NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people in the US are dissatisfied with health-care system. Unfortunately, most seem to want more socialization, when that's precisely the opposite of what's needed. Read this article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/wilson-l1.html) if you disagree. I'm in total agreement with it and will happily defend anything in it.

The major problem is that people think their entitled to everything, but don't want to be responsible for procuring it for themselves. Sad what this country has come to.

The major problem is that people think their entitled to everything, but don't want to be responsible for procuring it for themselves. Sad what this country has come to.
Well said

The major problem is that people think their entitled to everything, but don't want to be responsible for procuring it for themselves. Sad what this country has come to.
Yep. It's hard to argue against further socialization of the health care industry when so many people think they're entitled to health care. The thing I hear a lot is that everyone has a right to have 'access' to the same health care, whatever that means. You have a right to get what you pay for. And you have every right to take care of your damn self. You don't have a right to heart surgery no matter how bad you need it. Someone has to perform the operation and someone has to pay for it. These people aren't slaves.

Yep. It's hard to argue against further socialization of the health care industry when so many people think they're entitled to health care. The thing I hear a lot is that everyone has a right to have 'access' to the same health care, whatever that means. You have a right to get what you pay for. And you have every right to take care of your damn self. You don't have a right to heart surgery no matter how bad you need it. Someone has to perform the operation and someone has to pay for it. These people aren't slaves.

So how does the NHS work? Britain seems to understand that everyone has the right to health care and it seems to work fine here. You hear a great deal in the press saying how bad the NHS is but frankly, from what I understand its far better for value than the American system. Of course you have a right to health care. Its not always your fault if you get ill and when it is, it isnt for humans to decide who can live and die. Its not compassionate enough to just say "You made yourself ill, you deal with the concequences" because often people cant.

Taxes.

Taxes.

So why isnt that right for the US?

So how does the NHS work?
I assume you're asking about the British system? I don't really know. I understand that it's totally socialized, except that health care professionals are permitted to take private money unlike in Canada where that's forbidden.

Why do you ask?

I assume you're asking about the British system? I don't really know. I understand that it's totally socialized, except that health care professionals are permitted to take private money unlike in Canada where that's forbidden.

Why do you ask?

I was being sarcastic. I know full well how the British system works. I am British. My point is if it can work in Britian, why not the US?

Take your pick!

1. US wouldn't like paying taxes
2. US middle to upper class couldn't stomach pay for everyone else's health care.
3. Higher proportion of populace requiring regular treatment
4. Higher incidence of injury / illness

I make no promises that any of the above are true. Just possibilities.

Take your pick!

1. US wouldn't like paying taxes
2. US middle to upper class couldn't stomach pay for everyone else's health care.
3. Higher proportion of populace requiring regular treatment
4. Higher incidence of injury / illness

I make no promises that any of the above are true. Just possibilities.

1. How come the UK can deal with it?
2. Why not? The UK middle class dont mind
3. How high? Higher than the UK? Maybe I dont know
4. How so? Why is that?

1. Well, we did get the system not too long after WW2. After all that death, eemed like a good idea then, we stuck with it.
2. See 1.

Like I said, I was throwing out ideas. Not facts. That's for Americans to provide :)

I was being sarcastic. I know full well how the British system works. I am British. My point is if it can work in Britian, why not the US?
RTFA

RTFA?

Buh?

RTFA

Care to translate?

The reason the UK-style system wouldn't work in the US is the fundamental difference between the two societies.

The British may be unhappy about paying up to 40% tax and subsidising other people's healthcare, but are generally willing to do it, being broadly accepting of the idea of having a shared healthcare resource. This also applies to other social provisions.

The Americans would prefer to have their 28% tax rate (or lower) and leave healthcare provision up to the individual's ability to pay for it. If you can't pay for it, too bad, you die. It is for those who can pay, not can't. This also applies to other social provisions.

This is not a debate about which system is "better", rather, which system best fits the society it serves.

If RTFA means what I think it means, then I have read the article and it doesnt make a single refence to the NHS or Britain so I am asking you to explain why a system that works perfectly well in a developed nation like Britain cant work in America?

The reason the UK-style system wouldn't work in the US is the fundamental difference between the two societies.

The British may be unhappy about paying up to 40% tax and subsidising other people's healthcare, but are generally willing to do it, being broadly accepting of the idea of having a shared healthcare resource. This also applies to other social provisions.

The Americans would prefer to have their 28% tax rate (or lower) and leave healthcare provision up to the individual's ability to pay for it. If you can't pay for it, too bad, you die. It is for those who can pay, not can't. This also applies to other social provisions.

This is not a debate about which system is "better", rather, which system best fits the society it serves.

If its only a social problem and it is accepted that the current US system is not sufficent then shouldn't the society change?

I was being sarcastic. I know full well how the British system works. I am British. My point is if it can work in Britian, why not the US?

The NHS in Britain is fucked (although not nessaserily because of socialisation). Read the "Doing the Rounds" column in Private Eye by MD.

The NHS in Britain is fucked (although not nessaserily because of socialisation). Read the "Doing the Rounds" column in Private Eye by MD.

You do know priviate eye is satire dont you?

You do know priviate eye is satire dont you?
Although a hefty part of it is satire, it is also a newspaper and reports on news that other papers might leave out.

If its only a social problem and it is accepted that the current US system is not sufficent then shouldn't the society change?
You can't change a society to suit a bureaucracy, only the other way round. It's why communism was impossible to implement in most of the places it was tried, why democratising the Middle East is in most parts of it a fantasy. You simply can't force a social welfare system on American society because it has long worked on an 'every man for himself' model which it is unlikely to abandon. Similarly, it is going to be very difficult to persuade much of Europe to privatise the majority of their state functions.

Many people in the US are dissatisfied with health-care system. Unfortunately, most seem to want more socialization, when that's precisely the opposite of what's needed. Read this article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/wilson-l1.html) if you disagree. I'm in total agreement with it and will happily defend anything in it.

Sorry for saying so, but that article is utter tripe. It has no facts to back it up, its a classic "I say so, therefore it is" argument.

Allow me to demonstrate:

"Skyrocketing costs are due to the structure of health care in all these nations. All are mainly socialized, including America’s. This means they operate as top-down bureaucracies, out of touch with people’s real needs. Almost no market forces are allowed to operate for rational decision-making and cost control."

This blames socialism (bureaucratic price fixing) for skyrocketing prices. What it doesn't take into account is that is simply, flatly, and utterly not true. One of the main causes of rising health care costs is the influx of new treatments and drugs, with their prices heavily weighted by massive advertising budgets, R&D costs, and direct-to-doctor marketing.

Look at the budgets for major drugs such as Celebrex, Allegra, Viagra, Prozac, etc. They all have ad budgets that are larger than the cost of researching and making the drug itself. Anyone who watches TV must have noticed that Drug Ads have become increasingly prevelant over the last several years.

Whats more, the direct to doctor marketing makes pharmacists and doctors happy, but it is a greater market distortion than socialized health is! Doctors are given huge perks; free trips, massive numbers of "free samples" to give to patients, and all manner of trinkets, pill sorters with marketing logos on them and such. The companies are distorting the doctor's perception of which drugs are good and bad, which are effective and which are simply over-marketed.

You want to talk about market distortion, you want to talk about not allowing the consumer to decide, look first to the pharmaceutical companies rampant spending on market distortions that hurt the consumer by preventing or discouraging people from having access to affordable, generic drugs.

This person actually tells us, the readers, right out that he has a tremendous chip on his shoulder because the FDA refused to give him a liscence. "I have a medical degree but have worked as an unlicensed nutrition consultant (not a dietitian) for 23 years." He complains bitterly about "cartels" and "kingpins"

This isn't a journalist reporting on fraud, this isn't a doctor lamenting his need to charge more, this isn't an insurance company talking about the costs of doing business, this is a induvidual who has spent 23 years being bitter because he's not a "real" doctor.

Good source man, did you yourself read the article? How do you believe this actually supports deregulation? I'm no fan of the FDA, the medical industry is in tremendous need of reform, but what this hack proposes is nonsense. A bitter man complaining that he doesn't have his share of the pie.

You do realize that if you do get a socialized health care system it will be paid for with the money you are now spending for health insurance?

All socialized HC does is replace the health insurance industry, and where the insurers may tell you that 'this and this procedure are not covered' as an excuse to not pay out (which means you pay anyway, regardless if you have paid the premium), under the socialized system you are always globally covered.

http://67.18.37.14/32/176/upload/p852312.gif


This chart indicates that the per capita spending on health care in the States is 32% higher than the 2nd highest spender (Switzerland).

Single payer insurance and/or other sorts of national health care plans that treat everyone demostrably cost less than the American model. If you think otherwise you have your head in the sand.

You need a subscription to read the article this chart is attached to. However, if you're really interested, I can post relevant sections of it (with author attributing, of course). here's the link, just in case you can see it (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10/T1)

Well, I still stand by my assertion that in any debate, a society will not necessarily find the "sensible" option acceptable.

Sigh. I almost never join these debates in time. By the time I've posted my charts, the instigator is often long offline... :(

Take your pick!

1. US wouldn't like paying taxes
2. US middle to upper class couldn't stomach pay for everyone else's health care.
3. Higher proportion of populace requiring regular treatment
4. Higher incidence of injury / illness

I make no promises that any of the above are true. Just possibilities.

Also, the requisite tax money is all tied up with proper conservative goals like bankrupting social security prematurely, making war with helpless nations, and throwing huge parties for rich people so that we can watch E! and live vicariously through them while complaining about how morally bankrupt they are.

Well, I still stand by my assertion that in any debate, a society will not necessarily find the "sensible" option acceptable.

Ya, like noone ever takes me seriously when I suggest that it be declared legal to kill the executives of international corporations. That will promote job creation as they hire more and more private security personel and will make them scramble to do things that make the populace happy instead of the politicians.

All it would take to bring the prices of medicine down is for the CEO of Pfizer to be told that every person with a mother dying of cancer but not enough money to pay for her care is now allowed to buy assault rifles and won't have much trouble taking up a collection to buy one of those.

If RTFA means what I think it means, then I have read the article and it doesnt make a single refence to the NHS or Britain so I am asking you to explain why a system that works perfectly well in a developed nation like Britain cant work in America?
Yes, the article does not mention NHS at all. So why did you bring it up? If you want to add something to the conversation, try to do so in a more constructive mannerr. I live in Phoenix, Arizona. I don't know much about the British health care system. I've heard a few things, but I can't really comment with much authority. Still, I disagree that it works perfectly. That's an indefensible claim. It might work to your satisfaction, but that's your subjective opinion. Perfection would demand that nobody died of preventable diseases, that there are always enough qualified health care professionals, that mistakes aren't made, or that nobody ever has to wait for treatment. That's not possible. Maybe it works better than what we have here, but that's not the point of the article or my initial post.

Sorry for saying so, but that article is utter tripe. It has no facts to back it up, its a classic "I say so, therefore it is" argument.
Everything the man says rings true to me. But then for me he's just pointing out the obvious. I honestly don't know what facts are missing.


Allow me to demonstrate:

"Skyrocketing costs are due to the structure of health care in all these nations. All are mainly socialized, including America’s. This means they operate as top-down bureaucracies, out of touch with people’s real needs. Almost no market forces are allowed to operate for rational decision-making and cost control."

This blames socialism (bureaucratic price fixing) for skyrocketing prices. What it doesn't take into account is that is simply, flatly, and utterly not true. One of the main causes of rising health care costs is the influx of new treatments and drugs, with their prices heavily weighted by massive advertising budgets, R&D costs, and direct-to-doctor marketing.

Look at the budgets for major drugs such as Celebrex, Allegra, Viagra, Prozac, etc. They all have ad budgets that are larger than the cost of researching and making the drug itself. Anyone who watches TV must have noticed that Drug Ads have become increasingly prevelant over the last several years.

Yes, I've noticed. You live in an economic fantasy land. Without the threat of government violence severely restricting the availibility of medical care, such high prices would not be sustainable. Without the medical cartel and the government it owns, drug companies doing buisness this way would have probably not succeed.


Whats more, the direct to doctor marketing makes pharmacists and doctors happy, but it is a greater market distortion than socialized health is! Doctors are given huge perks; free trips, massive numbers of "free samples" to give to patients, and all manner of trinkets, pill sorters with marketing logos on them and such. The companies are distorting the doctor's perception of which drugs are good and bad, which are effective and which are simply over-marketed.

You want to talk about market distortion, you want to talk about not allowing the consumer to decide, look first to the pharmaceutical companies rampant spending on market distortions that hurt the consumer by preventing or discouraging people from having access to affordable, generic drugs.

What exactly are you arguing? You're identifying practically the same symtoms as Dr. Wilson. Although, it's not the spending by the drug companies that distorts the market. That doesn't make any sense. It's patent and trade laws that prevent people from having access to generic drugs.


This person actually tells us, the readers, right out that he has a tremendous chip on his shoulder because the FDA refused to give him a liscence. "I have a medical degree but have worked as an unlicensed nutrition consultant (not a dietitian) for 23 years." He complains bitterly about "cartels" and "kingpins"

This isn't a journalist reporting on fraud, this isn't a doctor lamenting his need to charge more, this isn't an insurance company talking about the costs of doing business, this is a induvidual who has spent 23 years being bitter because he's not a "real" doctor.When's the last time you saw a "real" doctor? Most of them are substantially less informed than this man. Because he refuses to play along, he's ostracized from aptly labeled cartel. He has every right to be bitter.

Good source man, did you yourself read the article? How do you believe this actually supports deregulation? I'm no fan of the FDA, the medical industry is in tremendous need of reform, but what this hack proposes is nonsense. A bitter man complaining that he doesn't have his share of the pie.
Of course I read the article. Why would I bother posting it if I didn't know it said? You must think I'm really stupid. If you really think proposing total deregulation of the medical industry is nonsense, I'd like to hear why it wouldn't work.

You do realize that if you do get a socialized health care system it will be paid for with the money you are now spending for health insurance?

All socialized HC does is replace the health insurance industry, and where the insurers may tell you that 'this and this procedure are not covered' as an excuse to not pay out (which means you pay anyway, regardless if you have paid the premium), under the socialized system you are always globally covered.

1. There is no reason to believe that health care costs would be the same if the system was changed. Productivity and efficiency are never static.
2. Even if costs did remain the same, that would still be too much for me to accept it.
3. Completely eliminating profit motive from the medical industry would leave no significant motive for hard work and innovation.
4. Global coverage is undefinable and unattainable. Would it cover birth control? Abortions? Chiropractic care? Viagra? Do Canadians have globabl coverage? If so, why do they sometimes go overseas for treatment?

Many people in the US are dissatisfied with health-care system. Unfortunately, most seem to want more socialization, when that's precisely the opposite of what's needed. Read this article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/wilson-l1.html) if you disagree. I'm in total agreement with it and will happily defend anything in it.
Have you looked at the Canadian Health Care system. Dispite the limitations that it puts on Doctors and Nurses, wage wise, it is a most effective way to ensure that everyone can afford that lifesaving surgery. We in Alberta are starting a drive to have a merger of both the Americian and Canadian systems. It will mean that those who can afford to pay extra will get the service quicker at a private clinic and it will take them out of the public wait lists. This will result in a major weight being removed from the public health system resulting in shorter wait lists and improved quality of care.

Have you looked at the Canadian Health Care system. Dispite the limitations that it puts on Doctors and Nurses, wage wise, it is a most effective way to ensure that everyone can afford that lifesaving surgery. We in Alberta are starting a drive to have a merger of both the Americian and Canadian systems. It will mean that those who can afford to pay extra will get the service quicker at a private clinic and it will take them out of the public wait lists. This will result in a major weight being removed from the public health system resulting in shorter wait lists and improved quality of care.

Yes, that's why the Canadian Health Care system told my aunt that she would have to wait for 18 months to have her pancreas removed (she had cancer), and at the same time, they said that she probably wouldn't live more than 2 months if she didn't have the operation. They told her the wait was due to a shortage of specialists. They said that Canadian doctors who are really, really good at niche medical areas are fleeing the country.

Sounds rather cost efficient to me, as least from the government perspective.
If the patient dies, the government doesn't have to pay for anything.

We shipped her down to the US, and paid for it out of our pockets. She's still alive, no thanks to the Canadian Health Care system.
We shipped her down

http://67.18.37.14/32/176/upload/p852312.gif


This chart indicates that the per capita spending on health care in the States is 32% higher than the 2nd highest spender (Switzerland).

Single payer insurance and/or other sorts of national health care plans that treat everyone demostrably cost less than the American model. If you think otherwise you have your head in the sand.
You are not paying attention. Neither I, nor Dr. Wilson are defending the US health care system. We both favor destroying government control over the industry. Personally, I would characterize what we have more as mercantilism or corporatism than socialism as he does. From a libertarian perspective, it's pretty much equally bad. Whatever you call it, it's definitely not economic freedom.