Socialized medicine

[Conspiracy3]

I am a supporter of socialized medicine. When I say socialized, I mean actual socialized medicine. I do not mean the super-capitalized plan that Obama is proposing. All that plan does is add another competitor onto the market. It doesn't solve the problem itself - capitalism. Right now we have the worst system imaginable. We have the worst qualities of capitalism combined with the worst qualities of socialism. When someone gets sick and can't afford it the hospital is too cowardly to let them die so they jack up the prices of other sick people. Why should a sick person, who is about to be bankrupted anyway, have to pay for the bills of another sick person? Why not a healthy rich person do it instead?

I support true socialized medicine. Have everyone pay in based on their wealth and have everyone receive care based on what they need. Don't just add a government plan in that is meant to co-exist with hundreds of private plans.

[Miigga]

fuck yes

[SadisticMonkey]

At 8/22/09 01:42 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: It doesn't solve the problem itself - capitalism. Right now we have the worst system imaginable.

Looks at America.

Looks at the countless shitholes that were/are socialist states.

Compares quality of life.

Shakes head at delusional OP.

Why should a sick person, who is about to be bankrupted anyway, have to pay for the bills of another sick person? Why not a healthy rich person do it instead?

Why?

Because taking someone's money at gunpoint, at the threat of their liberty, is FAR FAR WORSE than not paying for someone else's medical bills.

I support true socialized medicine. Have everyone pay in based on their wealth and have everyone receive care based on what they need.

Fuck off you freedom hating moron.

Why would anyone aspire to acquire wealth, to start a business, to create jobs, to create wealth for their country, if it's all just going to be taken off them for people who are lazy and foolish. Why work hard, when you're going to get someone else's money anyway?

[Conspiracy3]

At 8/22/09 10:31 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 8/22/09 01:42 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: It doesn't solve the problem itself - capitalism. Right now we have the worst system imaginable.

Looks at America.

Looks at the countless shitholes that were/are socialist states.

Compares quality of life.

Shakes head at delusional OP.

Yes, sweeden is quite a shithole

Why should a sick person, who is about to be bankrupted anyway, have to pay for the bills of another sick person? Why not a healthy rich person do it instead?

Why?

Because taking someone's money at gunpoint, at the threat of their liberty, is FAR FAR WORSE than not paying for someone else's medical bills.

I never mentioned taking things at gunpoint and the threat of their liberty. We are talking about healthcare here. The current insurance companies really ARE taking your money at the threat of your life.

I support true socialized medicine. Have everyone pay in based on their wealth and have everyone receive care based on what they need.

Fuck off you freedom hating moron.

Why would anyone aspire to acquire wealth, to start a business, to create jobs, to create wealth for their country, if it's all just going to be taken off them for people who are lazy and foolish. Why work hard, when you're going to get someone else's money anyway?

You have your failed capitalist idiology of only aspiring due to a quest for money. There are other things to aspire for such as power, glory, respect, etc.

[SuperSuperKLC]

Sweden is made of mostly whtie people.

America has countless welfare leechers and fatasses who contribute nothing to the country.

There is a difference, people. Obama healthcare may work if America is mostly white.

[hansari]

At 8/22/09 11:56 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Yes, sweeden is quite a shithole

uhhh....China?

[Sajberhippien]

At 8/23/09 01:50 AM, SuperSuperKLC wrote: Sweden is made of mostly whtie people.

America has countless welfare leechers and fatasses who contribute nothing to the country.

There is a difference, people. Obama healthcare may work if America is mostly white.

Bullshit. Or rather, yes, "mostly" as in majority. Still, about 1/9th of our population are immigrants, many from shitholes such as the middle east. In Sweden if anything you could "welfare leech", and the Swedish right says excactly the same thing as the US does - "people just leech, PRIVATIZE!". What we've seen is that after every privatization, things have been worse for the vast majority. The deregulation that has been going on for the last 14 years (at least) here is making Sweden worse and worse.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/23/09 08:20 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 8/23/09 01:50 AM, SuperSuperKLC wrote: Sweden is made of mostly whtie people.

America has countless welfare leechers and fatasses who contribute nothing to the country.

There is a difference, people. Obama healthcare may work if America is mostly white.

Bullshit. Or rather, yes, "mostly" as in majority. Still, about 1/9th of our population are immigrants, many from shitholes such as the middle east. In Sweden if anything you could "welfare leech", and the Swedish right says excactly the same thing as the US does - "people just leech, PRIVATIZE!". What we've seen is that after every privatization, things have been worse for the vast majority. The deregulation that has been going on for the last 14 years (at least) here is making Sweden worse and worse.

Like what the centre right party did to your Education in the 90's? And was left untouched by the left party once they'd come into power because they knew just how much people liked it?

[awkward-silence]

Well according to the WHO The United State ranks 78th in terms of health performance (between Argentina and Bhutan), 24th for life expectancy (between Isreal and Cyprus) and the health care system ranks 37th below Costa Rica and above Slovenia (only two above Cuba), yet rank 2nd in terms of expenditure as part of GDP paying more than 15% when France and Germany only pay 10%. Clearly something is wrong.

The Swedish right that a previous poster mentioned would be crazy to change their system. They rank 4th in life expectancy, 21st in health performance, 25th in expenditure using only 9.2%, and their health care system ranks 23rd.

.They beat us in EVERY CATAGORY!

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/24/09 12:32 AM, awkward-silence wrote: Well according to the WHO The United State ranks 78th in terms of health performance (between Argentina and Bhutan), 24th for life expectancy (between Isreal and Cyprus) and the health care system ranks 37th below Costa Rica and above Slovenia (only two above Cuba), yet rank 2nd in terms of expenditure as part of GDP paying more than 15% when France and Germany only pay 10%. Clearly something is wrong.

The Swedish right that a previous poster mentioned would be crazy to change their system. They rank 4th in life expectancy, 21st in health performance, 25th in expenditure using only 9.2%, and their health care system ranks 23rd.

.They beat us in EVERY CATAGORY!

You might want to actually EXAMINE how those metrics are taken.

From By: Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD

This is how ranking is determined...

"1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent"

Number one is measured in terms of life expectancy. As I am sure you know, the reason the US life expectancy ranks lower than other nations is because of factors that have nothing to do with access to health care... (psychological therapy perhaps lol) this includes homicides and problems concering unhealthy lifestyles.

"Financial fairness" measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the "percentage" of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same "percentage" of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system.

This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health.

In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.

"Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution" measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because "inequality of delivery" is independent of "quality of care". It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets "excellent" health care, but a minority only gets "good" health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had "equal", but poor, health care throughout the system.

In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its "ranking" of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of "government" delivered (i.e. "socialized") health care, independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a "positive" testament to at least some residual "free market" influence (also read "personal freedom") in the American Health Care system. "

The rest of the stuff in his article is just conservative whining so i'll leave it out.

The point is, be sure when being told about what health care system is better, you need to ask what the objective measure is. Don't drink the cool-aid.

It's the kind of Authoritarian Douchebaggery that has to rely on twisted 'evidence' and the mystic presumptions of a crystal-palace-Dues Ex Machina-god-from-on-high that will solve all of our problems with a magic wand.

___________________________________

That being said. No Statist i have ever met has yet contested the claim that the insane expenditures that Americans spend on health care are a direct cause of State interventionism, they simply ignore the fact and contend that the insane costs require "Healthcare reform" And when they say that they explicitly mean, state medicine.

It's not "Socialized Medicine" Because there's nothing social about it.

I'll admit that State medicine works the day the Statist admits that state medicine puts the fox in charge of the hen house.

[Elfer]

At 8/24/09 01:19 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Number one is measured in terms of life expectancy. As I am sure you know, the reason the US life expectancy ranks lower than other nations is because of factors that have nothing to do with access to health care... (psychological therapy perhaps lol) this includes homicides and problems concering unhealthy lifestyles.

While healthcare can't really handle the homicide issue, there definitely is something to be said for the prevalence of preventative medicine in socialized systems. There is always a big push from doctors to lead healthier lifestyles. There have been government subsidies for exercise equipment and gym memberships, and almost every company I've worked for has had a program promoting fitness.

Basically what I'm saying is that spending money trying to keep people from getting sick will often cost you less in the long run than waiting for people to get sick and trying to fix them. In socialized medicine, there is a greater financial incentive to promote preventative healthcare.

"Financial fairness" measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the "percentage" of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same "percentage" of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system.

True. However, I think there's decent evidence to say that the American system of healthcare has gotten to a point where it is inherently financially unfair from an objective standpoint. As I've pointed out before, over 60% of all US bankruptcies are due to overwhelming medical bills, with 78% of those coming from households that had health insurance. In a developed nation, it's completely insane that people who have paid for private health insurance are being forced into bankruptcy by medical bills at a non-trivial rate.

[WHO rankings arbitrarily reward systems that deliver equal but shitty healthcare] (paraphrase)

No contest of this point.

That being said. No Statist i have ever met has yet contested the claim that the insane expenditures that Americans spend on health care are a direct cause of State interventionism,

I would like to contest that claim. I think that a huge part of the cost of healthcare in America is directly due to the fact that it is a profit-driven system. The US spends approximately 31% of its healthcare dollars on administrative overhead, for paperwork, CEO salaries, insurance claims, etc. Canada, on the other hand, spends substantially less (I have seen anywhere from 1% to 16% quoted, for the purposes of the argument, let's go with 16%, since it's the worst for my side).

A further 500 to 700 billion of the 2.3 billion dollars spent goes to unnecessary tests that do nothing to improve the quality of health. That's another 22%-30% of healthcare spending, driven primarily by a system that thrives on profit rather than efficiency.

In other words, over half of the healthcare spending in the US is essentially going towards waste as a result of a profit-driven system. That, to me, seems like a significant hurdle to clear if you're trying to argue that a private system is more fiscally efficient.

I'll admit that State medicine works the day the Statist admits that state medicine puts the fox in charge of the hen house.

Are you shitting me? State medicine has a vested financial interest in preventing illness. Private medicine has a vested financial interest in people becoming sick and then curing them. Which one of those is putting the fox in charge of the hen house?

I will, however, agree that the WHO rankings do bias themselves in favour of socialized healthcare. However, since all of the traits listed actually are desirable attributes of a healthcare system, it's not entirely meaningless.

[TheMason]

@ the OP
We are on a sinking ship. The response of you and about 40% of the population is to demand the crew bring you caviar instead of saving the ship.

You sir are the problem.

At 8/22/09 01:42 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I am a supporter of socialized medicine. ... It doesn't solve the problem itself - capitalism. Right now we have the worst system imaginable. We have the worst qualities of capitalism combined with the worst qualities of socialism.

Until the parents of the Greatest Generation (those who fought WWII), Americans strove to pay down the national debt. In fact Thomas Jefferson held that to pass on the excess of one generation to another is a social immorality.

However, in the 1932 election the American people elected an administration that moved the country towards a collectivist mentality: FDR. A centerpiece of his programs was Social Security. At that time there were over ten workers supporting one beneficiary. Also 80% of the population, according to actuarial tables, were expected to die before receiving a pay-out.

Then WWII happened. Many things resulted as a consequence:
* Battlefield trauma led to medical advancements.
* The GI Bill came about as a result. This meant more people could get educated and afford better healthcare and become MDs and scientists and build upon medical advancements.
* The war almost bankrupted us...so FDR was the first to tap into the Social Security trustfund to pay for government spending.

A major result: now only about 20% (if not, less) people die before collecting benefits. This is creating pressure on the system today.

Since the 1970s there has been a trend towards people having less babies. This means that we have an aging population. More beneficiaries...less workers paying in.

In the 1990s we had something called "Pay As You Go". Simply put, we could not defer the cost of government programs. Bush then did away with this. He increased spending:
* Two wars ($515,875,XXX,XXX...and climbing.)
* Perscription drug benefit ($8,569,454,XXX,XXX)
=========================
Just want to stop here and point something out. Everyone bitches about how expensive the wars are. How they are bankrupting the country. But no one really talks about his socialist spending. Check out those numbers. Total defense spending is a little more than EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS LESS THAN this benefit.
=========================
* Started government bailouts (Quickly approaching $12 Trillion)

Now the Social Security trustees think we're going to see the program start going insolvent as soon as 2017. Medicare is already teetering on bankruptcy.

So soon we'll have Social Security as a drain on our government rather than a supplier to it.
==========================

So what the hell does my rant have to do with anything about this topic?

Everything.

It is simple:

We cannot pay for it.

We're broke.

Why are we broke? Socialism. We have turned our backs on the ethic our society was founded upon. We have moved to a capitalist/socialist hybrid and the result is in the space of three generations we will have risen to heights known only by the Greeks, Romans, English and Chinese...and then crashed.

Socialism, Marxism and Collectivism were ancient when Karl Marx wrote about them. Every great Empire has toyed with collectivism. When Rome did, the result was the Dark Ages.

When are we going to learn?

We're partying with Paris Hilton...not realizing her grandpa has just cut her out of the will and she cannot cover us.

Sorry, but you believers in socialism is going to fuck everyone over.

[TheMason]

Oh yeah, here's a clicky.

[White-hole]

At 8/23/09 01:50 AM, SuperSuperKLC wrote: Sweden is made of mostly whtie people.

America has countless welfare leechers and fatasses who contribute nothing to the country.

There is a difference, people. Obama healthcare may work if America is mostly white.

Wait what? Nevermind the fact that Obama is half black, but what? Does white supremacy have to leak into every aspect of discussion?
"hey bob we're outta beer, would you go down town and get some?"
"Damn Spics".

[awkward-silence]

At 8/24/09 01:19 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: "1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent"

Number one is measured in terms of life expectancy... this includes homicides and problems concering unhealthy lifestyles.

This actually isn't true. The life expectency is figured using the DALE model, Disability-Adjusted Life Expectancy. This factors disease into what would otherwise be considered a full life. Therefore homicide is not a factor. The largest factors diminishing the U.S. L.E. are high rates of cancer and HIV (relative to other Industrialized nations).

Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same "percentage" of their income...

True that it does not address the quality of the healthcare delivered, but it does address the quality of the system. A nation with a high out of pocket expense will do poorly on this factor. But that also indicates that the healthcare availible reqardless of quality to patient, has priced itself out of much of the market and the best healthcare in the world, when unaffordable, is not good healthcare.

It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets "excellent" health care, but a minority only gets "good" health care.

Actually a system like that would still rank very well. System that ranks poorly, is one in which a few people get excellent health care. While this does put a premium on the same level healthcare being available to all, it puts and even greater premium on the highest average health.

...independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a "positive" testament to at least some residual "free market"...

Yet, when other factors are added in such as in the the Health performance link, which does factor in quality of Healtcare (which US took 1st) and per capita expenditure (which the US took first as well) we dropped down to 72nd.

It's the kind of Authoritarian Douchebaggery that has to rely on twisted 'evidence' and the mystic presumptions of a crystal-palace-Dues Ex Machina-god-from-on-high that will solve all of our problems with a magic wand.

That's the kind of Egomaniacal Douchebaggery that relies on using flowery words in inappropriate places to make himself seem like more of an intellectual than he really is, because he hopes that the people reading his dribble are unfamiliar with Plato's tale of Atlantis and Greek theatre. There is no magic wand, just a failing healthcare system and models adopted by other industrialized nations with success that we hope to model ourselves after.

That being said. No Statist i have ever met has yet contested the claim that the insane expenditures that Americans spend on health care are a direct cause of State interventionism

Elfer took care of this one for me, but in addition to what he had written a large expense on pharmacueticals come in the form of the rebate program. What happens is a hospital buys Drug X at price Y with a rebate incentive bringing the price down to A. The hospital then bills insurance for inflated price Y.

It's not "Socialized Medicine" Because there's nothing social about it.

Definitions for Social: of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community
noting or pertaining to activities designed to remedy or alleviate certain unfavorable conditions of life in a community, esp. among the poor.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/24/09 08:17 PM, awkward-silence wrote:

Number one is measured in terms of life expectancy... this includes homicides and problems concering unhealthy lifestyles.

This actually isn't true. The life expectency is figured using the DALE model, Disability-Adjusted Life Expectancy. This factors disease into what would otherwise be considered a full life. Therefore homicide is not a factor. The largest factors diminishing the U.S. L.E. are high rates of cancer and HIV (relative to other Industrialized nations).

There's still the problem that measuring how long a person is expected to live in good health, unless I'm making a mistake here seems to only factor out disabilities. I don't see how this doesn't factor out lifestyle differences.

There's also the problem of factoring out disabilities at all, if a country spends more money on helping the disabled, and the disabled happen to live longer because of it, the WHO doesn't reward them at all.

Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same "percentage" of their income...

True that it does not address the quality of the healthcare delivered, but it does address the quality of the system. A nation with a high out of pocket expense will do poorly on this factor. But that also indicates that the healthcare availible reqardless of quality to patient, has priced itself out of much of the market and the best healthcare in the world, when unaffordable, is not good healthcare.

First, You're implicitly assuming that because people pay out of pocket for Healthcare, that a large number of them must be incapable of paying, which is why they rate so low. That they pay out of pocket while most other countries cheat by having their patients pay in taxes not in direct fees does not mean by default that health care is more expensive for the common man. It just means society at large pays the price directly in the form of taxes and has to also pay indirectly in the in calculated opportunity cost that the misapplication of resources causes to occur in the classic case of what is seen and what is not seen.

However, even if Americans all together spend more on health care in absolute terms per individual it only falls back to the original problem of the high costs of health care. And I'm interested in seeing what Elfer wrote on the sources of the costs of health care.

That being said. No Statist i have ever met has yet contested the claim that the insane expenditures that Americans spend on health care are a direct cause of State interventionism

Elfer took care of this one for me, but in addition to what he had written a large expense on pharmacueticals come in the form of the rebate program. What happens is a hospital buys Drug X at price Y with a rebate incentive bringing the price down to A. The hospital then bills insurance for inflated price Y.

Again i want to see it. Because the entire premise of "Maldistribution" would be shown to be irrelevant if the Government was shown to be artificially inflating the price of a good, (Healthcare) that is not the case in other countries.

It would be no different than if I said that

I'm also aware of the monoposony power of Foreign governments that forces most of the profits that need to be made for R+D recomp. onto American citizens because our government is the only one that allows it's citizens to shoulder it.

It's not "Socialized Medicine" Because there's nothing social about it.

Definitions for Social: of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community
noting or pertaining to activities designed to remedy or alleviate certain unfavorable conditions of life in a community, esp. among the poor.

Also including...

pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations: a social club.

seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly; sociable; gregarious.

That these systems are enforced at the point of the gun because of an unspoken premise that humans individually are too selfish to care about the poor and voluntarily aid is insufficient. That enlightened men must take the reign and make sure that the "Social Animal" is acting Social.

That Peter's need becomes a claim on life Paul's and that using violence is legitimate to ensure the transaction is psychotic. If we're living in a corporatized state it may be likely that Paul's earnings were ill acquired indirectly through the same State Peter is attempting to do his thuggery for, but two wrongs do not make a right.

[awkward-silence]

At 8/24/09 09:15 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: There's still the problem that measuring how long a person is expected to live in good health, unless I'm making a mistake here seems to only factor out disabilities. I don't see how this doesn't factor out lifestyle differences.

DALE summarizes the expected number of years to be lived in what might be termed the equivalent of "full health." To calculate DALE, the years of ill-health are weighted according to severity and subtracted from the expected overall life expectancy to give the equivalent years of healthy life.

The WHO rankings show that years lost to disability are substantially higher in poorer countries because some limitations -- injury, blindness, paralysis and the debilitating effects of several tropical diseases such as malaria -- strike children and young adults. People in the healthiest regions lose some 9 percent of their lives to disability, versus 14 percent in the worst-off countries.

First, You're implicitly assuming that because people pay out of pocket for Healthcare, that a large number of them must be incapable of paying, which is why they rate so low...

If a society fails at this rating it is an indicator that people may be foregoing health care because they cannot afford it. America is in the top 30% (55th in the world) for fairness, however, since we also spend more the most per capita and allocate the largest percent of our GDP to healthcare, that indicates that the gap may be more significant than you think.

Again i want to see it. ...

I'm actually a little confused by what you are trying to say, so in the spirit of a fair debate I'll let you clarify.

I'm also aware of the monoposony power of Foreign governments that forces most of the profits that need to be made for R+D recomp. onto American citizens because our government is the only one that allows it's citizens to shoulder it.

Considering Pfizer netted a profit of $2.73B last year, I think they are shouldering it well. Even now its net profit margin for Q2 is 20.6% which is up 3.93% from last year. Socialized medicine is many competitive markets has not slowed them down.

Also including...

It still fits 2 of the definitions of social, so it cannot be said that it is not social. It just wasn't the definition of social you had in mind at the time of your initial post.

That Peter's need becomes a claim on life Paul's and that using violence is legitimate to ensure the transaction is psychotic.

So far no one has used violence, its seems close as protesters are showing up to town hall meetings with AR 15's strapped to their backs, but this debate has been violence free. I'm not certain where you are getting this violent "at gun point" stuff.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/24/09 10:51 PM, awkward-silence wrote:

At 8/24/09 09:15 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Again i want to see it. ...

I'm actually a little confused by what you are trying to say, so in the spirit of a fair debate I'll let you clarify.

I want to see what Elfer wrote with respect to Health Care costs. I.E.

I'm also aware of the monoposony power of Foreign governments that forces most of the profits that need to be made for R+D recomp. onto American citizens because our government is the only one that allows it's citizens to shoulder it.

Considering Pfizer netted a profit of $2.73B last year, I think they are shouldering it well. Even now its net profit margin for Q2 is 20.6% which is up 3.93% from last year. Socialized medicine is many competitive markets has not slowed them down.

Now you've confused me a few things here. I'm not saying drug companies aren't making profits, (And if they aren't hypothetically, I'm not complaining) I'm saying because within a geographic area, one state buys all of the drugs, it's easy for the governments to say "Accept this price or you won't get to sell your drugs in this country" Because after all, if they turn a government down then they miss out on an entire country or at least a large portion of it. Which means that People in countries without monopsonies need to bear the cost of maintaining the profits needed to recoup R+D

I'm also confused because Pfizer is a company in the United States. I'm not getting anything on a Company named Q2.

I also have confused by what you mean when you say "Socialized medicine is many competitive markets has not slowed them down."

In this particular case you have to measure the contributions that Americans have to bear to pay for R+D compared with the European man who gets his medicine from the state.

Also including...

It still fits 2 of the definitions of social, so it cannot be said that it is not social. It just wasn't the definition of social you had in mind at the time of your initial post.

That Peter's need becomes a claim on life Paul's and that using violence is legitimate to ensure the transaction is psychotic.

So far no one has used violence, its seems close as protesters are showing up to town hall meetings with AR 15's strapped to their backs, but this debate has been violence free. I'm not certain where you are getting this violent "at gun point" stuff.

The violence is derived from the fact that the state has to extort the money required to pay for it. To put it another way, if the system was voluntary and escape-able, the system would cease to be a state function and would be subject to market forces. That you don't see people constantly getting shot by police to enforce tax laws is because it's obvious most people aren't going to risk a fight for it. But to call this therefore voluntary and not coerced is like saying that if someone is mugged but chooses not to defend themselves and just gives the mugger their wallet/purse, that the mugging was a voluntary action is somewhat silly.

[awkward-silence]

At 8/24/09 11:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

I want to see what Elfer wrote with respect to Health Care costs. I.E.

Very Well, Its the 11th post in this thread. Tah-dah!

Now you've confused me a few things here. I'm not saying drug companies aren't making profits, (And if they aren't hypothetically, I'm not complaining) I'm saying because within a geographic area, one state buys all of the drugs, it's easy for the governments to say "Accept this price or you won't get to sell your drugs in this country" Because after all, if they turn a government down then they miss out on an entire country or at least a large portion of it. Which means that People in countries without monopsonies need to bear the cost of maintaining the profits needed to recoup R+D

I understand your concern about the effects of a price ceiling, but think about this for a second. "Accept 20 cents on the dollar, or you can take your cure for cancer elsewhere..." Even in a monopsony there is still leverage for drug companies. No matter what, we are still going to demand treatments for disease and purple pills to make our dicks hard. I cannot imagine any situation in which the government would ban medical treatment.

I'm also confused because Pfizer is a company in the United States. I'm not getting anything on a Company named Q2.

Q2 means second quarter. In the second quarter of 2009 pfizer posted a net profit percentage of 20.6.

I also have confused by what you mean when you say "Socialized medicine is many competitive markets has not slowed them down."

Despite socialized medicine in similar markets to our own (like canada, france, UK, Sweden) pfizer has posted record profits year after year, for nearly 2 decades. Socialization in every market except our own has not kept them from posting massive net profits (after paying out R&D and everything else) every year.

The violence is derived from the fact that the state has to extort the money required to pay for it. To put it another way, if the system was voluntary and escape-able, the system would cease to be a state function and would be subject to market forces. That you don't see people constantly getting shot by police to enforce tax laws is because it's obvious most people aren't going to risk a fight for it.

I see, so you just throw around phrases like violently and at gun point.

But to call this therefore voluntary and not coerced is like saying that if someone is mugged but chooses not to defend themselves and just gives the mugger their wallet/purse, that the mugging was a voluntary action is somewhat silly.

There is a vast difference, currently 76% of American's want this change. Faux news would have you believe otherwise, but this is harldy a mugging. This is democracy at its finest.

[Musician]

Wow, Elfer, thank you for that thoroughly supported and well composed argument. It is an absolute shame that none of these free market activists seem willing to address your points.

[TheMason]

At 8/24/09 02:27 PM, Elfer wrote:

:: : That being said. No Statist i have ever met has yet contested the claim that the insane expenditures that Americans spend on health care are a direct cause of State interventionism,

I would like to contest that claim. I think that a huge part of the cost of healthcare in America is directly due to the fact that it is a profit-driven system. The US spends approximately 31% of its healthcare dollars on administrative overhead, for paperwork, CEO salaries, insurance claims, etc. Canada, on the other hand, spends substantially less (I have seen anywhere from 1% to 16% quoted, for the purposes of the argument, let's go with 16%, since it's the worst for my side).

A further 500 to 700 billion of the 2.3 billion dollars spent goes to unnecessary tests that do nothing to improve the quality of health. That's another 22%-30% of healthcare spending, driven primarily by a system that thrives on profit rather than efficiency.

On this point there is a rival hypothesis that I think explains why unnecessary tests are happening...other than profit.

Defensive medicine.

Doctors are covering their asses so they either don't get sued or if they do they have a chance of winning or settling w/o admission of fault.

So is it the health insurance industry or trial lawyers?

At 8/25/09 02:09 AM, Musician wrote: Wow, Elfer, thank you for that thoroughly supported and well composed argument. It is an absolute shame that none of these free market activists seem willing to address your points.

There is a point that you socialists need to bring up and address. Without addressing it...all your other arguments do not matter. That question:

How are we going to pay for it?

The answer: We're not. We. Don't. Have. The. Money.

I've thought long and hard and in 2012 I'm voting for Obama.

See Bush was horrible for the economy. Spent like a drunken Democrat and cut taxes like a drunken Republican. Then when the financial system crashed, he admitted in an interview that he was abandoning Free Market Principles (like he had ever fully supported them).

And yet people think he was a Capitalist.

Soo...

The semi-socialist system set in motion by FDR is starting to fracture. No one can salvage it. But this is a good thing because it is going to be painful, but the cancer of Kensyian economics will be over. I want to make sure a Democrat is in office to get the blame, since that is where it most belongs.

In other words, over half of the healthcare spending in the US is essentially going towards waste as a result of a profit-driven system. That, to me, seems like a significant hurdle to clear if you're trying to argue that a private system is more fiscally efficient.

I'll admit that State medicine works the day the Statist admits that state medicine puts the fox in charge of the hen house.

Are you shitting me? State medicine has a vested financial interest in preventing illness. Private medicine has a vested financial interest in people becoming sick and then curing them. Which one of those is putting the fox in charge of the hen house?

I will, however, agree that the WHO rankings do bias themselves in favour of socialized healthcare. However, since all of the traits listed actually are desirable attributes of a healthcare system, it's not entirely meaningless.

[Elfer]

At 8/25/09 09:40 AM, TheMason wrote: On this point there is a rival hypothesis that I think explains why unnecessary tests are happening...other than profit.

Defensive medicine.

This is also true. Many of these tests are ordered as a defense against the madly lucrative malpractice lawsuits in the US. It's sort of a win-win for the doctor, as they cover their ass for no real investment on their part.

It is worth noting, however, that this culture of doing everything you can to prevent a lawsuit is not the norm in countries with socialized medicine. However, as you pointed out, there are a number of reasons this could be true, ranging from the level of litigiousness in the country, to the bloated malpractice insurance industry. It's certainly something that merits further research before I make any sort of firm decision about it.

I'm inclined to believe that this would mostly evaporate in the presence of a single-payer system, but that could easily be nothing but cognitive bias on my part.

At 8/25/09 02:09 AM, Musician wrote: Wow, Elfer, thank you for that thoroughly supported and well composed argument. It is an absolute shame that none of these free market activists seem willing to address your points.

There is a point that you socialists need to bring up and address. Without addressing it...all your other arguments do not matter. That question:

How are we going to pay for it?

The answer: We're not. We. Don't. Have. The. Money.

Depends on what you're talking about paying for. You're already spending an enormous amount on healthcare in the United States, much of which goes to overhead and profits. Countries with socialized medicine are invariably able to produce a higher standard of health for a given amount of money when compared to privatized healthcare, and I've seen no compelling reason to believe that healthcare has nothing to do with the higher standard of health. Yes, there are issues with each individual's lifestyle, etc, but I think many of these things are more entwined with healthcare than most people making this argument seem to think. Obviously these issues as well as healthcare are entagled with larger societal issues, but that's really outside the scope of this topic.

However, if you're getting at the costs of setting up such a system and converting the existing healthcare market, that's a much more interesting question. While I think in the long run, socialized care is generally better, in the short term it will have substantial associated costs and difficulties, and I don't think I can convince myself that it's necessarily a good time to start switching in this economic climate, particularly in the US.

[morefngdbs]

At 8/25/09 10:11 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/25/09 09:40 AM, TheMason wrote: On this point there is a rival hypothesis that I think explains why unnecessary tests are happening...other than profit.

Defensive medicine.

This is also true.

;;;
While you can sue a doctor for malpractice in Canada, you don't get astronomical financial judgements if you win. If a doctor or Hospital can show they did the best they could for the patient, all that will be awarded will be a change in policy or maybe retraining or suspension. Financial payouts are (campared to American ones) very insignificant.
Saves untold millions in payouts & untold billions in malpractice insurance !

Just 100 % better way to do it IMO.

[SmilezRoyale]

Thankyou for your response.

At 8/24/09 02:27 PM, Elfer wrote:
While healthcare can't really handle the homicide issue, there definitely is something to be said for the prevalence of preventative medicine in socialized systems. There is always a big push from doctors to lead healthier lifestyles. There have been government subsidies for exercise equipment and gym memberships, and almost every company I've worked for has had a program promoting fitness.

In socialized medicine, there is a greater financial incentive to promote preventative healthcare.

The State suffers nothing except a deficit if it ends up being arranged so that it spends ridiculous amounts of money on each person. There's also the political stigma attached to trying to put strings to "Human rights"

If a state office runs a deficit, There's the fear that people will react by INCREASING the budget of that state office, in spite of the fact that that deficit is a sign of either inefficiency, or in certain cases that prices have been brought to too low a level that consumers of state services aren't ordering their priorities like they would if prices reflected genuine scarcity.

A provider of insurance has the same incentive to make short term losses, i.e. premium reductions or some sort of financial incentive to provide for long term gains. For instance, someone I knew was paid by Aflac to get scanned for skin cancer, and the payment was several fold larger than the cost of the actual scan itself, I think it was somewhere around 900$, because that 900$ lost today will come back in the form of NOT having to pay 250,000$ for an expensive skin-cancer removal. The only difference between insurance and the state is that insurance

True. However, I think there's decent evidence to say that the American system of healthcare has gotten to a point where it is inherently financially unfair from an objective standpoint.

I would like to contest that claim. I think that a huge part of the cost of healthcare in America is directly due to the fact that it is a profit-driven system. The US spends approximately 31% of its healthcare dollars on administrative overhead, for paperwork, CEO salaries, insurance claims, etc. Canada, on the other hand, spends substantially less (I have seen anywhere from 1% to 16% quoted, for the purposes of the argument, let's go with 16%, since it's the worst for my side).

A further 500 to 700 billion of the 2.3 billion dollars spent goes to unnecessary tests that do nothing to improve the quality of health. That's another 22%-30% of healthcare spending, driven primarily by a system that thrives on profit rather than efficiency.

Those tests due in part to defensive medicine, which I thought you'd mentioned somewhere. Those other countries don't allow lawyers to use the Law to bleed doctors is more liberal than it is socialist. I'll clarify this if you want.

In other words, over half of the healthcare spending in the US is essentially going towards waste as a result of a profit-driven system. That, to me, seems like a significant hurdle to clear if you're trying to argue that a private system is more fiscally efficient.

Are you shitting me? State medicine has a vested financial interest in preventing illness. Private medicine has a vested financial interest in people becoming sick and then curing them. Which one of those is putting the fox in charge of the hen house?

This response covers basically the paragraphs above:

This sounds to me like the classic argument that there's absolutely nothing in a free market that stops people from only selling high-priced goods. I don't see this problem occurring anywhere except in the US's two most regulated industries, Health and lending.

It's like me saying that the corporate greed of supermarkets means that they will only sell things that are incredibly expensive, or only selling foods that make people more hungry so that they'll keep coming back to buy more, because there's no "Profit" to be made in selling cheaper groceries. And this is the reason why in the unregulated grocery markets, you'll only find salty potato chips and filet Mignon.

My argument is that our government is doing the exact opposite of what Europe has done, not in terms of intervention, but in what that intervention is achieving. Europe can muscle medical providers to lower prices at or below the market rate if it wants to. Defensive medicine, the DFA, and the AMA's policy of restricting doctors.

My argument is that increased bureaucracy doesn't only lead to higher costs being put on hospitals and doctors which get's transferred to customers, but those increased costs act as barriers to entry which can simultaneously explain the profits.

If I ran a supermarket and got a law passed that said "In order to protect the public, all supermarkets are required to install self-stocking-shelves [SSS] (Who the heck knows why)" The increased expense of this regulation has two elements to it. First, and most obvious, is that any supermarket that manages to stay in business will have to shift the cost of the SSS onto consumers. But those marginal producers that are forced out of business if those regulations are strong enough lead to a less producers, which means more scarcity of goods and services, and naturally a greater opportunity for "greed and profit"

I think the rather amusing case of Wal-Mart's 4 dollar prescriptions is revealing in this respect. The AMA has naturally been complaining, because Walmart is actually competing.

And look at that, No insurance, And you don't need a 12 year trained doctor to give you a prescription for something trifling.

http://consumerist.com/272807/american-m edical-association-goes-after-walmart+st yle-retail-clinics

The AMA doesn't want regulations to protect the Public. The AMA wants regulations because they're a bunch of greedy SOB's... of the wrong kind.

Another shining example of this would be in the Black Market of drugs. Faced with the most effective of barriers to entry, the Illegal drug market is built so that both government and gangs are constantly forcing each other out of markets and able to charge extremely high costs.

And in this regard I agree with you 100% that Socialized medicine would be GREAT in that it wouldn't increase costs by regulating and potentially cartelizing the healthcare industry, sort of like how Communism is very good when it comes to regulating the private sector, it doesn't. (If you get what I mean :P ) A Direct government takeover of the healthcare industry rather than indirect (Via regulation) would enable a quick-fix price control scheme that might possibly be cheaper in the long run than the State-Capitalist system we've got now. But I see the act of forcing prices down a violation of the principle that two wrongs don't make a right.

[TheMason]

At 8/25/09 10:11 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/25/09 09:40 AM, TheMason wrote: On this point there is a rival hypothesis that I think explains why unnecessary tests are happening...other than profit.

Defensive medicine.

This is also true. Many of these tests are ordered as a defense against the madly lucrative malpractice lawsuits in the US. It's sort of a win-win for the doctor, as they cover their ass for no real investment on their part.

It is worth noting, however, that this culture of doing everything you can to prevent a lawsuit is not the norm in countries with socialized medicine. However, as you pointed out, there are a number of reasons this could be true, ranging from the level of litigiousness in the country, to the bloated malpractice insurance industry. It's certainly something that merits further research before I make any sort of firm decision about it.

I'm inclined to believe that this would mostly evaporate in the presence of a single-payer system, but that could easily be nothing but cognitive bias on my part.

There is socialized, government run healthcare in this country. It's called military medicine (and it sucks). One of the things about it, is you cannot sue your doctor if he fucks up.

So there is a methodology question here: in these socialist systems how free are patients to sue if there is incompetence? If the people's ability to sue is curtailed then the results are skewed and not applicable.

However, there is something else we can do to reform this problem. It's called tort reform. The ability of judges and juries to give stupidly large judgements needs to be curtailed. But as long as there is a lawyer in the White House...this ain't gonna happen.

At 8/25/09 02:09 AM, Musician wrote: Wow, Elfer, thank you for that thoroughly supported and well composed argument. It is an absolute shame that none of these free market activists seem willing to address your points.

There is a point that you socialists need to bring up and address. Without addressing it...all your other arguments do not matter. That question:

How are we going to pay for it?

The answer: We're not. We. Don't. Have. The. Money.

Depends on what you're talking about paying for. You're already spending an enormous amount on healthcare in the United States, much of which goes to overhead and profits. Countries with socialized medicine are invariably able to produce a higher standard of health for a given amount of money when compared to privatized healthcare, and I've seen no compelling reason to believe that healthcare has nothing to do with the higher standard of health. Yes, there are issues with each individual's lifestyle, etc, but I think many of these things are more entwined with healthcare than most people making this argument seem to think. Obviously these issues as well as healthcare are entagled with larger societal issues, but that's really outside the scope of this topic.

However, if you're getting at the costs of setting up such a system and converting the existing healthcare market, that's a much more interesting question. While I think in the long run, socialized care is generally better, in the short term it will have substantial associated costs and difficulties, and I don't think I can convince myself that it's necessarily a good time to start switching in this economic climate, particularly in the US.

We. Don't. Have. The. Money.

This is not a good time to do it. Look at California, they are failing. Illinois is going down the same track. The County my ex-wife lives in and I pay child support to has declared bankruptcy. These local and state governments (and they're not the only ones) are failing and this is putting more pressure on the federal government.

Things are falling apart, and the center will not hold for long.

I honestly think there is a 66% chance that our government is already failing and we could see the federal government implode. In the next decade it is entirely possible that:
* Social Security age will be pushed back to the 70s or even 80s.
* The road fund will be bankrupt (which will mean some states will reduce the drinking age to 18).
* The military will not get paid.
* Soon after the military, federal civilian employees will start receiving IOUs instead of pay checks.
* Hyper-inflation.
* If health-reform passes...it will never be fully funded.
* The Top tax rate will return to confiscatory levels not seen since FDR.
* The tax rate on the lower middle class will be about what today's top rate is (28-33%).
* Federal funding of education will disappear (this could be good since it means the demise of No Child Left Behind).
* Excise/sin taxes will burden the poor a la FDR.

Now when I say "We" I mean the public sector, the government. They have mismanaged our public finances to the point that they've bankrupted us. It is not the Democrats or Republicans. Both parties have played equally crucial roles in getting us to this point.

The best place for healthcare is in the private sector. Give it to the government and it will become something truly horrendous.

[TheMason]

At 8/24/09 02:27 PM, Elfer wrote:

:: True. However, I think there's decent evidence to say that the American system of healthcare has gotten to a point where it is inherently financially unfair from an objective standpoint. As I've pointed out before, over 60% of all US bankruptcies are due to overwhelming medical bills, with 78% of those coming from households that had health insurance. In a developed nation, it's completely insane that people who have paid for private health insurance are being forced into bankruptcy by medical bills at a non-trivial rate.

I've looked into this and I take issue with it. You've got an MD doing social science research and I don't think she knows what she is doing.

She started with a random sample of over 2,000 people who filed bankruptcy. So far, so good.
Then her team looked at their court records. Okay.
Then they interviewed only a 1,000 of them.

Wait a second. She only interviewed half of her sample? This opens many, many doubts as to the reliability of her results. There is a whiff of cherry picking of data.

Their numbers seem a little high given what we know about bankruptcies and home foreclosures in this environment.

I don't think this study's results are representative of the phenomenon the MD set out to describe.

[redzone]

America does already have socialized medicine, it is what those vetrian hospitals are.

As for me, I don't really care.

[TheMason]

Here is another sign that big government fails.

California is having a garage sale to help with its massive budget deficit. Jesus, Washington has a huge crisis on its hands. What will it do if states start to fail...go bankrupt. Leading the charge would be California...the most populous state.

Illinois is also struggling...they shut down for about 12 days recently.
The largest county in Alabama has declared bankruptcy.

There is $644 TRILLION in cash derivatives still out there floating around like a ticking time-bomb. You know...the toxic assets that sank the banking industry. It is still out there and those in charge (in Washington or on Wall Street) have no idea when it's gonna blow or what it is gonna do once it blows!

Again, we have no money to pay for single payer or socialized medicine. Those who want it, and especially those who want it NOW, are reckless and irresponsible.

[TheMason]

At 8/25/09 12:17 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/25/09 10:11 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/25/09 09:40 AM, TheMason wrote: On this point there is a rival hypothesis that I think explains why unnecessary tests are happening...other than profit.

Defensive medicine.

This is also true.

;;;
While you can sue a doctor for malpractice in Canada, you don't get astronomical financial judgements if you win. If a doctor or Hospital can show they did the best they could for the patient, all that will be awarded will be a change in policy or maybe retraining or suspension. Financial payouts are (campared to American ones) very insignificant.
Saves untold millions in payouts & untold billions in malpractice insurance !

Just 100 % better way to do it IMO.

I think I agree with you.

I think payouts should be limited to:
* Replacement of expected income. This means that if you are flipping burgers at McDonald's then you're only getting a settlement that replaces your minimum wage salary. Or if you missed two days of work because of hot coffee spilled on your old lady thighs...you get two days salary instead of $2 Million.
* Legal expenses covered.
* Severely limit "pain and suffering" payouts.

And again, this would be if there is negligence or incomptence involved. But if someone succumbed to the inherient risk in medical care/proceedures then they get nothing, and may be responsible for the doctor's legal expenses.

[TheMason]

Sorry that I keep responding to you piecemeal. I'm still on leave and looking for a job, so I'm posting scattershot in between filling out applications and the like.

At 8/24/09 02:27 PM, Elfer wrote: I would like to contest that claim. I think that a huge part of the cost of healthcare in America is directly due to the fact that it is a profit-driven system. The US spends approximately 31% of its healthcare dollars on administrative overhead, for paperwork, CEO salaries, insurance claims, etc. Canada, on the other hand, spends substantially less (I have seen anywhere from 1% to 16% quoted, for the purposes of the argument, let's go with 16%, since it's the worst for my side).

Something I've already addressed.

In other words, over half of the healthcare spending in the US is essentially going towards waste as a result of a profit-driven system. That, to me, seems like a significant hurdle to clear if you're trying to argue that a private system is more fiscally efficient.

I just don't trust the US government to do any better in regards to paperwork and fraud. For example the Air Force went to a paperless system. Yet...we have to print out multiple copies for our records. There is so much waste in the US that relates to bureaucracy and administration. It is a proven ineffecient system, so I don't think we'll be seeing any great savings by putting it in the hands of the government.

Is there another option here?

Yes. Currently the Insurance industry is regulated by over 50 regulatory entities (states & territories). Therefore an insurance company that is national in scope has to come up with 50 different forms. 50 different internal organizations to manage the paperwork, policies and claims. So I would accept the federal government acting upon the Interstate Commerce Clause and consolidating the regulatory authority into one entity. This would allow the insurance industry to adopt one form and one legal structure to construct policies. This would streamline the industry and make them more efficient.

It would also lower premiums in another way; namely allow more people to enter the same insurance pool. See premiums are based, in part, on how many people are in your insurance pool. Right now you can only be in an insurance pool in your own state. Expand that to a national pool...and the coverage gets cheaper.

I'll admit that State medicine works the day the Statist admits that state medicine puts the fox in charge of the hen house.

Are you shitting me? State medicine has a vested financial interest in preventing illness. Private medicine has a vested financial interest in people becoming sick and then curing them. Which one of those is putting the fox in charge of the hen house?

Actually you're 180 degrees wrong. Guess what, the profit motive is for the insurance companies to keep their policy holders healthy. See insurance makes profits when they take in more premiums than they have payouts.

Life insurance companies don't want their policy holders to die. The policy holder stops paying them, and instead they pay the beneficiary. The same is true for health insurers. There is a profit motive to encourage healthy lifestyles and preventative medicine. A penny of prevention is cheaper than a pound of cure.