Sure they can. Private security, walled in neighbourhoods, roads you have to pay per kilometre to the company that built it. It's not that it can't be done. But why is socialized protection something you must have, while socialized healthcare is such an impossibility and abomination? They are both concerned with the individuals health, are they not? It's really about ideology and values. I say include healthcare in those values, as they are in most other comparable countries, and to most of the american public as well.
Or, if you're gonna be consistent principally, also denounce military, police and free roads.
Peace
Dan
That's a good argument. I wish I had thought of it.
The Waiting Game
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 16, 2007
Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. ''I mean, people have access to health care in America,'' he said last week. ''After all, you just go to an emergency room.''
This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance -- they can just go to emergency rooms, right?
O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.
The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.
Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that ''the poorest Americans are getting far better service'' than Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?
A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: ''In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems.''
A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.
We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures -- and I suspect that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches Germany's performance.
Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by insurance companies trying to save money.
This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. ''It was only later,'' writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, ''that I discovered why the insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all the approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which would have meant higher co-payments.''
He adds, ''I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero.''
To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company risked his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment costs. But there's no question that some Americans who seemingly have good insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying to hold down their ''medical losses'' -- the industry term for actually having to pay for care.
On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.
That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) because it has more lavish funding -- end of story. The alleged virtues of private insurance have nothing to do with it.
The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health care here in America.
theres something to be said for why the obesity rate is climbing and people, according to most polls in cities...people are unhealthy.. and where i don't think anyone in particular (except evil people) should be denied treatment...
what im saying...everyone seeems to be crying out to the government... meanwhile... mcdonalds is still booming...fast food is still on the rise... people eat way to much...excercise is thought of uncool practices to some people... people buy gym memberships, treadmills, and all sorts of shit... in some kind of unthought out plan to lose weight
what are the advantages for business and our economy to free health care or a change?
Sure they can. Private security, walled in neighbourhoods, roads you have to pay per kilometre to the company that built it. It's not that it can't be done. But why is socialized protection something you must have, while socialized healthcare is such an impossibility and abomination? They are both concerned with the individuals health, are they not? It's really about ideology and values. I say include healthcare in those values, as they are in most other comparable countries, and to most of the american public as well.
Or, if you're gonna be consistent principally, also denounce military, police and free roads.
Peace
Dan
Nice post!
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
There is not one shred of truth to that statement. Efficient in what way? Shorter lines? That is not the economic measure of efficiency, Norway.
You measure efficiency by looking at the number of dollars that are wasted on healthcare that could be spent on other things. Naturally, when government runs a program, it will waste more than private industry would because government is required to provide services to you. Private industry can turn you away.
I'm not going to criticize or defend US Healthcare system. However, it is true that according to WHO data the US Healthcare per capita expenditure is 4/5 times higher than the rest of OECD countries. At the same time USA has the lowest coverage rate of OECD countries. This is indeed inefficiency, you're not obtaining the maximum output at the lowest possible cost.
I like how you frequently trot out this "efficiency" argument as though it's actually true. Economically speaking, there is no efficiency in anything government does. Anything government does would be done more efficiently by a private company. The fact is, there are some activities that are public goods and government would not be best for those activities.
I'm sorry but this is so not true. I'm not particularly pro-government, but you can't say that a government per se is inefficient. If a State provides say water and sanitation and does it while minimizing costs it is being efficient. Furthermore, some goods and services benefits can't be assesed by private valuation techniques. There goods and services that generate either positive or negative externalities, which are not taken into account by privates. Typical case: public goods and for some people common goods (which are an intermediate category).
Universal Healthcare is not a public good. It can be divided and used up by individuals. Individuals who can afford better healthcare should be able to pay for such.
Healthcare is not a PURE public good, but definitely falls in the category of common goods or goods with externalities (positive and negative). Plenty of economists have proven that healthcare generates a significant social benefit, which I'm sorry cannot by divided and used by individuals. I'm sorry, but the case for Universal healthcare from an economic standpoint is actually very strong.
Since you were getting technical I thought I could help.
Regardless of the bureaucracy involved, health care is a basic human right. That should be all that needs to be said about it, but unfortunately, the upper class can't have all people receiving equality. This simple fact is the basis of the problem. In an industrialized, fully developed nation, there is no reason anyone should have to go without adequate medical care. Insurance companies are all evil, and possess powers that no corporation should have.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
I think certain things should be considered when looking at healthcare for all.
First, if you smoke, or you are considered obese (without any specific medical reason that led to this), then any medical care linked to these would have to be paid for separately, whether by paying for additional insurance or out of their pocket.
On the other side, if you have a pre-existing health problem, you are covered. Changing jobs, and therefore health insurance, can hurt individuals if they have pre-existing conditions.
Just a few ideas
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
I'm not going to criticize or defend US Healthcare system. However, it is true that according to WHO data the US Healthcare per capita expenditure is 4/5 times higher than the rest of OECD countries. At the same time USA has the lowest coverage rate of OECD countries. This is indeed inefficiency, you're not obtaining the maximum output at the lowest possible cost.
This is where the government view of healthcare contrasts sharply with the individual view of healthcare.
Governments care about providing a mediocre level of healthcare at the best price possible. Most socialized healtchcare countries subsidize part of their healthcare system through relying on R&D and innovation being done in America. The thought of providing the best healthcare possible doesn't even enter the governments mind.
Individuals want the best healthcare possible. Those that can afford it will gladly pay past the point where governments will quite paying. Part of what they are paying for is innovatin and new and better healthcare methods.
So you are not comparing apples to oranges in any way what so ever.
All that said I want socialized healthcare even with it's inherent flaws.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
This is where the government view of healthcare contrasts sharply with the individual view of healthcare.
Governments care about providing a mediocre level of healthcare at the best price possible. Most socialized healtchcare countries subsidize part of their healthcare system through relying on R&D and innovation being done in America. The thought of providing the best healthcare possible doesn't even enter the governments mind.
Individuals want the best healthcare possible. Those that can afford it will gladly pay past the point where governments will quite paying. Part of what they are paying for is innovatin and new and better healthcare methods.
So you are not comparing apples to oranges in any way what so ever.
All that said I want socialized healthcare even with it's inherent flaws.
I agree with this, I'm all for universal healthcare as well, even though it has its flaws. I was just trying to explain to CorporateWhore why according to several indicators kealthcare in the USA is not particularly efficient in comparison to other developed countries.
I'm not sure what you mean with the apples and oranges (I'm familiar with the expression though, we use it in Spanish), are you saying that I'm doing a wrong comparison or the opposite?
I'm not sure what you mean with the apples and oranges (I'm familiar with the expression though, we use it in Spanish), are you saying that I'm doing a wrong comparison or the opposite?
Yes, I think it was a flawed comparison. A government run system only cares about efficiency, where as an individual run system cares about effectiveness. They are both looking for a different type return on their investment, so comparing them is not practical.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Yes, I think it was a flawed comparison. A government run system only cares about efficiency, where as an individual run system cares about effectiveness. They are both looking for a different type return on their investment, so comparing them is not practical.
But then again, what if you think of it like which system gets the most effectiveness for the most people? In the american system some get the tops, and are very satisfied with it, but they are contrasted by all those not being at all satisfied with it. A system where the most people get some satisfaction is far better than a system leaving some satisfied, and some not at all. And the added societal effect makes the universal one the winner in comparison. Just like a flatter income structure in society also brings less violent crime as a side-effect, a society where people know they will get treated adequately, if not extravagantly, brings much less tension and thus a net gain.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Yes, I think it was a flawed comparison. A government run system only cares about efficiency, where as an individual run system cares about effectiveness. They are both looking for a different type return on their investment, so comparing them is not practical.
I'm not sure I'm following you, I'd say usually privates (individuals) tend to focus more on efficiency than governments, which tend to be more focused in being effective. By effective I mean: obtaining the expected outcome. A healthcare system run by individuals would have as a goal to maximize benefits, which would the be the same goal for a State or a government. The difference is to be found in what each agent considers as benefit. An individual would only take into account private costs and benefits, whereas a government would include social costs and social benefits to obtain and investment's net return.
Anyways the comparison carried out by the WHO and OCDE uses as an indicator per capita healthcare public expenditure, which is 100% comparable 'cause all OECD countries use the IMF manual of public finance and budget planning for accounting purposes. About coverage rates, I'd have to look at them, but I believe that WHO is a responsible statistics generator so I'd say they are comparing things that can actually be compared. The most simple coverage rate would be: (population with actual coverage/target population)*100
Comments
That's a good argument. I wish I had thought of it.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/fit.nation/obesity.map/
theres something to be said for why the obesity rate is climbing and people, according to most polls in cities...people are unhealthy.. and where i don't think anyone in particular (except evil people) should be denied treatment...
what im saying...everyone seeems to be crying out to the government... meanwhile... mcdonalds is still booming...fast food is still on the rise... people eat way to much...excercise is thought of uncool practices to some people... people buy gym memberships, treadmills, and all sorts of shit... in some kind of unthought out plan to lose weight
what are the advantages for business and our economy to free health care or a change?
Nice post!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm not going to criticize or defend US Healthcare system. However, it is true that according to WHO data the US Healthcare per capita expenditure is 4/5 times higher than the rest of OECD countries. At the same time USA has the lowest coverage rate of OECD countries. This is indeed inefficiency, you're not obtaining the maximum output at the lowest possible cost.
I'm sorry but this is so not true. I'm not particularly pro-government, but you can't say that a government per se is inefficient. If a State provides say water and sanitation and does it while minimizing costs it is being efficient. Furthermore, some goods and services benefits can't be assesed by private valuation techniques. There goods and services that generate either positive or negative externalities, which are not taken into account by privates. Typical case: public goods and for some people common goods (which are an intermediate category).
Healthcare is not a PURE public good, but definitely falls in the category of common goods or goods with externalities (positive and negative). Plenty of economists have proven that healthcare generates a significant social benefit, which I'm sorry cannot by divided and used by individuals. I'm sorry, but the case for Universal healthcare from an economic standpoint is actually very strong.
Since you were getting technical I thought I could help.
http://www.myspace.com/jonjenkins
http://thelandofoz.us
First, if you smoke, or you are considered obese (without any specific medical reason that led to this), then any medical care linked to these would have to be paid for separately, whether by paying for additional insurance or out of their pocket.
On the other side, if you have a pre-existing health problem, you are covered. Changing jobs, and therefore health insurance, can hurt individuals if they have pre-existing conditions.
Just a few ideas
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Governments care about providing a mediocre level of healthcare at the best price possible. Most socialized healtchcare countries subsidize part of their healthcare system through relying on R&D and innovation being done in America. The thought of providing the best healthcare possible doesn't even enter the governments mind.
Individuals want the best healthcare possible. Those that can afford it will gladly pay past the point where governments will quite paying. Part of what they are paying for is innovatin and new and better healthcare methods.
So you are not comparing apples to oranges in any way what so ever.
All that said I want socialized healthcare even with it's inherent flaws.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I agree with this, I'm all for universal healthcare as well, even though it has its flaws. I was just trying to explain to CorporateWhore why according to several indicators kealthcare in the USA is not particularly efficient in comparison to other developed countries.
I'm not sure what you mean with the apples and oranges (I'm familiar with the expression though, we use it in Spanish), are you saying that I'm doing a wrong comparison or the opposite?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'm not sure I'm following you, I'd say usually privates (individuals) tend to focus more on efficiency than governments, which tend to be more focused in being effective. By effective I mean: obtaining the expected outcome. A healthcare system run by individuals would have as a goal to maximize benefits, which would the be the same goal for a State or a government. The difference is to be found in what each agent considers as benefit. An individual would only take into account private costs and benefits, whereas a government would include social costs and social benefits to obtain and investment's net return.
Anyways the comparison carried out by the WHO and OCDE uses as an indicator per capita healthcare public expenditure, which is 100% comparable 'cause all OECD countries use the IMF manual of public finance and budget planning for accounting purposes. About coverage rates, I'd have to look at them, but I believe that WHO is a responsible statistics generator so I'd say they are comparing things that can actually be compared. The most simple coverage rate would be: (population with actual coverage/target population)*100
EDIT: to correct grammar mistakes