06 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodey1. So to show the inferiority of nationalized healthcare in terms of outcome, you choose to focus on cancer deaths in a single age group, in a single country. This is a suspect way of reasoning at best, better would be to look at overall figures, things like average life expectancy, in which the American system is obviously worse.
We can simply re-word your last sentence by saying, "
And now liberals are convinced that the government alone can best decide who has access to a doctor, or a badly needed medical operation."
Here is a good article regarding the issues with nationalized systems around the world.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090704/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_europe_health_less ...[text shortened]... gals. In fact, it may even surpass the added extra expenses of for profit medicine.
Also note that this argument is in blatant contradiction to your 3th point. The article correctly notes that cancer survival is closely connected to an early diagnosis, this can probably explain the higher number of deaths in Britain due to cancer. However, in your 3th point you warn against overuse of the medical system. Wouldn't this include overuse of preventive check-ups ? So according to your 1st point, they aren't getting enough check-ups, according to your 3th Americans will be getting too many of they had a system similar to the British. Something isn't right here.
2. Health care is expensive, certainly, it is indeed a major cost for our governments and financing it will be a challenge with the baby boomers now retiring. Funny thing is Americans are now paying more per capita for health care. This argument is lik saying that a buying a Porsche is too expensive while driving around in a Ferrari.
3. Still the contradiction with point 1, I'd also like to see some empirical research on the size of this supposed overuse. Also note that in many cases, early diagnosis severely reduces cost of treatment, so the extra money spent on check-ups for trivial ailments is likely won back when there is actually something wrong.
4+5. There's two things you can take away from this part of the article, first, that cost cutting means worse care and you won't see anyone denying that. What you can also take away, is that a socialized healthcare model was consistently in the top 4 of the world, and even after serious cost cutting is still in the top 10. I'd also take a bet that a lot of the others in the top 10 are western European countries with socialized healthcare
6. Once again, a single example to make your point. Now, it isn't a surprise that this particular drug took so long to finally be used, first, the effect isn't that much greater then previously used drugs, it's extremely expensive and is linked to an increased mortality from heart disease. It isn't really any wonder that people were hesitant to using this drug as standard treatment.
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by BartsThere is a simple solution, let those that believe in a socialized health system sign up for it, and let all those with the gumption to stand on their own two feet and take responsibilty for their own decisions do so.
1. So to show the inferiority of nationalized healthcare in terms of outcome, you choose to focus on cancer deaths in a single age group, in a single country. This is a suspect way of reasoning at best, better would be to look at overall figures, things like average life expectancy, in which the American system is obviously worse.
Also note that this argum ...[text shortened]... really any wonder that people were hesitant to using this drug as standard treatment.
End of debate.
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by Wajomathat attitude is why you see Americans dying in the street . i saw one when in NY, Manhattan!
There is a simple solution, let those that believe in a socialized health system sign up for it, and let all those with the gumption to stand on their own two feet and take responsibilty for their own decisions do so.
End of debate.
you don't see that in England. much as i love America its healthcare is its worst feature
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by WajomaSo when people talk about introducing a socialized health care model, you think putting a new insurer with massive handicaps (massive handicaps to compete in a free market, that is, not massive handicaps per se.) into a completely free market is just as good ?
There is a simple solution, let those that believe in a socialized health system sign up for it, and let all those with the gumption to stand on their own two feet and take responsibilty for their own decisions do so.
End of debate.
It would effectively be subsidizing for profit insurers. Everyone with too high a risk would no longer be accepted by private insurers (OK, that seems to be happening now too), so they'd have to turn to the socialized health system. They'd have to accept them (the first goal being actual health care, not profit). The result is that all the unprofitable persons are in the socialized part of health care, so it'd have to be floated with tax money. At the same time private insurers are made free to only serve low risk customers and see their profits rise, because tax dollars were used to keep unprofitable customers away from them.
Actually, you're proposal looks a lot like the buying of the toxic assets in the bailout.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by WajomaHow many more times do I have to refute this? You can apply this exact same argument to taxes in general. Now, who would pay taxes if it was voluntary?
There is a simple solution, let those that believe in a socialized health system sign up for it, and let all those with the gumption to stand on their own two feet and take responsibilty for their own decisions do so.
End of debate.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat government managed to drive the cost of an SMS which costs a fraction of a cent to transmit down to 11 cents is no great victory. Especially since it was their endless meddling that caused prices to go through the stratosphere in the first place. And you haven't added back the cost of a massive cast of government drones for the privilege.
Of course, like with most things he said, Milton Friedman was wrong.
Last month, I paid more than 50 eurocents for a text message abroad within the EU, even though the doe-eyed "free market" laws suggest competition should drive prices to a few cents at most. Now I pay 11 cents due to EU government intervention in the telecommunications cartel.
No, Milton had it right for a lot of things.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by spruce112358Why are you denying facts? In what sense did "government meddling" cause my telephone provider to charge 50 cents for a text message?
That government managed to drive the cost of an SMS which costs a fraction of a cent to transmit down to 11 cents is no great victory. Especially since it was their endless meddling that caused prices to go through the stratosphere in the first place. And you haven't added back the cost of a massive cast of government drones for the privilege.
No, Milton had it right for a lot of things.
Face it, libertarianism is broke. Expecting that corporations will refrain from exploiting their consumers in a poorly regulated market is just as naive, and perhaps even more so than those communists who think a communal government can exist without an autocrat seizing power.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraRegulation is a very poor substitute for competition. Direct market fiddling paradoxically raises costs. The only reasonable regulations are those that ensure competition. This has been proved over and over again. Only a company in a monopoly situation can "exploit" customers indefinitely.
Why are you denying facts? In what sense did "government meddling" cause my telephone provider to charge 50 cents for a text message?
Face it, libertarianism is broke. Expecting that corporations will refrain from exploiting their consumers in a poorly regulated market is just as naive, and perhaps even more so than those communists who think a communal government can exist without an autocrat seizing power.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by spruce112358...and the biggest monopoly of all?
Regulation is a very poor substitute for competition. Direct market fiddling paradoxically raises costs. The only reasonable regulations are those that ensure competition. This has been proved over and over again. Only a company in a monopoly situation can "exploit" customers indefinitely.
...the monopoly that has the big stick to wave, "Do this or force will be initiated against you."?
GUMMINT
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou haven't refuted it yet, previously your "rebuttal"(?) consisted of saying two words.
How many more times do I have to refute this? You can apply this exact same argument to taxes in general. Now, who would pay taxes if it was voluntary?
"Game theory"
This has been soundly shown up as BS. Game theory is where a particular scenario is set up with particular criteria shaped to give a particular answer.