Socialized healthcare

[Bono]

The main problem with this bullsh**t debate is that too many people think of healthcare as an industry whose main purpose is to provide profit to those who facilitate the technologies in the field instead of thinking of it as an industry used to sustain life.

The purpose of every industry in America is to make a profit. If they don't make a profit they go out of business. Even in a socialist system they at least have to break even. But the advantage with capitalism is that competition forces innovative means of improving the product and reducing the cost. The PC you're sitting at now is a classic example of that process. My first PC, purchased 15 years ago, cost $2000. The second one, purchased about 7 years ago, cost $1400 and it was bigger, better, faster and had more features. The one I own now cost about $700 two years ago and it is way better in all respects than the previous  two. The manufacturers didn't make these improvements because they like me, or for the benefit of mankind. They did it to make a profit by staying  ahead of the competition. But even though their motivation was greed, the end result was indeed a benefit to mankind. Thats the beauty of  a competitive free market.

So, you think that the most innovative and most effective healthcare technologies should be given to those who can afford it. Going with your "free market" idea, if a new drug or technology came out that cured Cancer, people would have to wait for the price to drop in order to afford the drug or technology. That makes sense. You can't compare healthcare to material things like PC's. That's just cold man.

You can always get it free, and before the rich by participating on a trail. But even so, who had VCRs in the beggining?Only the rich. Now VCR is oudated, after becoming commonplace. That's how things work, the rich first get it, and as the money they fue into it allows the lowering of costs, it gets cheaper and widely availeble.

[opebo]

Nowadays, I'm married and have a child, and I reckon  I spend about 9% of my gross income, additively, on premiums, bills, doctors, pills, etc.  I get excellent healthcare.

Are you saying you buy this on the open market or get it through the college you work for?  Because if it is the latter, realize that your situation is atypical for most American workers.

[TheresNoMoney]

Nowadays, I'm married and have a child, and I reckon  I spend about 9% of my gross income, additively, on premiums, bills, doctors, pills, etc.  I get excellent healthcare.  If you offer a plan whereby I could get the same quality healthcare for 15% of my gross income rather than 9%, I'd say go screw.  If you offered a healthcare plan whereby I would still only spend 9% of my gross income, but the quality would be worse, I'd still say go screw.  And these, frankly, are the two plans being bandied about by the socialized healthcare people. 

Actually, a universal, single-payer health insurance system would only cost about 7-8% of gross incomes. It could be set up so that the individual/employee pays 2-3% and the employer/self-employed pay the other 5-6%.

This system would cost less for about 90% of Americans. It would save about $300 billion a year. It would do wonders for the health of American citizens and the growth of our economy.

[Bono]

Nowadays, I'm married and have a child, and I reckon  I spend about 9% of my gross income, additively, on premiums, bills, doctors, pills, etc.  I get excellent healthcare.  If you offer a plan whereby I could get the same quality healthcare for 15% of my gross income rather than 9%, I'd say go screw.  If you offered a healthcare plan whereby I would still only spend 9% of my gross income, but the quality would be worse, I'd still say go screw.  And these, frankly, are the two plans being bandied about by the socialized healthcare people. 

Actually, a universal, single-payer health insurance system would only cost about 7-8% of gross incomes. It could be set up so that the individual/employee pays 2-3% and the employer/self-employed pay the other 5-6%.

This system would cost less for about 90% of Americans. It would save about $300 billion a year. It would do wonders for the health of American citizens and the growth of our economy.

It would also do wodners for the quality of the service!!!!!!!111111111

[Filuwaúrdjan]

about 14% of our GDP on health care.

It's about half that in the U.K (about as "socialized" as you can get) IIRC

[TheresNoMoney]

It would also do wodners for the quality of the service!!!!!!!111111111

Funny how all the countries with universal health care have longer life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates.

[angus]

opebo, I pay a premium to a company which has won the bid for a state contract.  that's correct.  yes, I realize that one is pretty much at the mercy of one's company in that regard, and that the companies for which I have worked and the situations which I have sought, have, by and large, had excellent benefits including lots of paid vacation and decent medical insurance.  I regard this as a free world, and no one told me to avoid the private sector.  I realize if I were working in the private sector I'd have a lot more money, but I'd also have much less vacation time and probably have to underwrite my family's health bills myself.  We all make our own beds, my friend.  I don't hold society responsible for my decisions.  At the time I accepted this position I knew insurance would be an issue.  Just as before I knew it wasn't.  You always hear about "41 million Americans without health insurance" but you rarely get to hear about how many chose it to be that way.  I know I did.  Honestly, when you're a 30 year old man with no wife and no children, you'd rather have that hundred dollars or so in your pocket than making some fatcat attorneys richer.  Look, what this comes down to is individual responsibility.  My guess is that if you weren't so paranoid about some Theocratic nightmare you created in your mind, then you'd not have any problem with Individual Responsibility either.  It is currently convenient for you to feign interest in the Working Man.  Fine.  But I'll not apologize for the decisions I have made, nor will I expect any god or government to deliver me from any evil.  The only evils which exist are those I create.  At the moment I'm solvent, my wife and child are healthy, and I'm about to embark on a 3.5-month paid vacation.  No one owes me anything, and I owe no one anything.  If I or my family need medical attention, I'll see to it that they get it, and I really don't want to empower my government with such authority.  I suppose I very much agree with Benjamin Franklin on these matters.   

Al, I think I'd read that before.  While I don't agree, in principle, that it's "fair" that some broken down old lady who's scraping by should have to pay for some rich physician's Lexus, I do think that Freedom trumps Fairness.  You see, that's the cultural difference we have discussed many times before.  (e.g., Freedom the highest american "value")  Anyway, so yes I understand the price of freedom, and I'm okay with it.  And on a specific note, mine's about half that too.  and I'm okay with that too.  But I can choose for it to be more, or less.  That's the beauty of the private system.  I don't expect a non-American to understand that, and I'm certainly not the sort of Republican who wishes to enforce my value system on anyone else, as you well know, but I do think you should recognize that "fairness" takes a back seat to Freedom (or, what Port Arthur, Texas native and waste-of-space Janis Joplin called, "nothin' Left to lose.")

Scoonie, you are right.  I'm not taking the side of doctors, who don't deserve any more that the rest of us to be rich.  But I'll certainly defend their right to amass as much wealth as society is willing to give them.  I'm not saying I wouldn't want a system that would ensure that only those who are really interested in medicine went to medical school, as is the case for example in England, rather than those who want big houses going to medical schools, as is the case in the USA.  I walked the length of the Inca Trail with two European physicians, decent folks, who had all sorts of interesting things to say as they smoked my weed and snorted my coke (see, I can be rather socialistic when the opportunity presents itself)  I just don't need socialism forced down my throat.  Sharing my drugs with a nice physician from Berlin who has some common interests and who is too poor to afford his own coke is one thing.  Telling me I have to buy some jackass a nose job is another thing entirely.  Here's the thing, you can have a health plan and put whatever numbers you want into it.  I have read these.  I have supported socialized medicine most of my life.  Then one day it occurred to me that I was a twenty-something man with no need for it, but I could use the extra (2%, 10%, 20%, doesn't matter, take your pick) that would come out of my paycheck.  I'd wonder about how I felt about it if I did have medical bills.  Well, I do now.  Boy do I ever?  Know what my son cost?  Just the birth alone was, like, eleven thousand dollars or so.  So we sat down and figured out exactly what I'd spend over a twelve month period on premiums, pills, you name it.  About 9% of my gross income.  Yes, I'm aware that lowball estimates put Socialized healthcare at that level as well.  But I'm also aware that we get pretty good care. 

Here's a clue:  I was once driving in Canada in the summer of 1998 and I saw a huge billboard that advertised for a big prestigious hospital in Toronto.  The sign said:  MRI, coming in 1999.  Coming in 1999?!   Really.  need I elaborate?  I think you get the point.  Yes, you can promise a healthcare system for a fraction of the cost we're spending today.  I have absolutely no doubt about that.

[David S]

Nowadays, I'm married and have a child, and I reckon  I spend about 9% of my gross income, additively, on premiums, bills, doctors, pills, etc.  I get excellent healthcare.  If you offer a plan whereby I could get the same quality healthcare for 15% of my gross income rather than 9%, I'd say go screw.  If you offered a healthcare plan whereby I would still only spend 9% of my gross income, but the quality would be worse, I'd still say go screw.  And these, frankly, are the two plans being bandied about by the socialized healthcare people. 

Actually, a universal, single-payer health insurance system would only cost about 7-8% of gross incomes. It could be set up so that the individual/employee pays 2-3% and the employer/self-employed pay the other 5-6%.

This system would cost less for about 90% of Americans. It would save about $300 billion a year. It would do wonders for the health of American citizens and the growth of our economy.

Where did you get those figures? For 2004, Medicare expenditures per enrollee were $6800 and for Medicaid the number was $5300. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/researchers/pubs/datacompendium/2003/03pg4.pdf And Medicare only covers a little over half of the expenses per enrollee.

If you use the lower figure of $5300 per person the cost for the whole country would be $5300 x 295 million people = $1.56 Trillion. Thats over 15% of the national income.

[TheresNoMoney]

[Where did you get those figures? For 2004, Medicare expenditures per enrollee were $6800 and for Medicaid the number was $5300.[

You're not taking into account the $300 billion or so dollars per year saved on administrative/paperwork/actuarial costs. You're not taking into account the amount of future costs we'd save through prevention of catostrophic illnesses. You're not taking into account the billions we'd save on bulk purchases/negotiation of prescription drugs. You're not taking into account the cost ceilings we could put on various medical procedures.

Every study I've read says we can do this for between 7%-8% of gross incomes.

The system will be reformed and  hundreds of billions of dollars would be saved each year.

[John Dibble]

It would also do wodners for the quality of the service!!!!!!!111111111

Funny how all the countries with universal health care have longer life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates.

This argument is easily refuted, and has been in recent debates on this subject in this forum.

http://www.debate-central.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf

See #4:

"General life expectancy rates tell us almost nothing about the efficacy of health care systems, because, throughout the developed world, there is very little correlation between health care spending and general life expectancy – either among or within countries. While a good health care system may, by intervention, extend the life of a small percentage of a population, it has very little to do with the average life span of the whole population. In fact, the number of years a person will live is primarily a result of genetic and social factors, including lifestyle, environment and education.84 The American population is a mixture of ethnic groups with strikingly different live expected life spans:


In 1999, the life expectancy for a white, non-Hispanic man was 74.7 years, compared to 68.4 years for a Black man, 72.9 years for an American Indian man, 80.9 years for an Asian man and 77.2 for a Hispanic man. 85

That same year, the life expectancy for a white, non-Hispanic woman was 80.1 years, compared to 75.1 years for a Black woman, 82 years for an American Indian woman, 86.5 years for an Asian woman and 83.7 for a Hispanic woman.86

The life expectancy rate for the United States as a whole, 74.1, is therefore a composite of the widely differing rates for these different racial and ethnic groups. Not surprisingly, white Americans have life expectancy rates (74.7 years for men and 80.1 for women) that are similar to the rates for Western Europe (75 years for men and 81 years for women).87 The differences that exist between the expected life spans of groups in the United States cannot be explained by differences in access to health care. Take the case of Japanese-Americans. At 78.6 years, Japan has the longest life expectancy of any industrialized country – about three years longer than that found in the United States. If the health care system were the cause of shorter life spans in the United States, one would not expect a Japanese-American to live as long as their counterparts living in Japan. But they do.88 As a percentage of the total population, the United States has historically had a larger immigrant population and a larger refugee population than any other developed country.89 With a few exceptions, such as the Japanese, immigrant groups tend to have poorer health and shorter life spans than the native U.S. population, and therefore have caused the composite national rate to decrease."

It also says stuff about the infant mortality rates.

Also of interest:

"For premature babies, for children born with spina bifida or for people who have cancer, a brain tumor, heart disease, chronic renal failure or almost any other serious illness, the chances of survival are best in the United States, where modern medical technology is most likely to be available and accessible. Take prostate cancer for example. In the United States, the male mortality rate for prostate cancer is slightly lower than in most other OECD countries, even though the incidence is apparently much greater. Similarly, although the incidence of breast cancer is relatively high in the United States (arguably because of lifestyle and diet), the proportion of women who die from breast cancer is among the lowest of any industrial country."

[Bono]

It would also do wodners for the quality of the service!!!!!!!111111111

Funny how all the countries with universal health care have longer life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates.

Us life expectancy is 77 years. Portugal's is 75.
But of course, life expaectancy is dependent on a much greater number of variables, like died, environment quality, stress, etc.

On a final note, if you got to see our hospitals you'd change your mind about the socialized health care scheme in no time.

[opebo]

I regard this as a free world, and no one told me to avoid the private sector.  I realize if I were working in the private sector I'd have a lot more money, but I'd also have much less vacation time and probably have to underwrite my family's health bills myself.  We all make our own beds, my friend.  I don't hold society responsible for my decisions.

These 'choices' you have were the result of societal factors - mainly the economic class into which you were born, and the education provided you partially by your parents financial situation and no doubt partially by the redistributionist State.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of these people only 'choose' to do without health insurance and keep the money instead because their rates of pay are exceedingly low and in most cases in decline from the more egalitarian hayday of the American economy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that individual responsibility is mostly a fantasy.  Working class hubris, or Horatio Alger nonsense peddled by the permanent owning class. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not so much that I care for him, as that I am irritated by his hubris.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I think you're underestimating a lot of factors outside your own control.

[angus]

It would also do wodners for the quality of the service!!!!!!!111111111

Funny how all the countries with universal health care have longer life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates.

Us life expectancy is 77 years. Portugal's is 75.
But of course, life expaectancy is dependent on a much greater number of variables, like died, environment quality, stress, etc.

On a final note, if you got to see our hospitals you'd change your mind about the socialized health care scheme in no time.

Japan's is 81. 

and yes we all know how irrelevant those stats are.  I'm surprised either you or Dibble would give the bastards the satisfaction of a reply.  Unless you really think they're so stupid as to think it's a relevant stat.  I actually give them a tad more credit than that.  But I'm naive like that.

opebo, I'm sleepy.  I'm sure that's all interesting and deserves a response.  I see the word hubris.  Well, I do appreciate the time you took to read my rant.  I'll have to respond at another time when I'm not so tired.   Peace.

[David S]

[Where did you get those figures? For 2004, Medicare expenditures per enrollee were $6800 and for Medicaid the number was $5300.[

You're not taking into account the $300 billion or so dollars per year saved on administrative/paperwork/actuarial costs. You're not taking into account the amount of future costs we'd save through prevention of catostrophic illnesses. You're not taking into account the billions we'd save on bulk purchases/negotiation of prescription drugs. You're not taking into account the cost ceilings we could put on various medical procedures.

Every study I've read says we can do this for between 7%-8% of gross incomes.

The system will be reformed and  hundreds of billions of dollars would be saved each year.

OK lets try this another way:
The government run programs Medicare and Medicaid currently cost $284.1 billion and $287.6 billion respectively. The total is $571.6 billion. Those two programs  provide healthcare for 96.1 million people.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/researchers/pubs/datacompendium/2003/03pg4.pdf  The $571 billion represents 5.4% of the total US income which is $10.59 trillion. http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=53&FirstYear=2004&LastYear=2005&Freq=Qtr

If I ratio the cost up to cover the entire population of 293,655,404 people it comes to $1.74 trillion which represents 16% of the US income.

Thats double what you predict. And it doesn't even take into account the fact that Medicare does not cover the entire cost of healthcare for enrollees.

Now I've shown you my numbers all of which are based on  government data and all of the links are included. Check the data yourself and do the math. Or show me your data.

[beowulf]

I wouldn't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare.

[beowulf]

I don't really care what will happen to the costs. What's important is that (A) there needs to be competition, and (B) taxes shouldn't go up, nor should government get involved.

This may be an extremely idiotic question, but is there any way you can maintain that much needed competition without forcing families into debt with outrageous hospital bills?

I'm with J.R. Brown there.

[John Dibble]

I don't really care what will happen to the costs. What's important is that (A) there needs to be competition, and (B) taxes shouldn't go up, nor should government get involved.

This may be an extremely idiotic question, but is there any way you can maintain that much needed competition without forcing families into debt with outrageous hospital bills?

I'm with J.R. Brown there.

As to answering the question - as I've said, we don't really have a competetive free market as far as healthcare goes. The government interferes quite a bit, actually. Heck, I gaurantee you that Medicare and Medicaid both affect the price of healthcare.