Political discussion, including, but not limited to, the Iraq war and Bush II

[slwiser]

By what percent would taxes have to be raised in order for there to be socialized health care? Is there even such a number?

There is not enough money that could provide what would be needed.

People look toward socialize government health care have a ideal of man that is not founded in reality and experience. It is an ideal of man that he inherently has a higher standard of personal behavior that is not represented by reality.

Back when I grew up (50s and 60s) people did not go without. Doctors provided services and those that could paid. That was the way it was. The ideal that government can come in and essentially enhanced this is false. But is does sound good and is what is hoped for but never experienced.

When government steps in people step back. That is just the way it is. But when government has programs many people figure out how to use those programs to line their own pockets. More programs get developed to police those programs.

While hoping for the "ideal man" to reveal himself with socialize government programs hoping to police and provide for what used to be done under what was called morality and charity now more and more of those that are not "ideal men" take more money to themselves. Then government needs more money to feed programs while having to lower standards of care for what does finally get down to the people. I have just describe our present system in some manner that is semi-socialize. A pure socialize system can only be worst.

At least today we have competing interest (doctors and patiences vs. insurance and government and lawyers having interest in both sides) that work toward providing some level of civilized care.

If government came in and established one system we would have one level of care and it would be ugly.

If I remember correctly under Hillary's 90s plan I could not even move across the country if the place I have a job offer could not fit me into the local health care system. It would become illegal for doctors to provide off the books care. The doctor and patience with money would become criminals if care was given.

There is a great new book on the New York best seller list called Liberal Fascism.

This would provide some insight into the forces behind the move to socialize national health care.

[hungrych]

OK I have tried to avoid this thread, but the author of that book was on the Daily Show and clearly had no fucking idea what he was talking about; I would really try to avoid citing something like that... he claims that organic food is Fascist!

[aerius]

There is not enough money that could provide what would be needed.

Maybe you'd like to explain why Canada successfully runs a socialized healthcare system and furthermore, has had a budget surplus for the last decade.

[Chekhonte]

The vast majority of americans pay for insurance that offers them coverage on most ailments. Insurance companies are making profit and providing coverage. How is it that there isn't enough money?

[humanflyz]

Why does everyone assume that universal health care can only be accomplished through a governmental bureaucracy? A plausible alternative could be give people direct cash payments so that they could afford to enter the health care insurance market.

This is a genuine question to all the libertarians in the thread, not meant to provoke or ridicule: Do you guys reject any and all notions of distributive justice?

I'm just curious.

[Dusty Chalk]

So to put it bluntly, it's my goddamn money, and fuck everyone else but me.

What's wrong with that? Phrased a bit crudely, but ... you know ... it's not like anyone gets to dictate what headphones you buy, how is this any different?

[Nenso]

I think Obama's site is way better than Hillary's.

See for yourself!

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

http://hillaryclinton.com/

At first I didn't really care about American politics but I decided to take a look and see if I could learn something. Obama's site turned out to be much easier to navigate in and more comfortable for the eyes. I could easily find out what Obama clearly stood for while I had no clue what Hillary wanted to do without reading a huge block of text.

Disclaimer: I am in no way connected to either politicians or am I trying to promote them. I just found it quite interesting.

[ojnihs]

I think Obama's site is way better than Hillary's.

See for yourself!

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

http://hillaryclinton.com/

At first I didn't really care about American politics but I decided to take a look and see if I could learn something. Obama's site turned out to be much easier to navigate in and more comfortable for the eyes. I could easily find out what Obama clearly stood for while I had no clue what Hillary wanted to do without reading a huge block of text.

Disclaimer: I am in no way connected to either politicians or am I trying to promote them. I just found it quite interesting.

i'm sorry, but the hell does that have to do with the current line of discussion that this thread is taking?

[grawk]

Disclaimer: I am in no way connected to either politicians or am I trying to promote them. I just found it quite interesting.

This is why people want you to go the fuck away. You don't care about the discussion, you're not even on topic. You just want attention. Go back to 4chan.

[Jon L]

Do you guys reject any and all notions of distributive justice?

This is not really a specific enough question. Distributive justice exists, period. What manner of distribution of what to whom to satisfy what definition of "justice" is what people disagree about. For example, a system where you get more when you work harder and more efficiently is employing one variant of distributive justice.

[grawk]

I believe that there should be a safety net. People should get a reasonable level of healthcare. Right now, that's provided by the hospitals. Most hospitals write off millions of dollars in care for people who can't afford the help they get.

I don't think people should get all their healthcare for free. Or even most. How people live affects their health. The option to pay for better care should always be available, and if we make it unavailable in this country, people will go elsewhere for it. See the canadian example. People who can afford to go to the US for their healthcare do. Profit is one of the incentives to better service and advances in treatments.

You don't have an inalienable right to be free from disease and injury. If you do drugs, and get hepatitis, I shouldn't have to pay for you to get a transplant. So if it's accepted that there are things that should be covered and some that shouldn't, then as a society, we need to determine where that threshhold is.

Right now in the US, people under a certain income are covered by medicaid. So most of the people who aren't covered by any insurance have chosen not to have insurance in order to have money elsewhere. That leaves illegal immigrants. Do we really want to set up a system where we treat anyone who comes into this country for any problems they might have, whether or not they're here legally?

[aerius]

Why does everyone assume that universal health care can only be accomplished through a governmental bureaucracy? A plausible alternative could be give people direct cash payments so that they could afford to enter the health care insurance market.

Contrary to the claims of liberatarians and republicans, private insurance is actually less efficient. As I pointed out earlier, private insurance companies have to make a profit, pay out dividends, and meet the income expectations of their shareholders. This all results in money being diverted away from providing healthcare services. Furthermore, a national system can realize large economy of scale savings, it's pool of customers is effectively the entire country's population, whereas private companies have a much smaller pool and can't have the same savings. Bottom line, the private enterprise model, no matter how it's run isn't as efficient as single national system.

[grawk]

Contrary to the claims of liberatarians and republicans, private insurance is actually less efficient. As I pointed out earlier, private insurance companies have to make a profit, pay out dividends, and meet the income expectations of their shareholders. This all results in money being diverted away from providing healthcare services. Furthermore, a national system can realize large economy of scale savings, it's pool of customers is effectively the entire country's population, whereas private companies have a much smaller pool and can't have the same savings. Bottom line, the private enterprise model, no matter how it's run isn't as efficient as single national system.

I'd love to see an example of something done by the government being more efficient than something done by private enterprise. Governments can't even handle getting people a driver's license efficiently.

[aardvark baguette]

I'd love to see an example of something done by the government being more efficient than something done by private enterprise. Governments can't even handle getting people a driver's license efficiently.

I agree.

I want to add 2 words:

1. FIMA

2. Superdome

[saint.panda]

Government isn't necessarily bad when it comes to public goods. Many public economists explain, supported by studies, how the provision of public goods is more efficient when the government provides it than if the individual consumer were to try to maximise their benefit each on their own. Some game theory combined with basic economic theory. Further, in the case of health care, it also shows in the US that because health care is not mandatory, young and healthy people gamble against it, thereby driving up premiums for the others, which then increases the number of insured people again. Adverse selection, a most popular line of research in business studies. There's a reason why the number of uninsured has been increasing continuously in the US over the years. One could argue that "why should I forced into health insurance", but just by not being in health insurance, ones makes it more expensive for everyone else.

I'm all for injecting more competition and market principles when it comes to spending health care money - I think that's where most of the money is wasted - but for raising health care money, mandatory universal health care looks like the best option from an efficiency point of view. Albeit nor perfect, it simply works in Europe and apparently Canada, too. The level of insurance coverage need only be very basic and people can still upgrade their insurance coverage if they want but a basic level should be mandatory for all (I believe the British do it this way, mandatory universal health insurance plus private insurers). Raising money from taxation also looks like a better option than social security, which obviously doesn't work so well in Germany.

[grawk]

Government isn't necessarily bad when it comes to public goods.

Government isn't necessarily bad in theory, only in practice.

[aardvark baguette]

Further, in the case of health care, it also shows in the US that because health care is not mandatory, young and healthy people gamble against it, thereby driving up premiums for the others, which then increases the number of insured people again.

I don't fully grasp this; how do young people opting out increase the total number of insured people? Are you saying that more people decide to get insured after the rates increase?

Not arguing with you, I just dont quite get what your saying.

(points to avatar's sig)

[Spiug31]

The level of insurance coverage need only be very basic and people can still upgrade their insurance coverage if they want but a basic level should be mandatory for all (I believe the British do it this way, mandatory universal health insurance plus private insurers).

Yup, universal health care via taxes, a standard charge for getting a prescription (though this varies by country within the UK) and the option of paying for private healthcare if you want quicker treatment times or treatments not offered on the NHS.

Private healthcare can be bought by the individual or by companies that provide their employees with it as a benefit. The vast majority of people in the UK rely upon the NHS.

[grawk]

I don't fully grasp this; how do young people opting out increase the total number of insured people? Are you saying that more people decide to get insured after the rates increase?

Not arguing with you, I just dont quite get what your saying.

(points to avatar's sig)

He's saying that it's not fair that the healthy young people don't subsidize the cost for unhealthy old people by contributing without using the services.

[aardvark baguette]

He's saying that it's not fair that the healthy young people don't subsidize the cost for unhealthy old people by contributing without using the services.

ah.

In that case, I take back the part about not arguing

[saint.panda]

Government isn't necessarily bad in theory, only in practice.

I agree but in practice I try to evaluate things case by case, and in this case it seems to work or not as in the US.

I don't fully grasp this; how do young people opting out increase the total number of insured people? Are you saying that more people decide to get insured after the rates increase?

Not arguing with you, I just dont quite get what your saying.

(points to avatar's sig)

For one, hospitals are forced to help anyone who arrives in the emergency room. Since those without insurance coverage usually cannot pay for that care, the bill is passed on to everyone else, driving up premiums. Higher premiums in turn increase the ranks of the uninsured. Secondly, if I am young and usually healthy, I would think twice about paying for health insurance even though I might need it later on in my life. However, if only the elderly and sickly pay for health insurance, they are the only ones that need to insured, and that will make premiums very high because these people obviously are going to need medical care more often. This, again, increases the ranks of the insured because premiums are expensive and people think "why should I pay so much premium if I'm not that often sick". So now, only the very sick and very elderly and still in health insurance (exaggerated to make my point). And so on. In theory less and less people will opt out of health insurance and premiums will go up more and more. The data in the US substantiates this prediction.

[saint.panda]

Also, most of Americans' health-care bills end up being met by the government anyways due to tax subsidies in the employer-based system.

[n_maher]

I want to add 2 words:

1. FIMA

2. Superdome

I think you mean FEMA. I have no idea what FIMA would have to do with the Superdome.

[aerius]

I'd love to see an example of something done by the government being more efficient than something done by private enterprise. Governments can't even handle getting people a driver's license efficiently.

Suck it down, suck it down hard

Administrative costs of the Canadian government run healthcare system is less than 1/3 that of the privatized US system. Our government run system is over 3 times as efficient as your private enterprise insurance system.

[ojnihs]

Our government run system is over 3 times as efficient as your private enterprise insurance system.

define efficient. i don't see how waiting months and months for a simple surgery is efficient.