Do you support universal health care?

[AkSaber]

No.  I support freedom.

[A18]

A constitution is written precisely so that a government does not so readily fluctuate with 'the times,' or more precisely, the passions (often irrational) of the present political majority. The objection is not to a particular method of interpreting a constitution, but to the very nature of a constitution itself.

Sounds like a quotation from someone, but, from whom?

Uh, what? The 'quotation' is from me.

[MODU]

A constitution is written precisely so that a government does not so readily fluctuate with 'the times,' or more precisely, the passions (often irrational) of the present political majority. The objection is not to a particular method of interpreting a constitution, but to the very nature of a constitution itself.

Sounds like a quotation from someone, but, from whom?

Uh, what? The 'quotation' is from me.

I don't think you are allowed to quote yourself under Straha's new and improved Constitution. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

A constitution is written precisely so that a government does not so readily fluctuate with 'the times,' or more precisely, the passions (often irrational) of the present political majority. The objection is not to a particular method of interpreting a constitution, but to the very nature of a constitution itself.

Sounds like a quotation from someone, but, from whom?

Uh, what? The 'quotation' is from me.

I don't think you are allowed to quote yourself under Straha's new and improved Constitution. 

My Constittion 2.0 doesn't remove the free speech clause. In fact it strenghens it to prevent things like FCC censorship, mandating censorship of the internet in schools/libraries. You fail.

[Verily]

Yes/Other

"What? But Verily, your economic score says that you're slightly to the right!"

"Universal health care is one of the only high-expenditure government programs that I think is essential to a stable and productive society. If it and increased spending on public education were in place, we wouldn't need drains like social security and welfare and the drive for profit margins within the insurance industry, and we could lower taxes and increase national productivity."

[NDN]

However, it would still result in HUGE increases in government spending and tax increases.

Then how come government's in country's that have some form of "universal" health care spend less money (as a %) than the U.S does? Hey, even Canada (which has an incredibly inefficient system) spends less!

Part of that is that the US currently requires hospitals treat people regardless of ability to pay, thus driving up costs when the uninsured inevitably get hurt or sick. Other countries obviously do not do this and have strict price controls. However, equal access is not much better at all in practice in countries like the UK or Canada, in fact in some respects it's gotten worse over the years (despite repeated government pledges to remedy it). And countries with fully socialized medicine are prone to a variety of ills such as shortages (sometimes caused by rationing), increased waiting times, etc. as I mentioned earlier.

[Bono]

However, it would still result in HUGE increases in government spending and tax increases.

Then how come government's in country's that have some form of "universal" health care spend less money (as a %) than the U.S does? Hey, even Canada (which has an incredibly inefficient system) spends less!

In the United States, government at its various levels now accounts for roughly 45% of health care spending. (And by "now", I mean 2004, the latest year for which OECD data are available. In 2004, of course, the government provided little prescription drug coverage, which means that currently, government coverage is even higher.) The United States spends about 15.3% of total GDP on healthcare. That means that government spending on health care consumes about 7.7% of GDP. Canada spends 9.9% of GDP on healthcare. France spends 10.5% of GDP. What is the magic route by which we are going to cover all the people not currently covered by government insurance for 2.2-2.8% of GDP?

American health spending is higher because of a variety of factors, including greater quality of medicine, absence of rationing (which is rampant in the UK and Canada), greater consumer information and choice, and higher incidence of lifestyle derived health-care problems.

[Nym90]

I most definitely would.

Overall, universal coverage would save the country more money than it would cost it in the long run, especially if one makes even a token attempt to quantify the non-monetary expenses of the current system.

[Person Man]

I really don't understand this debate the government already spends the money required to run a federal health infrastructure. I believe the problem is with morality, corruption, ethics, accountability and universal responsibility. People do not take steps to prevent their health from failing and the suppliers of health are trying to find more ways of tying strings around quarters.

[??????????]

A constitution is written precisely so that a government does not so readily fluctuate with 'the times,' or more precisely, the passions (often irrational) of the present political majority. The objection is not to a particular method of interpreting a constitution, but to the very nature of a constitution itself.

[NDN]

However, it would still result in HUGE increases in government spending and tax increases.

Then how come government's in country's that have some form of "universal" health care spend less money (as a %) than the U.S does? Hey, even Canada (which has an incredibly inefficient system) spends less!

In the United States, government at its various levels now accounts for roughly 45% of health care spending. (And by "now", I mean 2004, the latest year for which OECD data are available. In 2004, of course, the government provided little prescription drug coverage, which means that currently, government coverage is even higher.) The United States spends about 15.3% of total GDP on healthcare. That means that government spending on health care consumes about 7.7% of GDP. Canada spends 9.9% of GDP on healthcare. France spends 10.5% of GDP. What is the magic route by which we are going to cover all the people not currently covered by government insurance for 2.2-2.8% of GDP?

American health spending is higher because of a variety of factors, including greater quality of medicine, absence of rationing (which is rampant in the UK and Canada), greater consumer information and choice, and higher incidence of lifestyle derived health-care problems.

Excellent points Bono. Let's not forget that the US leads the world in medical innovations still, and has high patient satisfaction for exactly the reasons you stated.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is the magic route by which we are going to cover all the people not currently covered by government insurance for 2.2-2.8% of GDP?

I'd always assumed that you are far too intelligent to make an assumption quite that stupid. You are perfectly well aware that the American health industry is comically inefficient (and quite deliberately so), even when compared to the Canadian system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The main reason why it's so much higher is (beyond some very inefficient government programmes) because the health industry screws people financially (as is inevitable in a system dominated by private healthcare; there is (and I've made this point endlessly) no incentive for things to be different). And to assert that there is no "rationing" is wrong. Healthcare is, of course, a finate resource and has to be (and is) rationed under any system. In America it's rationed with money.

[Frodo]

If by 'universal health care' we mean a single-payer system, then absolutely not. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

At a very decentralized level, yes. Or at least some form of provision for any citizen, but I don't have anything against private health care as long as the goverment and the private sector don't entwine each other too much.

[Bono]

What is the magic route by which we are going to cover all the people not currently covered by government insurance for 2.2-2.8% of GDP?

I'd always assumed that you are far too intelligent to make an assumption quite that stupid. You are perfectly well aware that the American health industry is comically inefficient (and quite deliberately so), even when compared to the Canadian system.

About 10% of health insurance premiums go to administrative costs. This greater than in most other countries, but it not a huge amount compared to, say, Germany with 5.7%, and it is certainly not great enough to allow you to avoid my question--even with cutting those administrative cots in half, covering everyone else that is not covered by the government would still greatly exceed 2.2-2.8% of GDP. Also, the American system still has much higher standards of healthcare, a much higher degree of patient choice and no waiting lists. In systems with competing health insurers, there will always be some duplication of effort between the different companies which drives up the administrative costs, but all those companies are all working to meet the needs of patients.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The main reason why it's so much higher is (beyond some very inefficient government programmes) because the health industry screws people financially (as is inevitable in a system dominated by private healthcare; there is (and I've made this point endlessly) no incentive for things to be different). And to assert that there is no "rationing" is wrong. Healthcare is, of course, a finate resource and has to be (and is) rationed under any system. In America it's rationed with money.
[/quote]

And tax based systems don't screw people financially? Also, if the government programs are inefficient now, what makes you think they will magically become efficient once they are extended to the general population?
Your mistake is that tax-financed systems don't produce any sort of equality either--unless it's equality in misery like Canada's monopolist nightmare. Instead, you get organizations like NICE in the NHS denying patients the more modern treatments and dooming them to sub-optimal standards of care, and those who can afford it after the massive taxes required to pay for socialized medicine resort to the private sector, creating the same problem you were trying to avoid.

[??????????]

At a very decentralized level, yes. Or at least some form of provision for any citizen, but I don't have anything against private health care as long as the goverment and the private sector don't entwine each other too much.

That's the problem with the system we have as it stands now. We have way way to much government paperwork involved in health insurance. It didn't go to hell until HMOs came about and prior to the 1980s this country had no problems handling a private healthcare industry, hell in the '70s into the early '80s doctors made house calls!

[Bono]

At a very decentralized level, yes. Or at least some form of provision for any citizen, but I don't have anything against private health care as long as the goverment and the private sector don't entwine each other too much.

That's the problem with the system we have as it stands now. We have way way to much government paperwork involved in health insurance. It didn't go to hell until HMOs came about and prior to the 1980s this country had no problems handling a private healthcare industry, hell in the '70s into the early '80s doctors made house calls!

And HMOs are a creature of the state, that wouldn't exist without the fiscal benefits and other privileges granted to them by the government.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

About 10% of health insurance premiums go to administrative costs. This greater than in most other countries, but it not a huge amount compared to, say, Germany with 5.7%,

10% is more than 5.7%. Was that a typo? If so, I'm not exactly a great fan of the German healthcare system either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you continue to completely miss my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...if you have enough money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...if you have enough money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...but only because the rationing is done on the basis of ability to pay, rather than on need.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they're working to make a profit for their shareholders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only people who make enough money not to be hurt by being screwed financially. Which is, of course, fine by me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never thought that simply extending the existing government programmes to the rest of the population would be a good idea; after all, the problem with them isn't that they are government programmes but that they are badly designed government programmes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perfectly equal, no. (Much) more equal than what exists in the States right now? Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I somehow doubt that everyone in Canada is made miserable by their healthcare system...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Distorting reality to fit in with your view of the world is a very Marxist trait you know.

NICE certainly isn't perfect (and neither is the NHS; or any other healthcare system), but it's problems come more from an obsession with spending as little money as possible (other things as well (including extreme scepticism about the safety of new drugs) but that's the main thing) rather than anything more sinister. And, with a few silly exceptions, it doesn't actually do a bad job.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How much do you know about the NHS, beyond the usual ultra-free-market-propaganda/tabloid-scare-stories?

I realise that personal anecdotes are far from perfect, but I've spent a great deal of the past decade in hospital (several different hospitals I might add) and I've never experienced anything that could be sanely thought of as "sub-optimal standards of care".

[Bono]

About 10% of health insurance premiums go to administrative costs. This greater than in most other countries, but it not a huge amount compared to, say, Germany with 5.7%,

10% is more than 5.7%. Was that a typo? If so, I'm not exactly a great fan of the German healthcare system either.

I meant that it wasn't a huge increase. Sorry if I wasn't clear. And the German system is much better than the UK system, since while not completely market-based, it's a social insurance system that allows for much greater patient choice and more free market elements, with no gatekeepers. I guess that's why you don't like it...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you continue to completely miss my point.[/quote]
Then what is your point? I've already shown that even if administrative costs were reduced to half, the cost of covering everyone else would still exceed those 2.2-2.8% of GDP. Any further savings would have to be done by cuts in medical care, which are the fate of socialized medicine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...if you have enough money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...if you have enough money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...but only because the rationing is done on the basis of ability to pay, rather than on need.[/quote]
Of those uninsured, about a third are from homes with incomes greater than $50,000. Ten million of the rest are actually eligible for Medicaid but don't apply. I'm not saying the system is trouble free, but the problems lie in the fact that due to a bad tax structure, health insurance is seen as something your employer must provide for you, rather than as something you should buy. This creates less competition among insurance companies and other problems, as is detailed in my post here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they're working to make a profit for their shareholders.[/quote]
Which they achieve by serving the needs of patients--their costumers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only people who make enough money not to be hurt by being screwed financially. Which is, of course, fine by me.[/quote]
People are screwed financially because their money is being siphoned into a socialist failure which will screw them over if they ever get sick, and as a result are less able to buy adequate health care.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never thought that simply extending the existing government programmes to the rest of the population would be a good idea; after all, the problem with them isn't that they are government programmes but that they are badly designed government programmes.[/quote]
Well put more generally, what makes you think the government and the general health system will become efficient once socialism sets in, especially given the track record of efficiency for socialist systems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I somehow doubt that everyone in Canada is made miserable by their healthcare system...[/quote]
Just everyone who gets sick. There you can't even buy your own health care, so short of going to the US to get treatment, if they are rationing what you need you're dead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Distorting reality to fit in with your view of the world is a very Marxist trait you know.

NICE certainly isn't perfect (and neither is the NHS; or any other healthcare system), but it's problems come more from an obsession with spending as little money as possible (other things as well (including extreme scepticism about the safety of new drugs) but that's the main thing) rather than anything more sinister. And, with a few silly exceptions, it doesn't actually do a bad job.[/quote]
An obsession with rationing, you're basically conceding my point. There is no excuse for people in a developed country not to receive immediate access to medical inovations which could save their lives or increase their quality of life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How much do you know about the NHS, beyond the usual ultra-free-market-propaganda/tabloid-scare-stories?

I realise that personal anecdotes are far from perfect, but I've spent a great deal of the past decade in hospital (several different hospitals I might add) and I've never experienced anything that could be sanely thought of as "sub-optimal standards of care".
[/quote]
Other than waiting list reports, not much, but I have a greater familiarity with the Portuguese National Health Service, which is based on the British model.