Label Yourself

[Symmetry]

So you're running on E. You seriously want to piddle around? I thought we were having a healthcare debate.

No we were having a debate about labeling yourself, perhaps consult the author of the thread if you find yourself confused.

But anyway, just to reiterate- there are many government run systems in place that are cheaper, more effective, and popular. Some of them aren't even European.

Now a conservative who is genuinely concerned about spending would have to look at the costs and say, yeah- that's a model that costs less. A conservative who is more interested in nationalism and a narrow partisan agenda, will just look at those models and say they don't work or don't apply.

To reiterate arguments that you ignored when you decided to take your silly detour to classify what continent Canada was in:

• Free market health care vs. universal health care (free market health care being cheaper).
• US Healthcare being a virtual cartel.
• Obamacare being more expensive despite your unfounded claims that it would be cheaper. (And even while the CBO and every other source states that costs are rising you come at me with this strawman argument: Now a conservative who is genuinely concerned about spending would have to look at the costs and say, yeah- that's a model that costs less. A conservative who is more interested in nationalism and a narrow partisan agenda, will just look at those models and say they don't work or don't apply.
• The state of the UK and Japanese economies relative to their universal health care.
• Your claims of efficiencies/effectiveness of universal health care while ignoring facts contrary to that claim.
• Chancellor George Osborne wrote:The British Government has run out of money because all the money was spent in the good years,.... The money and the investment and the jobs need to come from the private sector.”
• Personal freedoms/liberties that are being denied due to Obamacare.

Most of those aren't even arguments. Get a grip dude. You're proving that the healthcare debate in the US has gone a bit weird.

[ViperOverLord]

Most of those aren't even arguments. Get a grip dude. You're proving that the healthcare debate in the US has gone a bit weird.

Patented white wash.

[Symmetry]

Most of those aren't even arguments. Get a grip dude. You're proving that the healthcare debate in the US has gone a bit weird.

Patented white wash.

How so? Every bit of testimony for universal healthcare so far has said it's good. All the evidence points to it being cheaper. What can I possibly provide to convince you?

[thegreekdog]

What would be a comparable country then? Which system works well?

There are no comparable countries.

As for which system works well, I don't know obviously.

If you say to me, "TGD, the US should use the Japanese system," I would point to the hundreds of differences between the United States and Japan. This is not an American exceptionalism argument (it's the other way around if anything). I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?

Well, you put me in a difficult position if you won't look at systems that work, but are proposing a model that has never been implemented. Faith is sometimes a virtue, but trusting the free market on something like this just doesn't seem to be a great solution. I'm not even sure how it would work.

You're right to anticipate the American exceptionalism argument, but I'm not sure how it works the other way round. All the other countries that have Universal healthcare and pay less for it are exceptions?

The people of the United States would be putting their faith into a system that may or may not work in our country.

Let me give you just one example of the type of American anti-exceptionalism I'm talking about - In 2011, the United States spent $698 billion on the military (or 4.8% of its GDP or 43% of the world's share). Do you think that a universal healthcare system in the United States would be good for the country from a fiscal perspective? Or is the United States' military spending an impediment to that theory. To continue with this fiscal example - The reason the Affordable Care Act may be budget neutral is that the United States is eliminating current government healthcare spending and taxes are raised to pay for the program; further, the Affordable Care Act doesn't even insure everyone who is uninsured or underinsured. So we're getting a half-assed attempt at universal health insurance that raises taxes to remain budget neutral and doesn't even solve any significant problems.

American anti-exceptionalism. When the UK only spends 2.7% of its GDP and has 3.7% of the world's share of military spending and when Japan spends 1% of its GDP and has 3.3% of the world's share of military spending, and you compare them to the United States, perhaps you can see why universal healthcare would cause the United States a load of fiscal problems.

I'm also not quite so sure that the world sees the US military budget as part of its "share", but anyway...

As I've been saying from the start, perhaps look at the systems that work before

a) Saying that they don't work.
b) Saying that they could never work in the US.
c) Proposing a vague solution that amounts essentially to opposing whatever Obama proposes as a compromise.

It would be a sad day if the US had to cut back on its military budget a bit though.

It is rather frustrating when you don't address my post, but rather go back to address arguments you think I made because you've deemed to classify me as a conservative Republican.

[BigBallinStalin]

What the f*ck does the current state of healthcare, world economics, european defense or any other crap have on a holistic debate on state vs private healthcare?!?

I think we all know the american system is fucko, but the details of how you fix it (or just put up with it since it still does kinda ok) have little to do with a state vs private debate (since the established system is so entrenched and needs specific analysis and debate on the specific details rather than some holistic pie in the sky rant about free market vs state control).

Both Sym and Patches are being dumbheads imo.

STOP BEING SO MODERATE!!!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, after going through the past 3 pages, Sym has been Dodge King in this thread. Here's one I'd like him to address, if he would be so generous to do so:


TGD: "I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise? There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?"

Symmetry, what do you think?

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, after going through the past 3 pages, Sym has been Dodge King in this thread. Here's one I'd like him to address, if he would be so generous to do so:


TGD: "I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise? There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?"

Symmetry, what do you think?

This question ties in nicely to the list I copied from Time Magazine indicating why healthcare costs are high in the United States.

[Lootifer]

Mmmmm but question for you TGD/BBS: What of those issues in Time are going to be helped by less regulation?

[thegreekdog]

Mmmmm but question for you TGD/BBS: What of those issues in Time are going to be helped by less regulation?

Which of them aren't?

[Lootifer]

(1) Insurance companies are businesses and want to make money, not keep people healthy.
(2) No electronic records (which means repeat tests and prescribing ineffective medications).
(3) Doctors and hospitals get paid for the specific and expensable services they provide. They earn more money for each test, office visit and treatment.
(4) Medical malpractice - 10% of healthcare costs cover doctor malpractice insurance. Further, doctors tend to go overboard with providing healthcare as they are afraid of malpractice suits.
(5) Doctors get paid for doing surgeries they don't need to do (I experienced this in real life).
(6) The emergency room is not always necessary, but people go there when they don't need to (and the ER costs more).
(7)The US has a lot of fat people.
(8) Health insurance is exempt from anti-trust laws.
(9) No shopping across state lines.
(10) We don't know what good prices are because we don't directly pay for stuff.

1- More market freedom increases this incentive does it not?
2- Unclear if this would be resolved by market mechanics, as the incentives are already distorted away from providing the best service, but focussed on providing the most service
3- As above
4- I wouldnt think this will change at all, what solution to this are you thinking the free market will supply here? (im not really used to the american way of sue sue sue!)
5- Again you need to refocus the incentives, im not sure a free market is going to do this without being whacked with the reg-stick
6- Im unsure of the specifics of the US system to fully explore this point
7- And a known weakness of the free-market is its poor handling of demerit goods
8- Fair call
9- Again fair call and stupid policy
10- Lolrisk; it sounds like you want to do away with the insurance mechanic?

[thegreekdog]

(1) Insurance companies are businesses and want to make money, not keep people healthy.
(2) No electronic records (which means repeat tests and prescribing ineffective medications).
(3) Doctors and hospitals get paid for the specific and expensable services they provide. They earn more money for each test, office visit and treatment.
(4) Medical malpractice - 10% of healthcare costs cover doctor malpractice insurance. Further, doctors tend to go overboard with providing healthcare as they are afraid of malpractice suits.
(5) Doctors get paid for doing surgeries they don't need to do (I experienced this in real life).
(6) The emergency room is not always necessary, but people go there when they don't need to (and the ER costs more).
(7)The US has a lot of fat people.
(8) Health insurance is exempt from anti-trust laws.
(9) No shopping across state lines.
(10) We don't know what good prices are because we don't directly pay for stuff.

1- More market freedom increases this incentive does it not?
2- Unclear if this would be resolved by market mechanics, as the incentives are already distorted away from providing the best service, but focussed on providing the most service
3- As above
4- I wouldnt think this will change at all, what solution to this are you thinking the free market will supply here? (im not really used to the american way of sue sue sue!)
5- Again you need to refocus the incentives, im not sure a free market is going to do this without being whacked with the reg-stick
6- Im unsure of the specifics of the US system to fully explore this point
7- And a known weakness of the free-market is its poor handling of demerit goods
8- Fair call
9- Again fair call and stupid policy
10- Lolrisk; it sounds like you want to do away with the insurance mechanic?

1 - More market freedom ensures better prices, not higher prices.
2 - Market freedom would ensure the best services, not the most services.
3 - Same as above
4 - I don't think there is a free market solution for this, but I have to think about it some more.
5 - This would be fixed by the free market system as well. If I go to Doctor 1 and he says "you have to do this surgery" and I go to Doctor 2 and he says "you don't" then I know which one I'm choosing. Instead we get "insurance company says you have to have this surgery, therefore you will."
6 - I don't think there is a free market solution for this, except that insurance costs and healthcare costs will be lower generally, which will allow people to get care from other institutions than emergency rooms.
7 - Government regulation isn't going to change fat people either.
8 - n/a
9 - n/a
10 - I think this is the biggest issue. Most people don't know that when they are charged $2,000 for a procedure, the doctor gets paid $50. It's all a shell game with insurance companies. And they are regulated.

[Lootifer]

Hrmm, so you want to move away from the insurance model to a direct user pays system?

[thegreekdog]

Hrmm, so you want to move away from the insurance model to a direct user pays system?

I want to move to a model where doctors are inclined to provide free medical services to people who cannot afford their services, similar to how doctor's used to operate. Unfortunately, this appears to be unrealistic, so health insurance should be available. But health insurance should not be legally required and you should not need insurance to get health care. I want health insurance to be portable across state lines.

[Lootifer]

even thinking about that kind of thing would give the poli's nightmares... god i hate politics...

[Symmetry]

Yeah, after going through the past 3 pages, Sym has been Dodge King in this thread. Here's one I'd like him to address, if he would be so generous to do so:


TGD: "I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise? There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?"

Symmetry, what do you think?

No idea, much as my critics in the thread have argued against what I'm saying, my point is that the US should look toward effective and cheaper healthcare systems as the models to follow.

Clearly the US status quo isn't great- it's expensive and doesn't cover a large number of people. It's also not that great at providing healthcare.

Now in examples where the government does pay for people's health insurance the cost as a percentage of GDP is lower, a greater number of people are covered, and satisfaction rates are higher. These are systems that work, are immensely popular, and cost less.

What am I dodging? I feel like the dodge here is from conservative posters who just want to say that somehow they cost more, don't work, and would be unpopular because they constitute some kind of tyranny, flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, after going through the past 3 pages, Sym has been Dodge King in this thread. Here's one I'd like him to address, if he would be so generous to do so:


TGD: "I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise? There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?"

Symmetry, what do you think?

No idea, much as my critics in the thread have argued against what I'm saying, my point is that the US should look toward effective and cheaper healthcare systems as the models to follow.

Clearly the US status quo isn't great- it's expensive and doesn't cover a large number of people. It's also not that great at providing healthcare.

Now in examples where the government does pay for people's health insurance the cost as a percentage of GDP is lower, a greater number of people are covered, and satisfaction rates are higher. These are systems that work, are immensely popular, and cost less.

What am I dodging? I feel like the dodge here is from conservative posters who just want to say that somehow they cost more, don't work, and would be unpopular because they constitute some kind of tyranny, flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

BBS and I are not making those "conservative poster" arguments. You are dodging our arguments in favor of focusing on what you think our arguments should be. You believe we're saying universal healthcare is tyranny and neither of us have said that. As I indicated above, you're attempting to impose conservative Republican values on my statements, when such values don't exist. Time Magazine has given you 10 examples and I've given you 1 example (high military spending and high spending generally) why universal healthcare won't work in the United States. Unless and until you address my points and BBS's points without falling back on "dur, dur, you're conservative" statements, this is a pointless exercise, don't you think?

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd love for the US to have a healthcare provision system like Hong Kong's, but that requires reform in many other areas. Of course, the necessary reforms are constrained by political incentives (i.e. politically suicidal actions) and by vested interests (e.g. bureaucracies who would have to be overturned and rent-seekers who would have too much to lose from the restructuring).

The worse the US could do is simply plop a healthcare system on top of all these constraints without any restructuring or reform. That simply adds up the cost, which is problematic since the US government doesn't earn enough revenue. It'll simply borrow more, increase the money supply, and/or increase taxes. These actions won't outweigh the benefits of such a healthcare system in the long-run.

Therefore, any proposals on a government-provided healthcare system which ignores the given constraints and neglects the necessary reforms will be rejected by me. It's odd that people demand of others to be fiscally responsible (e.g. corporations, individuals, etc.), yet when it comes to the government, they give them a free ride. Unfortunately, those kind of supporters are overlooking the many long-term problems.

[Symmetry]

Yeah, after going through the past 3 pages, Sym has been Dodge King in this thread. Here's one I'd like him to address, if he would be so generous to do so:


TGD: "I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise? There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?"

Symmetry, what do you think?

No idea, much as my critics in the thread have argued against what I'm saying, my point is that the US should look toward effective and cheaper healthcare systems as the models to follow.

Clearly the US status quo isn't great- it's expensive and doesn't cover a large number of people. It's also not that great at providing healthcare.

Now in examples where the government does pay for people's health insurance the cost as a percentage of GDP is lower, a greater number of people are covered, and satisfaction rates are higher. These are systems that work, are immensely popular, and cost less.

What am I dodging? I feel like the dodge here is from conservative posters who just want to say that somehow they cost more, don't work, and would be unpopular because they constitute some kind of tyranny, flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

BBS and I are not making those "conservative poster" arguments. You are dodging our arguments in favor of focusing on what you think our arguments should be. You believe we're saying universal healthcare is tyranny and neither of us have said that. As I indicated above, you're attempting to impose conservative Republican values on my statements, when such values don't exist. Time Magazine has given you 10 examples and I've given you 1 example (high military spending and high spending generally) why universal healthcare won't work in the United States. Unless and until you address my points and BBS's points without falling back on "dur, dur, you're conservative" statements, this is a pointless exercise, don't you think?

I think it's fairly pointless if your default position is a fantasy land free market. As I understand it, your Time magazine article points were related to the high cost of healthcare in the US rather than the impossibility of universal healthcare coverage. Some were pertinent, others largely irrelevant- the UK, for example having high rates of obesity, but also universal healthcare.

High military spending might be an excuse, but the US spends 4.7% of its GDP on its military. Israel spends 6.3%. Would it surprise you to know that Israel has universal healthcare? And it's only around 8% of their GDP?

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, "fantasy land free market." I love it. For some people, it's either "100% free market provision" or "must be provided by government." What a strawman argument.

"What's your position, BBS?"

Here: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#p3619813

"Meh, that's fantasy land free market talk."

Yes, Sym. It's fantasy land to address the roles of various institutions, and how it becomes problematic to use cross-country analysis to justify implementing a state-provided healthcare program in a specific country. But hey, who cares about how different the capital structures and laws are of various countries? If you got the morally good intentions, then forget the constraints and consequences, because full speed ahead! ...



(regarding Israel: their military relies on conscription, which reduces its defense expenditures. Also, the cost of foregoing 3 years worth of alternative opportunities can't be shown, yet it's still a significant cost to each individual who has served in the IDF.)

[Lootifer]

Except Sym that you are being just as non-pragmatic in your arguments too, you call them fantasy land but ignore the reality of the US political landscape when you say "mimic these guys"....

[Symmetry]

Except Sym that you are being just as non-pragmatic in your arguments too, you call them fantasy land but ignore the reality of the US political landscape when you say "mimic these guys"....

Fair enough, but I did ask early on for examples of the systems being proposed (some variant of a free market solution). My argument boils down to looking at effective systems. I probably got too frustrated in this thread. There's only so often a person can say just look at countries that have implemented universal healthcare, often in face of the very problems that are listed as making universal healthcare impossible in the US, show that they work well and cost less without feeling like there's a brick wall of thinking that simply says it's impossible.

Apologies to BBS and TGD, I should have been fairer to your objections.

[Lootifer]

Seige warfare forum styles mofucker.

[Symmetry]

Seige warfare forum styles mofucker.

Or American exceptionalism in one of it's more bizarre forms- where America isn't the exception, everywhere else is (pace TGD).

[BigBallinStalin]

Except Sym that you are being just as non-pragmatic in your arguments too, you call them fantasy land but ignore the reality of the US political landscape when you say "mimic these guys"....

Okay, Mr. Pragmatic. Please vacate thy castle walls and tell us what is the practical approach.

[Lootifer]

UN funding of Al Quaeda