the public schools are efficient with the amount of money they need to educate a child.



So far there are no countries with more efficient systems than ours. But the others have the added bonus of being immoral because they coerce people into buying a product they might not want to buy. If wal-mart operated like this even 1% of 1% as much they would be brought before the district attny.



It makes it harder. But it also makes it much more expensive than it needs to be since the person buying the insurance is not the same person who is using the insurance. The person directly paying the doctor is not the same person seeing the doctor. When was the last time you (any employer insured person) asked your doctor if there was a cheaper drug for what you needed? Never, you don't need to cause the pharmacy charges you the same copay no matter what drug you get.


Because long waiting lines result in deaths and other ways to reduce costs.
Because a bunch of Americans buy "designer" insurance policies by choice when they could just get the HMO's which are even better than what is available in many other countries. Because lifestyle issues effect health costs and it costs more to treat people who eat at McDonald's five times a week than those who eat kippers for breakfast.

Humankind got along for centuries without public education and universal health care. The question is, are we willing to go back to those good old days?

YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! And if you want a government insurance policy then go get them to design one you can buy. But I don't want it and it is wrong of you to make me get it. WRONG!! As you admitted above it is not a right to get education and health insurance. But it is a constitutional right for me and everyone else to keep the money we earn and not have it taken away.

See how that works? The right to own property trumps the not right for universal health insurance.

Yes, all of that makes sense, as long as we're willing to allow people who can't pay to go without treatment. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.

As long as we pay anyway, wouldn't it make sense to use the most efficient method possible?

Since it is not a right, then the alternative is to allow people to die if they can't pay, isn't it?

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Yes, all of that makes sense, as long as we're willing to allow people who can't pay to go without treatment. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.

As long as we pay anyway, wouldn't it make sense to use the most efficient method possible?

Since it is not a right, then the alternative is to allow people to die if they can't pay, isn't it?

nobody is denying them health care. Thus the reason illegals keep having babies in ER's. They aren't being denied now, and in many cases like the one we discussed in Nevada private practices step in with assistance. We don't have old people dropping dead in the halls of E.R.'s because we are trying to decide if their case is worthy of attention. Everything you describe is exactly what happens under universal health care. You are badly mistaken if you think Universal Health Care is more reliable and efficient.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, all of that makes sense, as long as we're willing to allow people who can't pay to go without treatment. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.

As long as we pay anyway, wouldn't it make sense to use the most efficient method possible?

Since it is not a right, then the alternative is to allow people to die if they can't pay, isn't it?

We don't now let them go without treatment. We have a multitude of systems in place to provide treatment. And right now that group of system is far more efficient than a universal one would be. As flawed as it is our present system is more efficient than that of Canada for instance in which waiting for care and being denied care are commonplace.

And no the alternative has never been to let people die. We have always had a group of systems that included: paying your own way, paying for your family members, paying for your friends, having doctors and others donate time, and paying for strangers through charity. To that we have added medicaid in which gov pays for those who have fallen through the cracks (though the program itself widens the cracks and sometimes even creates them).

It is ludicrous to juxtapose a statist approach in which big government pays for everyone against an approach in which people die in the streets when the present system works just fine. Furthermore if all the people proposing that statism is the solution, for problems that don't exist as bad as they say they are, were to spend as much time giving themselves and advocating that their neighbors gave as well, as they do trying to make a nanny state there would be no problem at all.

I do not object at all to people paying for the treatment of other people. That happens all the time, has happened in greater numbers in the past, and could pay for all our needs as a society. I only object to letting government take on a role it is not allowed constitutionally to do and coercively making one group of people pay for another.

It is a 100% fact that a more private system of redistribution is morally superior to a government one and that it would be more efficient than either a universal government solution or the one we have now.

But if you could argue that a statist universal health care were more efficient, not that any branch of our gov has ever been terribly efficient, it would still be morally wrong and against the constitution that the ff wrote.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

nobody is denying them health care. Thus the reason illegals keep having babies in ER's. They aren't being denied now, and in many cases like the one we discussed in Nevada private practices step in with assistance. We don't have old people dropping dead in the halls of E.R.'s because we are trying to decide if their case is worthy of attention. Everything you describe is exactly what happens under universal health care. You are badly mistaken if you think Universal Health Care is more reliable and efficient.

.....And, they're being WARNED.....as we SPEAK!!!

​

 

[PLC1]

We don't now let them go without treatment. We have a multitude of systems in place to provide treatment. And right now that group of system is far more efficient than a universal one would be. As flawed as it is our present system is more efficient than that of Canada for instance in which waiting for care and being denied care are commonplace.

You keep telling us how inefficient the Canadian system is, yet we never hear the same from the Canadians on this board. Just how do you know that we are so much more efficient? Why does it cost us 18% of the GDP, while Canada pays 10% and France, rated #1 by the WHO, pays just 7%?

And no the alternative has never been to let people die. We have always had a group of systems that included: paying your own way, paying for your family members, paying for your friends, having doctors and others donate time, and paying for strangers through charity. To that we have added medicaid in which gov pays for those who have fallen through the cracks (though the program itself widens the cracks and sometimes even creates them).

Correct. The alternative is not to just let people die, and no one would support such a plan. The patchwork plan you describe above is pretty much what is in place, but leaves out the medical bankruptcies that happen all of the time. What we need is a streamlined, more efficient approach. We need to think pragmatism, not ideology.

It is ludicrous to juxtapose a statist approach in which big government pays for everyone against an approach in which people die in the streets when the present system works just fine. Furthermore if all the people proposing that statism is the solution, for problems that don't exist as bad as they say they are, were to spend as much time giving themselves and advocating that their neighbors gave as well, as they do trying to make a nanny state there would be no problem at all.

I really think that there is another way still. No, our present system does not work "just fine." Our present system costs nearly as much as the entire federal bureaucracy, at least as much as it did before TARP and the subsequent giveaways. Health care costs are going up much faster than the rate of inflation, and have been for some time now. We simply can't afford the present system for much longer.

I do not object at all to people paying for the treatment of other people. That happens all the time, has happened in greater numbers in the past, and could pay for all our needs as a society. I only object to letting government take on a role it is not allowed constitutionally to do and coercively making one group of people pay for another.

I'm not sure that the charities are really up to the task of providing health care, especially not at current prices.

It is a 100% fact that a more private system of redistribution is morally superior to a government one and that it would be more efficient than either a universal government solution or the one we have now.

But if you could argue that a statist universal health care were more efficient, not that any branch of our gov has ever been terribly efficient, it would still be morally wrong and against the constitution that the ff wrote.

The only role that the government needs to play is as an arbiter of costs. A single payer would be, by definition, a monopoly. The only way a monopoly would work is by having to negotiate prices and services with the government. There are other alternatives to pricing ourselves out of adequate health care, or doubling the size of the government. We need to think pragmatically, not ideologically.

 

[Dr.Who]

You keep telling us how inefficient the Canadian system is, yet we never hear the same from the Canadians on this board. Just how do you know that we are so much more efficient? Why does it cost us 18% of the GDP, while Canada pays 10% and France, rated #1 by the WHO, pays just 7%?

1) There are hidden costs to health care that government run systems can just push out of the equation.

2) we pay more for health care because we are buying both better health care and a lot of other things with health care. When an american gets the best specialist in one week rather than in 18 weeks and then gets a room that holds only two patients, is bigger and better equipped that all costs money. When your insurance pays for not only health care but also a variety of cosmetic procedures and a whole slew of better procedures that are often not even available in those other countries it all costs more. When you get to choose any doctor at all with your insurance instead of just the doctor who is at the clinic it costs more.

3) When Americans lead a much less healthy lifestyle and have much higher rates of homicide and assaults it also drives up costs. And that is not a failure of the health care system but of our collective morality.

4) when the WHO slants the ratings of countries health care so that socialism gets higher marks because it is socialism then it is no surprise that France would get #1.

Correct. The alternative is not to just let people die, and no one would support such a plan. The patchwork plan you describe above is pretty much what is in place, but leaves out the medical bankruptcies that happen all of the time. What we need is a streamlined, more efficient approach. We need to think pragmatism, not ideology.

Are we trying to provide as much good health care as we can for the most people that we can or are we trying to provide protection against loss of assets?

Canada and France both have huge numbers of people who do not receive health care - the difference is just in who is not getting it. In America it is people who have not used up their assets to pay for care. All other people have access to health care. And if they do use up their assets then they can get health care free. So 100% of us can get it, get it good, and get it quickly. In other countries 100% of the people wait long times for even the most simple things, they have crowded facilities with shoddier equipment and less choice.

I really think that there is another way still. No, our present system does not work "just fine." Our present system costs nearly as much as the entire federal bureaucracy, at least as much as it did before TARP and the subsequent giveaways. Health care costs are going up much faster than the rate of inflation, and have been for some time now. We simply can't afford the present system for much longer.

It costs a lot because we are getting a lot. Costs cannot continue to rise faster than inflation. The laws of supply and demand will create an equalibrium - unless some politcian subverts the laws of supply and demand then it can costs more, just that you wont' know that they are printing money to fund it, etc.

I'm not sure that the charities are really up to the task of providing health care, especially not at current prices.

Not alone. And not now that government has usurped that role. Why would someone give to a charity that provides health care to uninsured and sick people when Medicaid will do that at someone else's expense?

btw, if you can provide just one detailed example of any american who cannot get health care because people are not stepping up to the plate I will eat my proverbial hat.

The only role that the government needs to play is as an arbiter of costs. A single payer would be, by definition, a monopoly. The only way a monopoly would work is by having to negotiate prices and services with the government. There are other alternatives to pricing ourselves out of adequate health care, or doubling the size of the government. We need to think pragmatically, not ideologically.

Which article of the constitution authorizes such a role?

 

[chestnut]

Free healthcare, free housing, free food. What's next free car, gas, ipod, lcd t.v., satellite.

Where does it end.
Who pays. When so many get so much for free, there are few who pay the bill.

Look at NY. 8 million people and 246000 pay all the taxes.

That's a bit lopsided.

 

[Dr.Who]

Free healthcare, free housing, free food. What's next free car, gas, ipod, lcd t.v., satellite.

Where does it end.
Who pays. When so many get so much for free, there are few who pay the bill.

Look at NY. 8 million people and 246000 pay all the taxes.

That's a bit lopsided.

All those people who are getting "fee stuff" are paying for it. They pay for it in reduced prosperity, in higher sales taxes, higher prices, inflation, instability, more law suits, more government intrusion, etc.

But here is the main difference. If they simply paid a tax for a government service they would at least know how much they paid for it and they could decide if the service was worth what was paid. As it stands they do not know how much they have paid for it and so they have no reason to complain. They somehow even think they are getting it for free.

 

[PLC1]

1) There are hidden costs to health care that government run systems can just push out of the equation.

Such as, for example......

2) we pay more for health care because we are buying both better health care and a lot of other things with health care. When an american gets the best specialist in one week rather than in 18 weeks and then gets a room that holds only two patients, is bigger and better equipped that all costs money. When your insurance pays for not only health care but also a variety of cosmetic procedures and a whole slew of better procedures that are often not even available in those other countries it all costs more. When you get to choose any doctor at all with your insurance instead of just the doctor who is at the clinic it costs more.

We get to choose any doctor who is signed up for our HMO or PPO, whichever type of insurance we have.

Other than cosmetic surgery, I've seen no evidence that the French have to forego surgery due to access.

3) When Americans lead a much less healthy lifestyle and have much higher rates of homicide and assaults it also drives up costs. And that is not a failure of the health care system but of our collective morality.

Yes, no doubt our incessant gang wars have something to do with the cost of health care, as does our illegal alien problem. That is a failure of our society to deal with the drug war and illegal immigration. Other advanced nations are just as fat as Americans, though. We have no corner on that market.

4) when the WHO slants the ratings of countries health care so that socialism gets higher marks because it is socialism then it is no surprise that France would get #1.

I still think the WHO is a more reliable source than the voices of ideology spouting, with no evidence at all, that we have the best health care in the world.

Are we trying to provide as much good health care as we can for the most people that we can or are we trying to provide protection against loss of assets?

Both, of course. It is of little value to have good health care if it means the loss of home and assets needed to stay healthy.

Canada and France both have huge numbers of people who do not receive health care - the difference is just in who is not getting it. In America it is people who have not used up their assets to pay for care. All other people have access to health care. And if they do use up their assets then they can get health care free. So 100% of us can get it, get it good, and get it quickly. In other countries 100% of the people wait long times for even the most simple things, they have crowded facilities with shoddier equipment and less choice.

Why, then are people in France, Canada, the UK, and Austrialia not clamoring for an end to their "socialized medicine" and a switch to US style patchwork insurance?

It costs a lot because we are getting a lot. Costs cannot continue to rise faster than inflation. The laws of supply and demand will create an equalibrium - unless some politcian subverts the laws of supply and demand then it can costs more, just that you wont' know that they are printing money to fund it, etc.

Costs do rise faster than inflation, and have been doing so for decades.

When my son was born in '69, for example, the cost of a normal childbirth and an overnight stay in the hospital was $230. When my grandson was born in '01, the cost for the same had gone up to over $10,000. That is in increase of nearly 5,000%. What else has gone up that much?

Not alone. And not now that government has usurped that role. Why would someone give to a charity that provides health care to uninsured and sick people when Medicaid will do that at someone else's expense?

btw, if you can provide just one detailed example of any american who cannot get health care because people are not stepping up to the plate I will eat my proverbial hat.


Which article of the constitution authorizes such a role?

"promote the general welfare".

This whole argument is one of ideology vs pragmatism.

The ideological argument goes like this:

Single payer, government sponsored universal coverage is socialism.
Socialism never works.
Therefore , single payer, government sponsored universal coverage won't work.

But the pragmatic argument goes more like this:

We pay more than any other nation for health insurance.
We're the only advance nation that doesn't have universal health coverage.
Therefore, we could save money by having a universal care plan.

 

[Andy]

I still think the WHO is a more reliable source than the voices of ideology spouting, with no evidence at all, that we have the best health care in the world.

There is tons of evidence. And WHO doesn't judge based on quality of health care, as much as it does access.

When you look at cancer survival rates, the US ranks number one. Now keep in mind the difference between this ranking and others. Other rankings refer to cancer mortality rates. This is how many people die from Cancer X. Problem with that is, differing countries with differing life styles and population sizes, as well as genetics, will have a different number of people getting Cancer X.

This looks specifically at people diagnosed with Cancer X, and due to treatment, survive it. Our health care system has the highest rate of success at patients surviving cancer, than anywhere else in the world.

Overall the USA had the best cancer survival rates in the 14 sites reviewed, followed by Switzerland, The Netherlands, and Germany. The least successful were Spain, England and Wales, and Italy.

(subscription for full article.

You should also note the second best system, being Switzerland. Why? Switzerland has the least publicly controlled systems in all of Europe. Only 25% of health care expenditures, is from government taxes. The rest is all private citizens paying for service. Every citizen is mandated to have insurance, but the insurance companies are all either public/private, or fully private. Further, most of the population has fully private secondary insurance, in addition to their publicly mandated insurance.

Absolutely nothing is free. Even for child birth, which is mostly covered by the government mandated insurance, the citizens have to pay a service charge and room fees per night. Also, out of all the health care systems in Europe, Switzerland is the most expensive.

Interesting.... one might conclude that those who pay for good service, receive good service. An interesting concept. You should also note, listed under the worst cancer survival rates, was England which has a relatively cheap universal, fully socialized system.

Both, of course. It is of little value to have good health care if it means the loss of home and assets needed to stay healthy.

I have yet to find anyone anywhere that had this happen. Money can always be replaced. It's just an object that can be earned back. Health is not. If I have to choose between top quality health care at the risk of bankruptcy, or free health care at the risk of poor health care, I'll choose bankruptcy. Watch the video below, and ask yourself how much she would have been willing to pay?

Why, then are people in France, Canada, the UK, and Austrialia not clamoring for an end to their "socialized medicine" and a switch to US style patchwork insurance?

The majority of people do not end up having in depth dealings with the health care system. Typically when problems happen, they blame the person, instead of the system. For example, Katrina. To an economist, the problems with Katrina were expected. Government is always slow, always inefficient, always poor at doing whatever it does. To a government system, the bureaucracy is everything. Rules, red tape, regulations. But people don't understand all that. All they know is, Bush was president, and thus he should have somehow made everything work.

Similarly, when Canada's health care system had massive 10 week waits for basic examinations, the public had a fit. But instead of thinking maybe it's a systemic problem, they assumed it was politician so-and-sos fault. It was a corrupt guy in the health department. Dutifully, the government launched a massive initiative to reduce wait times, spending billions.

"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada.

The 2007 survey found the total median waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 18.3 weeks from 17.8 weeks observed in 2006.

Also, many people just assume that crappy service is the norm for health care. For example, this study found that for knee-replacement surgery, the average wait time in the US was 3 weeks. For Canada it was 8 weeks. Yet 85% said this was acceptable. But the wait times are increasing.

Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2n8JxYXgs
Interestingly, the women in the video doesn't blame the system for failing her, it was the politician who wouldn't grant her request. Never mind the fact that if she has paid for it herself in a free market system, that would never have been a problem.

Costs do rise faster than inflation, and have been doing so for decades.

When my son was born in '69, for example, the cost of a normal childbirth and an overnight stay in the hospital was $230. When my grandson was born in '01, the cost for the same had gone up to over $10,000. That is in increase of nearly 5,000%. What else has gone up that much?

Maybe we should be asking why has it gone up so much, instead what has gone up. Because if the reason is because we have better care, with more qualified people, and better staff on hand if there is a problem, perhaps that is worth the increase. If on the other hand the problem is because of government controls, requirements and mandates, or because it's to off set the cost of people refusing to pay, then perhaps we need to address those issues instead.

Here's the key. Do you think any of these problems are going away if we nationalize? Of course not. The only difference will be, everyone will have to pay for these problems through taxes instead of insurance premiums.

For example, the illegal Mexican who slices up his arm, get's ER care, and leaves. Right now, we pay for that through higher costs of treatment. If we nationalize the system, will that problem go away? Of course not. The only difference is we'll all pay for it through taxation.

Look at France for example. They no longer have a universal health care system. Perhaps you didn't know that. The French government, in order to control costs has changed the rules, so now only French citizens can get health care. If you are from the UK, staying in france, or working in france, you are not covered. SOL.

So why don't we simply mandate that illegals can't get health care without paying for it, and then we don't have to nationalize and get corrupt politicians involved in health care?

"promote the general welfare".

Some thoughts on that by our founding fathers (since you seem to like John Adams)

“Our tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.”
–Thomas Jefferson

“With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
–James Madison

The ideological argument goes like this:

Single payer, government sponsored universal coverage is socialism.
Socialism never works.
Therefore , single payer, government sponsored universal coverage won't work.

But the pragmatic argument goes more like this:

We pay more than any other nation for health insurance.
We're the only advance nation that doesn't have universal health coverage.
Therefore, we could save money by having a universal care plan.

Since we pay more, therefore it must be a systemic problem, and can't be a difference in quality or quantity.
Since other nations have universal health care, obviously it must work.

Both of those theories are logical fallacies.
Further, it's more than simply saying socialism doesn't work so government sponsored universal coverage won't either. We can look at those other systems, and see systemic failures within them.

I loved your sig of John Adams. Here is another quotes by John Adams.

The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.

So about that Iraq thing?

 

[PLC1]

There is tons of evidence. And WHO doesn't judge based on quality of health care, as much as it does access.

When <>Cancer X.

This looks specifically at people diagnosed with Cancer X, and due to treatment, survive it. Our health care system has the highest rate of success at patients surviving cancer, than anywhere else in the world.


You should also note the second best system, being Switzerland. Why? Switzerland has the least publicly controlled systems in all of Europe. Only 25% of health care expenditures, is from government taxes. The rest is all private citizens paying for service. Every citizen is mandated to have insurance, but the insurance companies are all either public/private, or fully private. Further, most of the population has fully private secondary insurance, in addition to their publicly mandated insurance.

You make a good point about cancer treatment. I'm not sure you can take one type of disease out and say, "we do better treating this one, so we have the best system overall", but that is a good point.

I'm also not sure that you or I either one have the time or the resources to judge the overall effectiveness of anyone's health care system. That would be highly complex and involved. The WHO does have the resources, but I can't prove that they are unbiased.

Maybe we need to rely on the customers of those systems to evaluate them.

Absolutely nothing is free.

Interesting.... one might conclude that those who pay for good service, receive good service. An interesting concept. You should also note, listed under the worst cancer survival rates, was England which has a relatively cheap universal, fully socialized system.

No, nothing is free. A government sponsored and regulated, single payer health care system would still cost money, no doubt about it. The question is, would it cost more, or less, than the system we have in place now? Could it be run more efficiently, with a lower overhead? Other countries do just that, and so can we. If we're concerned about long waits and lack of adequate care, we have that now. If we're really the "greatest nation in the world", we should be able to do at least as well as others, even better.

I have yet to find anyone anywhere that had this happen.

I don't think you have looked very hard.

Half of Bankruptcy Due to Medical Bills

WASHINGTON - Half of all U.S. bankruptcies are caused by soaring medical bills and most people sent into debt by illness are middle-class workers with health insurance, researchers said on Wednesday.

Money can always be replaced. It's just an object that can be earned back. Health is not.

True enough. How long do you think a 60 year old would have to continue to work in order to replace the wealth earned during the past 40 years of life? Your philosophy works sort of well for young people. Remember, you won't always be young. There is only one alternative to getting old, and few choose it.

If I have to choose between top quality health care at the risk of bankruptcy, or free health care at the risk of poor health care, I'll choose bankruptcy. Watch the video below, and ask yourself how much she would have been willing to pay?

Of course, anyone would trade material goods for continued well being. Who would die for possessions? The thing is, no one should have to make that choice, at least not in a wealthy nation like the US.

You're obviously just getting started in life. Try earning back your accumulated wealth starting at age 64.

The majority of people do not end up having in depth dealings with the health care system. Typically when problems happen, they blame the person, instead of the system. For example, Katrina. To an economist, the problems with Katrina were expected. Government is always slow, always inefficient, always poor at doing whatever it does. To a government system, the bureaucracy is everything. Rules, red tape, regulations. But people don't understand all that. All they know is, Bush was president, and thus he should have somehow made everything work.

Similarly, when Canada's health care system had massive 10 week waits for basic examinations, the public had a fit. But instead of thinking maybe it's a systemic problem, they assumed it was politician so-and-sos fault. It was a corrupt guy in the health department. Dutifully, the government launched a massive initiative to reduce wait times, spending billions.

​

Also, many people just assume that crappy service is the norm for health care. For example, this study found that for knee-replacement surgery, the average wait time in the US was 3 weeks. For Canada it was 8 weeks. Yet 85% said this was acceptable. But the wait times are increasing.

Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2n8JxYXgs
Interestingly, the women in the video doesn't blame the system for failing her, it was the politician who wouldn't grant her request. Never mind the fact that if she has paid for it herself in a free market system, that would never have been a problem.

So, everyone except Americans is getting crappy care, yet they don't know it?

No, I really think Canadians are smarter than that. Their system is not perfect, to be sure, but then neither is ours.

Maybe we should be asking why has it gone up so much, instead what has gone up. Because if the reason is because we have better care, with more qualified people, and better staff on hand if there is a problem, perhaps that is worth the increase. If on the other hand the problem is because of government controls, requirements and mandates, or because it's to off set the cost of people refusing to pay, then perhaps we need to address those issues instead.

We're talking about an increase by a factor of 44.

Of course, prices of everything went up between 1969 and 2001, but few things have increased by a factor of 44.

The 2001 model cars, as an analogy, are much better than the '69 models, more comfortable, more fuel efficient, more dependable, safer, just better, due to improved technology. They don't cost 44 times as much as they did in '69, however. A family car cost somewhere around $3,500 or so back then, more or less of course depending on make, model, and options. If the price of cars had increased by a factor of 44, then the price would be $154,000. That's not a Mercedes, you understand, but a Toyota, a Nissan, a Chevy. And, that's in 2001. Prices have continued to climb since then.

Here's the key. Do you think any of these problems are going away if we nationalize? Of course not. The only difference will be, everyone will have to pay for these problems through taxes instead of insurance premiums.

It depends on what you mean by "nationalize". If you mean that the government would be running the health care system, then you're right. We'd wind up with an even more expensive and inefficient system than we have now. I think there are other options, however.

For example, the illegal Mexican who slices up his arm, get's ER care, and leaves. Right now, we pay for that through higher costs of treatment. If we nationalize the system, will that problem go away? Of course not. The only difference is we'll all pay for it through taxation.

Excellent example. The illegal who slices his arm now goes to the ER, the most expensive form of treatment of all. If we had a rational system in place, he would go to a clinic, which would cost 1/10 as much, then be immediately deported. The transportation and treatment would still be less than going to the ER.

Of course, the deportation thing is a separate issue.

Look at France for example. They no longer have a universal health care system. Perhaps you didn't know that. The French government, in order to control costs has changed the rules, so now only French citizens can get health care. If you are from the UK, staying in france, or working in france, you are not covered. SOL.

So why don't we simply mandate that illegals can't get health care without paying for it, and then we don't have to nationalize and get corrupt politicians involved in health care?

See above. There are alternatives to giving all of the illegals free care in the ER.

Some thoughts on that by our founding fathers (since you seem to like John Adams)

Good one. Of course, health care was not much of an issue in Adams' time.

Since we pay more, therefore it must be a systemic problem, and can't be a difference in quality or quantity.
Since other nations have universal health care, obviously it must work.

Both of those theories are logical fallacies.
Further, it's more than simply saying socialism doesn't work so government sponsored universal coverage won't either. We can look at those other systems, and see systemic failures within them.

If both are logical fallacies, what is the proper syllogism? Is there one, or are we on uncharted ground here?

I loved your sig of John Adams. Here is another quotes by John Adams.


So about that Iraq thing?

Adams was right about that, too.

Was it necessary to kill Hussain, or was it optional?

(had to cut some quotes out. The reply was too long)