Health Care for Everyone

[Danoff]

Yeah, but that can only be because you have both systems, so that's a very moot point.

So the situation somehow magically improves if you outlaw private health care??

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Health care is much more efficiently provided by the free market (government never reduces total cost).

Chileans would argue otherwise. Free-market reforms led to the elimination of universal health care. Not surprisingly there was a typhoid fever epidemic shortly after... not everyone was able to afford the healthcare. Why? Well the poverty rate doubled from 20% to 41% as a result of other free market reforms.

So the situation somehow magically improves if you outlaw private health care??

Of course not. Total privatization wouldn't improve it either.

 

[Famine]

There's two kittens. One is healthy. One is poorly. The poorly one dies. Has the overall average condition of kitten health improved? Yes.

There's two health industries. One is privately funded and provides good health care. One is funded by tax and provides inadequate health care, despite getting more money. The tax-funded one is axed. Has the overall average quality of health care improved? And there's surplus cash floating around too!

 

[Arwin]

Look. I don’t see what difference it makes how much one person pays for their private health insurance and how people would guess where that price would go if there were no government run health insurance.

That's because you never venture to look farther than your nose. If you'd compare the U.S. to, say, France, you'd know better. But I know you hate France. France is the source of all evil. No good can ever come from France.

The bottom line is this. I earn my money. You have no right to my money. I don’t care if everyone but me votes to make a law that says Daniel’s money has to go to everyone else – that doesn’t mean you’re not violating my rights. I don’t care if you have a parliamentary system, or a democracy or a dictatorship – my property is owned by ME . I produced the money I make, and I own it.

The bottom line is this. If you ever manage to convince your fellow countrymen that charity is much better than tax, all power to you. If you manage to make that cover fire department, police, justice system, roads and so on, more efficiently than a government contracting this out to private companies using tax-money, great! For one thing, it would mean that people would actually start to become smart enough to know where the money should go to. If they then would ever agree enough to get anything done, wow. You'd have put me in my place bigtime.

Anything else is theft. Arwin, what do you say to this? How can you confront this reasoning?

As above. I've had discussions with people dreaming of a land where people voluntarily pay for certain things, but to be honest I think that a country like The Netherlands is As Good as it Gets in that respect, because politics are fairly dynamic.

An individual, by himself, is pointless. A voluntary tax system where you pay the amount of money you like for the service you happen to care for, is not economically feasible. If you can come up with calculations that prove otherwise, that prove an economy can be that dynamic without being a total anarchy, you may be the new Milton Keynes. Good luck.

The only things taxes should be used for are things that the market can’t provide -things like military (and military research), police and emergency services. Health care is much more efficiently provided by the free market (government never reduces total cost).

Repeat whatever you like, but I've given you the example of countries like the Netherlands and France that do manage the costs a lot better than your privatised system does in the U.S. You cannot counter this argument, because the numbers don't lie.

Without police and a military and prisons and courts, we would have no civilization - but without health care we would have a civilization (albeit the average life span would be like 35 years or so).

Some would argue that you would not have a civilization without healthcare. Surely the point is moot. The police is more important than the hospital? I doubt that. What about education? Simple fact is, all these are pillars of society, and civilisation is but a recognition of the benefit of working together towards a common goal. Taking care of the well-being of a nation is definitely part of that - you protect the economic power of your nation, the work-force are an asset that if you take them out through economic hardship, damages the investment put into it by society (providing security, justice, education and so on).

I think socialised insurance is the way to go. Private companies provide it and pay for it, the government just sets minimum standards to be guaranteed for a minimum price. I've described this before in this thread, it works, using the best parts of a free economy with mild government regulation to create a system that protects everyone and is cheaper for everyone. It is clear, from the state of affairs in the U.S., that large companies otherwise have to much power and too little self-control to deal with that power responsibly. But it is also clear that if you can get market forces into the equation, you can create a situation which strives towards cost reductions naturally. Best of both worlds.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

There's two kittens. One is healthy. One is poorly. The poorly one dies. Has the overall average condition of kitten health improved? Yes.

*gasp* Population control?!

There's two health industries. One is privately funded and provides good health care.

To those who afford it -- who are usually more healthy anyway.

One is funded by tax and provides inadequate health care, despite getting more money. The tax-funded one is axed. Has the overall average quality of health care improved? And there's surplus cash floating around too!

That's what was suppose to happen in Chile. Did it?

 

[JacktheHat]

There's two health industries. One is privately funded and was designed to make a profit. One is funded by tax and was designed to provide health care for everybody.


One is axed and people without health insurance receive inadequate help. Has the overall average of health care improved? No, but there is lots of lovely cash floating around to line investors pockets.

 

[Arwin]

There's two kittens. One is healthy. One is poorly. The poorly one dies. Has the overall average condition of kitten health improved? Yes.

Here's two insurance companies. One only covers the healthy kitten. One is forced to cover all kittens, so ends up with both healthy and poor kittens. Does the first one make more money? Yes. Is it therefore able to provide better service? Yes.

Now here's one insurance company. He has two customers who apply for an insurance. One is healthy, one is poorly. The same insurance company covers them both. Does the healthy one pay for the poorly one? Yes.

Now here's one insurance company. He has two customers who apply for an insurance. One is healthy, one is poorly. He decides not to cover the poorly one. Does he make more money? Yes.

Etc.

[EDIT: Jack said it better]

There's two health industries. One is privately funded and provides good health care. One is funded by tax and provides inadequate health care, despite getting more money. The tax-funded one is axed. Has the overall average quality of health care improved? And there's surplus cash floating around too!

Socialised insurance. If you understood the words, knew what it meant, you wouldn't be wasting so many virtual parking space and making me feel I'm wasting it on you.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

There's two health industries. One is privately funded and was designed to make a profit. One is funded by tax and was designed to provide health care for everybody.


One is axed and people without health insurance receive inadequate help. Has the overall average of health care improved? No, but there is lots of lovely cash floating around to line investors pockets.

I'm a socially conscious investor. I'm a walking contradiction...

Anyway, that is correct. Can anyone name a country (other than Chile of course) that has/had a totally private healthcare system that actually worked?

 

[ledhed]

First off I like my system of government just fine thank you . A parlimental system with a coalition in the US would not work nearly as well . It may work as a state government or if our country was not formed by United States. The second thing is, why have nationalised health care ? The government could'nt find its ass with both hands as it is ..you want to put a commitee in charge of health care ? No wonder it sucks. In the US , a government subsidised health insurance system that worked along with the private sector could insure that all Americans had access to affordable health care . We already have medacare and welfare and medicade. whats needed is a way to get health insurance into the hands of those that are underemployed or employed for friggin companys that do not even offer health insurance, or due to sickness or injury , can not work and the insurance runs out. The system is there , it needs to be fixed. national health insurance could be paid for the same way Social security ..unemployment insurance and disability insurarance are. no American should need to worry about health care . Not when we are able to destroy the world 30 times over build bombers that cost 1.5 billion a copy and fly missions to mars and land men on the moon . Its a question of priority .

 

[JacktheHat]

First off I like my system of government just fine thank you . parlimental system with a coalition in the US would not work nearly as well . It may work as a state government or if our country was not formed by United States. the second thing is why have nationalised health care ? the government could'nt find its ass with both hands as it is ..you want to put a commitee in charge of health care ? No wonder it sucks. In the US a government subsides health insurance system that worked along with the private sector could insure that all Americans had access to affordable health care . We already have medacre and welfare and medicade. whats needed is a way to get health insurance into the hands that are underemployed or employed for friggin companys that do not even offer health insurance. or do to sickness or injury can not work and the insurance runs out. The system is there it needs to be fixed. national health insurance could be paid for the same way Social security ..unemployment insurance and disability insurarance are. no American should need to worry about health care . Not when we are able to destroy the world 30 times over and fly missions to mars and land men on the moon . Its a question of priority .

In the UK we pay National Insurance, alongside tax, from our wages which goes, in part, to fund the good ol' NHS.

 

[Famine]

To those who afford it -- who are usually more healthy anyway.

I make a below-average wage and afford it easily. Without the drain on my pocket of involuntary contributions, my voluntary contributions - and thus level of cover - would be higher.

Socialised insurance. If you understood the words, knew what it meant, you wouldn't be wasting so many virtual parking space and making me feel I'm wasting it on you.

If you actually answered a direct question rather than answering them with your own questions and ad hominem arguments, it'd be a frickin' miracle.

I understand your words perfectly.

There's two health industries. One is privately funded and was designed to make a profit. One is funded by tax and was designed to provide health care for everybody.


One is axed and people without health insurance receive inadequate help. Has the overall average of health care improved? No, but there is lots of lovely cash floating around to line investors pockets.

Since, obviously, profit and investment are evil and designed to screw everyone else.

If you do not like the product you receive you can decide not to buy that product again. A company set-up purely to make a profit by selling a product which is unsatisfactory will go out of business as people opt against that product for a better one. With a crap, tax-funded product, you cannot opt to not give your money to it, so the same crap product persists.

Saying that people who do not have health insurance make a privatised health care system worse for overall average health care provided is akin to saying that the tax-funded system fails the people who don't bother to go to hospital when they're ill.


Do you earn a wage? Does the income you make mean you are more or less evil than someone who earns less? What about someone who earns more?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I make a below-average wage and afford it easily. Without the drain on my pocket of involuntary contributions, my voluntary contributions - and thus level of cover - would be higher.

Yes... the level of cover would be higher for yourself.

Since, obviously, profit and investment are evil and designed to screw everyone else.

That's not true. If that was the case, I wouldn't be investing...

A company set-up purely to make a profit by selling a product which is unsatisfactory will go out of business as people opt against that product for a better one.

Unless that company is a monopoly... but I won't get into that here.

Saying that people who do not have health insurance make a privatised health care system worse for overall average health care provided is akin to saying that the tax-funded system fails the people who don't bother to go to hospital when they're ill.

Then how would you explain Chile?

...and can you name a country with a totally privatized healthcare system, other than Chile (past or present, perhaps after 1950)?

 

[Famine]

Yes... the level of cover would be higher for yourself.

Yeeeeeees....?

That's not true. If that was the case, I wouldn't be investing...

Ditto. Yet the attitude persists - people making money from healthcare? Devil-worship! As can be seen above.

Unless that company is a monopoly... but I won't get into that here.

Like... a tax-funded monopoly?

Then how would you explain Chile?

General Augusto Pinochet.

Bit of a bastard, I think we can agree.

...and can you name a country with a totally privatized healthcare system, other than Chile (past or present, perhaps after 1950)?

Nope. But then again, there's always someone who SETS a precedent, rather than relies on them.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Yeeeeeees....?

It sounds rather detached... but that's just my opinion.

Like... a tax-funded monopoly?

Or a for-profit monopoly.

General Augusto Pinochet.

Bit of a bastard, I think we can agree.

Yes. I'll agree to that...

However, he was a bastard under the influence of "the Chicago boys".

Nope. But then again, there's always someone who SETS a precedent, rather than relies on them.

Nothing wrong with setting a precedent. However, if it's been tried before...

 

[Famine]

Under effective military dictatorship in, effectively, a third world country...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Under effective military dictatorship in, effectively, a third world country...

Pinochet was a dicator, yes, but that doesn't mean that we don't have anything to learn here.

Clearly, Chile's experience in privatizing social security can tell us nothing about privatizing social security here, because Pinochet was a dictator. Presumably if I were to set up a business in Chile, the laws of supply and demand and perhaps those of gravity wouldn't apply, because Pinochet was a dictator.

And, it's not "third world", it's "developing".

 

[Famine]

Pinochet was a dicator, yes, but that doesn't mean that we don't have anything to learn here.

Clearly, Chile's experience in privatizing social security can tell us nothing about privatizing social security here, because Pinochet was a dictator. Presumably if I were to set up a business in Chile, the laws of supply and demand and perhaps those of gravity wouldn't apply, because Pinochet was a dictator.

For the love of trees (sorry Duke), why is it always black & white with you people.

Of COURSE that example gives others a basis to work upon, but that is no reason to reject it summarily. Oh it didn't work in Chile, it can't work anywhere else like, say, in a country with relatively low unemployment, an electorate, a high level of adult literacy and a stable economy.

The Chilean example gives us ideas of mistakes we can improve upon and good things we needn't change excessively.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

For the love of trees (sorry Duke), why is it always black & white with you people.

You should talk... you're the one that sees no benefits from a universal healthcare system.

Of COURSE that example gives others a basis to work upon, but that is no reason to reject it summarily.

I'm not summarily rejecting the idea of privitization. You are summarily rejecting the idea of a universal healthcare system.

Oh it didn't work in Chile, it can't work anywhere else

Never said that -- but from what I've heard in this thread, no one (except you) seems to want to acknowledge the fact that its been tried before. That's about as "Black & White" as it can get.

like, say, in a country with relatively low unemployment, an electorate, a high level of adult literacy and a stable economy.

So then let's try it. See what happens. 👍

The Chilean example gives us ideas of mistakes we can improve upon and good things we needn't change excessively.

Thanks for at least addressing the issue. Other in favor of privitization flat out ignored it.

 

[Famine]

You should talk... you're the one that sees no benefits from a universal healthcare system.

And I'll remind you that I live with one.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

And I'll remind you that I live with one.

... and because of that fact, neither of us will understand each other.

You see all of the benefits of privitization. I see costs and benefits.

You see all of the costs of universal health care. I see costs and benefits.

 

[Danoff]

... and because of that fact, neither of us will understand each other.

You see all of the benefits of privitization. I see costs and benefits.

You see all of the costs of universal health care. I see costs and benefits.

Yes yes yes, you see the situation much more clearly than do the rest of us morons. Got it.

An individual, by himself, is pointless. A voluntary tax system where you pay the amount of money you like for the service you happen to care for, is not economically feasible. If you can come up with calculations that prove otherwise, that prove an economy can be that dynamic without being a total anarchy, you may be the new Milton Keynes. Good luck.

Where do you get this stuff from Arwin? Who the hell said any of that?? Not me that's for sure.

Repeat whatever you like, but I've given you the example of countries like the Netherlands and France that do manage the costs a lot better than your privatised system does in the U.S. You cannot counter this argument, because the numbers don't lie.

Ah yes. The Netherlands, I know a lot of people here in the US who flee to the netherlands to get better health care - or france.

The bottom line is that the US is the pillar of health care innovation in the world. The cutting-edge procedures and medicines are produced and performed here, not in france.

Why? Supply and demand my friend.

I'm tired of hearing this "The Netherlands, and the UK, and France, and Canada all have way better health care than the US." BY YOUR OWN SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS!!! You think that because fewer people are uninsured that it's necessarily better - look at the quality of service for the money. How many times have a seen the sort of news story where they take some twins who were joined at the head and fly them to the US to be operated on (out of charity?).

...and Brian, back off with the Chile example - it's not the same thing, Chile is a very different place with very different laws and a very different culture. Just because it doesn't work in Chile doesn't mean it was tried properly.

So here was my question:

Anything else is theft. Arwin, what do you say to this? How can you confront this reasoning?

and here was the response (or at least the best one I could fine):

Some would argue that you would not have a civilization without healthcare. Surely the point is moot. The police is more important than the hospital? I doubt that. What about education? Simple fact is, all these are pillars of society, and civilisation is but a recognition of the benefit of working together towards a common goal.

Yes police are more important than the hospital. Education is third in the list. Yes they are all pillars of society and cvilization but that does not mean that they must be publicly funded.

Food is a basic need of society and America has such increadibly cheap food that we actually (and this is stupid) pay farmers to grow less food . You'd think that such a basic need of life would have to be provided publicly - but no, it's provided privately and we have such increadibly low costs and such a huge variety - ah the free market.

Think about what your grocery store would be like if it were run by the government. Picture Russian bread lines or the DMV. Imagine having to fill out a 1060 form for the Department of Food to itemize your need of a loaf of bread - that's government. It gets the job done but slowly and expensively. That's our military, that's our police service (80% paperwork) that's our new drug "approval" process... and you want to make that Healthcare??

Ledhed, can you answer my question about morality? I understand that you care about these people - but nothing is stopping you from voluntarily helping them. What gives you the right to put a gun to my head and take my money and give it to them because YOU think they deserve it more than I do.

 

[ledhed]

I am not saying I or anyone else have a right to put a gun to your head and force you to help people in need . I think you are exagerating to make a point . I said I was in favor of a better system. If and when its gets voted for and implemented and you are still upset out it you can try to get it voted out of existence. the government is taking taxes now for items I feel are not as high a priority as health care . They are taking my money I want it spent differently . I wish things to change. you worry about your own morals I will worry about mine.
I feel national defense and health and education are all equally important. because I feel that way I feel our government has the right and responsibility for it. That means taxes.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

...and Brian, back off with the Chile example - it's not the same thing, Chile is a very different place with very different laws and a very different culture. Just because it doesn't work in Chile doesn't mean it was tried properly.

I guess the laws of supply and demand don't apply there either. After all, it's a very different place, with very different laws, and a very different culture.

...and what do you mean it wasn't tried properly? According to Milton Friedman everything was fine.

Milton Friedman, for example, stated that Pinochet "has supported a fully free-market economy as a matter of principle. Chile is an economic miracle."

 

[Danoff]

I feel national defense and health and education are all equally important.

Perhaps they are, but none are as important as food.

because I feel that way I feel our government has the right and responsibility for it. That means taxes.

This is a leap. Just because it's important doesn't mean governmnet is the best or right way to do it. Also, just because you believe governmnet has the responsibility to do it doesn't mean that I do, so how can you force your idea of government on me?

I said I was in favor of a better system. If and when its gets voted for and implemented and you are still upset out it you can try to get it voted out of existence.

The tyranny of the majority ledhed. The majority should not be able to vote away the rights (including property) of the minority. So what you advocate here is not necessarily moral.

I am not saying I or anyone else have a right to put a gun to your head and force you to help people in need . I think you are exagerating to make a point

That's what happens whne I don't pay my taxes and try not to go to jail - a gun is put to my head. I am being sensational, but I'm doing it because people tend to not think about how extreme a concept like tax is.


edit:

Milton Friedman, for example, stated that Pinochet "has supported a fully free-market economy as a matter of principle. Chile is an economic miracle."

Let's see the rest of his opinion about Chile....

 

[ledhed]

How exactly do you run a democracy without some " tyranny " of the majority ? You could shoot all the liberals ...I guess... But seriously what right do you have not to be taxed for government services ? Is it in the constitution somepalce ? I must have missed it. you win some you lose some . as long as your basic guarantees are respected you play the game ..or run off into the hills and remove yourself from society and run a small revolutionary guerilla band.

 

[Danoff]

How exactly do you run a democracy without some " tyranny " of the majority ?

Very carefully. The result is limited government. You basically give people a lot of freedom and impose very little on them - no more than is required for society to function. Requried things include police, courts, judges, lawyers, representatives, military, military research... these sorts of things. And it should be done through both income and sales taxation (unless the government is small enough to just do a consumptio tax without creating much of a black market).

You just have to be very careful about what government has to do versus what people think is a good idea.

 

[Ev0]

Since it's on topic, here's an article I think everyone will find interesting.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/21/60minutes/main689998.shtml

 

[Arwin]

If you actually answered a direct question rather than answering them with your own questions and ad hominem arguments, it'd be a frickin' miracle.

I understand your words perfectly.

You posed a direct question to me that I haven't answered? Oh? I must have missed something.

Perhaps because you say stuff like that you know the alternatives and everything. I'm willing to bet you don't though, so it might be helpful to give you and danoff another outline (I've given one earlier in this thread) of the Dutch system.

First of all, health insurance is ... *shock* ... provided by private insurance companies. The Dutch system mixes public funding and private funding. Public funding is taken as income tax, and is paid when you work, and a percentage of your income (income-dependent). This basically your social insurance. Any private insurance company in the Netherlands will have to offer basic coverage for a certain price agreed between the government and the insurance company, paid for from these taxes. You are free to add insurance coverage for additional costs outside of the basic package.

Above 32.600 euro, you have to take a private insurance. You are free to choose here what kind of coverage you want, but there is again a basic level that insurance companies are required to provide and for which they cannot refuse customers, so as to prevent people with known illnesses to fall out of the system.

Currently, state hospitals are funded with tax money, and managed from the department of health. But they operate more and more independently, with budgets that have to be sustained by selling their services to the insurance companies. You can see these hospitals more and more as companies in which the government holds all the stock. Privately built hospitals are now free to compete with these on the consumer market.

Not only are health care customers free to choose what careprovider they want, but with the new agreements in the European Union, they are free to do so within Europe. This means that if a private or public hospital in Belgium or Portugal can provide the required care faster, then if the customer desires to go there, the insurance companies will be required to cover this. The insurance companies are not unhappy with this situation - in fact, our insurance companies use health brokerage as a service to win customers with. Certain healthcare is, like the examples in the CBS news article above, often better and cheaper and more available in other countries, and the customer is often willing to make the trade-off between having to travel further from home and having a certain procedure taken place faster. Such a private insurance company could even choose to cover the procedures in Thailand or India as described above, should the patient desire to use it.

I'm just giving a small outline of a much more multi-faceted and complex system (there's a special provision for people with long term afflictions and disabilities, for instance) but I hope you by now understand that socialised insurance is not the same as the NHS, but much more like private insurance. It is, in fact, private insurance, but with guaranteed minimal standards of care. That's the socialised part.

It works. And it is also noteworthy that the European Union has contributed to that.

I'll be glad to answer any questions. A lot of material is available, but so far it's mostly in Dutch.

 

[JacktheHat]

And I'll remind you that I live with one.

And so do I, I also know how the level of service has declined since the introduction of PFI's.

 

[Famine]

False syllogism.

Has the NHS declined because of PFIs, or have PFIs arisen because the NHS was in decline?

It all boils down to choice.

With the NHS you have no choice. You can put up with the standard of treatment or... nothing. That's it. And you MUST pay for it, regardless of your judgment of the standard of treatment. If the standard of treatment is rubbish - and it is - tough. You still have to pay for it. You have no choice to pay for a different service that you judge to be better so there is no market incentive for the poorly-performing company (NHS) to improve their performance so that customers (tax-payers) buy (are taxed for) their product.

And the NHS's "product" is poor despite vastly higher income.

Arwin's parrot-style "socialised insurance" sounds interesting, but still has the flaw that the basic level of cover is provide by being taxed at source. What if I don't WANT any cover at all? I'm still taxed at source for it - so I don't have that choice.