Healthcare - Spiraling out of control

[guerilla]

However, the system is broke to the point where while you wait on Economics, A HUGE percentage of the population is going to suffer badly.

I am not waiting on economics, what I am saying is that economics helps us understand the problem and thus the solution.

If you are concerned about what is politically tenable, look at Greece. The American people will riot for healthcare before they allow their benefits to be cut or the debt to be repaid/repudiated.

How is that any different from a health care plan? If I'm paying $150 a month for health care and I need $200,000 worth of chemotherapy, who's paying for that? health insurance is a real bargain for the recipients, not so much for the providers.

Insurance is not meant to cover expected expenses. It is risk pooling. If everyone needs chemo and only pays in $150 a month, then that is an issue.

The problem with socialized medicine is that there is no profit or loss mechanism. An insurance firm that can't pay out goes broke. A government medical plan just continues to accrue debt or damage the economy with increased taxation.

Not to mention holy fuck $15k a year in the US for family coverage?! I just got a quote from a major health insurance provider here with the absolute top coverage, priority private room in a private hospital, with zero excess and all extras included like dental, optical, teeth whitening, laser eye surgery, speech therapy, chiropractor, massage, acupuncture etc for a family and it's $5500 a year.

The American system is fascism, and will continue to be fascism as long as the government is involved in healthcare.

Unfortunately, many people feel that voting for new fascists is the solution...

 

[lukep]

I'm kind of disturbed by sixthcutuan's line of thinking.

I've spent a good amount of time in England and haven't met anyone who would put it quite like that yet... That uber-socialist position, in effect says exactly this:

"Everyone's property rights are SO UNIMPORTANT that we should reduce them all considerably, for everyone, to help a few people get better health coverage if they happen to need it and not be able to pay for it."

This is unfathomable to me. Let's try this scenario instead of property rights v/s healthcare:

Everyone's access to tasty food v/s a few people's internet access.

Personally I think tasty food is NOT as important as property rights, but I'm trying to make this example easy to relate to. Internet access is likewise not as important as healthcare, but like healthcare many people think it is a basic human right.

OK, so do you socialists out there like sixthcutuan believe that EVERYONE in your society should be forced, by threat of imprisonment, to give up all of the most tasty dishes on every menu you come across in exchange for a small percentage of the people in this same society getting some free internet access? Not broadband mind you; just the dial-up kind?

This ridiculous scenario is exactly what socialized healthcare looks like to people who believe in a free market. Like Spock so logically taught us all; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."


EDIT: Just realized that I may be asking a Brit if he's ok with giving up tasty food...

 

[johnmatrix]

The problem with socialized medicine is that there is no profit or loss mechanism. An insurance firm that can't pay out goes broke. A government medical plan just continues to accrue debt or damage the economy with increased taxation.

A poorly run government medical plan accrues debt. France, Canada and Australia don't seem to have any problems doing it, why can't the US?

The Medicare budget in Australia is $900 million a year, a drop in the bucket for 20 million people. Our privately run public transport network spent $1 billion on a new ticketing system, it's a joke.

The australian government is spending $40 billion on a fibre optic broadband network at the moment, another thing the free market couldn't provide. How can a private company lay fibre optic cable across a huge sparsely populated country like Australia without charging $1000 a month for access? it would be impossible. Sometimes the government has to step in to make these things happen, then they're going to open it up to privately run telcos to compete.

 

[slayerment]

A poorly run government medical plan accrues debt. France, Canada and Australia don't seem to have any problems doing it, why can't the US?

The Medicare budget in Australia is $900 million a year, a drop in the bucket for 20 million people. Our privately run public transport network spent $1 billion on a new ticketing system, it's a joke.

The australian government is spending $40 billion on a fibre optic broadband network at the moment, another thing the free market couldn't provide. How can a private company lay fibre optic cable across a huge sparsely populated country like Australia without charging $1000 a month for access? it would be impossible. Sometimes the government has to step in to make these things happen, then they're going to open it up to privately run telcos to compete.

You are missing the fundamentals of economics. If the government is doing something that the free market is not then it is doing something that isn't needed. Capital goes into the free market where a profit can be made. It has nothing to do with greed, it has to do with what people want. Free markets are much better at following what people want than governments. A profit is made in areas that have demand. If the government is doing something because the free market is not then it is because that thing is not needed. This happens all the time. The government always thinks it can outdo the free market in what people really need but it's not possible.

So while it looks good that the government is spending $40 billion in fibre optic broadband, in reality a) the $40 billion would be better spent by giving this money back to the people and allowing them to individually privately spend it in the free market which operates on real supply and demand and b) allow the free market to do fibre optic broadband when the time comes for it to be needed at a much greater efficiency than the government.

What people fail to realize is all the industries that suffer as a result to not having that $40 billion now. This $40 billion would have been better spent in the free market. When you hand money to the government all you do is force what's not needed and do it at a higher cost and less efficiency. If people really wanted fibre optic broadband they wouldn't have to vote for it through government, they would vote for it with their dollar. The government can not outdo the free market in planning economies. It has never worked in history.

 

[johnmatrix]

You are missing the fundamentals of economics. If the government is doing something that the free market is not then it is doing something that isn't needed.

What a load of bullshit, if the free market isn't doing something it's because theres no money to be made in it or the risk is too high, not because it "isn't needed". Would the free market have landed a man on the moon and won the space race in 1969?

I get it, and a pure free market is a beautiful thing, it just doesn't work in every situation and I believe government intervention is necessary for certain services.

Where's the competition on a rail network? is a private company going to build tracks and stations alongside the other one? our private train network is a pile of shit and the ticket prices keep going up. We don't get trains more often or more running on time, we get a new ticketing system and more ticket inspectors trying to catch fare evaders.

 

[geomark]

LOL, you just DON'T get it. The market will provide ANYTHING that is demanded by consumers. The only time it won't or can't is when the market is distorted by government. It does work in EVERY situation where there is no distortion. A private rail network WOULD arise if there was a market for it, by definition in fact, as long as there weren't government distortions. LOL at people who think they get it and don't.

 

[johnmatrix]

A private rail network WOULD arise if there was a market for it, by definition in fact, as long as there weren't government distortions.

We have a terrible private rail network, that's the problem. It has changed hands many times and is now majority owned by a Hong Kong based corporation. Great stuff. The previous name of the rail network "Connex" had to be changed because it had such a negative connotation, it's now "Metro".

LOL, you just DON'T get it. The market will provide ANYTHING that is demanded by consumers.

Tell that to the people in rural Australia that can't get broadband LOL.

 

[JakeStratham]

At johnmatrix:

We can (hopefully) agree that all products and services cost something to produce and bring to market. This is true of apples, televisions, dental care, police services, and Google. It is also true for a nationwide fibre optic broadband network.

A few questions for you...

You mentioned your state is spending $40 billion to build such a network. How do you know the network should cost $40 billion, and not $30 billion? How is that cost determined? What factors influence it? How do you know every dollar is being spent wisely?

 

[geomark]

I looked up "no market" in the dictionary and one alternative definition was "a small number of peasants in the Australian outback".

 

[cziffra]

Tell that to the people in rural Australia that can't get broadband LOL.

You need ask why this is happening. If there is enough demand, the free market will step in to fill that demand. I haven't looked into broadband in Australia, but my guess is that there are government regulations or other interventions in the market that have prevented companies from providing this service. I have never seen a single example of a situation like this that wasn't caused by government.

There are numerous examples of the market providing services after the government got out of the way. For example, the early phone industry in the US was dominated by one company because of patents. After those patents expired, the phone industry exploded. New companies were springing up all over the place. People were getting service in areas that weren't previously served. Here is an article that discusses this and several other examples:

The Myth of Natural Monopoly - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

 

[johnmatrix]

You mentioned your state is spending $40 billion to build such a network. How do you know the network should cost $40 billion, and not $30 billion? How is that cost determined? What factors influence it? How do you know every dollar is being spent wisely?

I just looked it up and the cost was recently revised to $35.9 billion, decent!

The government issued a request for proposals from the private sector for a fiber to the node network, and none of the 6 that were received met the requirements. So the government decided to take it a step further and build a fiber to the HOME network.

The gov set up NBN (national broadband network) Co themselves to design and run the network, with the gov contributing $27 billion of the $35.9 billion cost. The remainder is made up by private investment, which is a good sign. The NBN Co is expected to fully repay the government by 2034. That's how Australian's do it, FUCK YEAH!

Of course the other option would have been to leave it to the free market, and then we'd still be stuck on our monopolised ADSL copper network. Maybe in 20 years time when it's cheap enough, a private company may have invested in building a fiber network. The Government is making it happen NOW.

Just like it took the US Government to put a man on the moon in 1969. If it was left to private enterprise it wouldn't have happened until... it still hasn't happened. We've got private space flights but it only became economically viable recently, 40 odd years after your Government made it happen.

 

[Izaya]

What's it like to wait 6 months for surgery and share a room with 3 other patients? When I was there the hospitals felt 3rd world (Montreal)

That might be Montreal, In Toronto it's nowhere near 6 months. Life threatening surgeries get done right away, minor surgeries wait a bit. Also at least having a child here doesn't cost us 30k or so in medical bills.

 

[trickykid]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, trickykid. I'd love to dig more deeply into this stuff with you one day.

 

[trickykid]

Thank you for this. I am a US citizen but have traveled many times to Canada and love it. Your explanation really gets the point across. NO matter how you see it, it is about caring about your country, citizens and understanding that you help others today so that you can be helped later when you need it.
.

No problem. Some people "get it" and some people don't.

Who can really say which system is better? I firmly believe in ours, but thats because I was brought up into this system and really don't even think twice about sharing for the great good and prosperity of everyone.

I'm also not naive. I know there are people who abuse the system, but that's not something that's isolated to Canada. I think cheating or abusing systems/finding loopholes is a Global pandemic.

 

[trickykid]

Still better than paying 5k per hospital visit. One major surgery in the states and most people can forget about ever becoming debt free.

Not to mention that this whole "waiting 6 months", or whatever BS wait time the US Media has fabricated in order to make the population fear our system, is grossly exaggerated.

 

[edward_b]

My wife and I live in Toronto, and 3 months ago she gave birth to our first child (awesome little guy )...anyway...after 9 months of doctor visits, ultrasounds, blood tests etc (all of which cost $0), when the time came we went to our local public hospital, where we stayed for 3.5 days, she had lots of drugs and an epidural, followed by an emergency c-section (bit scary).

Nurses despite being under a lot of pressure (it was busy) were really great and looked after us all really well. Room wasn't exactly the Ritz, but we didn't have to share luckily.

Cost to us? a grand total of $0. We were actually sitting there signing the Health Canada papers joking with the nurse that thank god we're not in the US, otherwise imagine the cost.

I think I pay about $200/month in Health contributions here in Canada, I think in the UK it was a bit less from memory. Coming from the UK I'm used to the system where everyone pays a little and those who need it get treated without having to pay. Meanwhile, I have a friend in the US who has a wife and 2 kids. He is paying around $1k every month for health coverage, on top of his mortgage, car payments, car insurance, etc etc.

I'm constantly shocked at these threads about health cover in the US, it just seems unfathomable to me that so many people who can't afford cover are literally priced out of health care...versus 'group buying' that gives health care pretty freely to everyone in for example Canada and the UK. Not saying its perfect, but at least citizens in those countries largely don't have to worry about not being able to afford medical care should they need it.

Imagine in the US how much cash it would free up for ordinary people to spend in other ways in the economy, if a similar public health system were implemented. I guess the problem is now you have a huge and powerful industry that is used to making shedloads of cash of the ill health of citizens.

Anyway, back to work

 

[pfgannon]

Cost to us? a grand total of $0.

I think I pay about $200/month in Health contributions here in Canada

You sure have a strange definition of zero...

But I get it, you're still getting a seemingly great deal of health care for little cost.

As for the US health system...

Now I don't claim to know much about this particular topic, but if we did nationalize health care here in the US, I have a feeling the Corps. would be writing the policies, and we'd be more fucked than we currently are.

 

[mikecarquote]

From CNBC and Howstuffworks (for what it is worth)

Comparing these numbers [US] to other industrialized countries, the U.S. spends a greater share of gross domestic product on health care, by as much as 50 percent in some cases.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product on health care every year than any other country. Yet, the United States ranks 37th out of 191 countries in the WHO's ranking of health care systems. It's difficult to imagine any consumer spending that much more money on a product only to be handed something that ranks 37th in quality

The typical U.S. citizen has far fewer doctor appointments each year than citizens of other countries, yet pays more for the privilege. When an American citizen spends the night in the hospital, it costs 5.6 times more than it would cost a person in Japan [source: Clifton]. And to top it all off, the U.S. spends $2,797 more per person every year than other industrialized countries, even though 47 million of those people are uninsured [source: Clifton].

Big health care and oil companies will soon own us.

 

[guerilla]

Cost to us? a grand total of $0. We were actually sitting there signing the Health Canada papers joking with the nurse that thank god we're not in the US, otherwise imagine the cost.

Cost to you was low because someone else had to pay it. Those nurses ain't looking after your health for free.

You're receiving welfare.

 

[guerilla]

The gov set up NBN (national broadband network) Co themselves to design and run the network, with the gov contributing $27 billion of the $35.9 billion cost

The government has no money. They take money out of the private sector by force and then apply it. It's basically loot that they are contributing.

The remainder is made up by private investment, which is a good sign.

Why is that a good sign comrade?

Of course the other option would have been to leave it to the free market, and then we'd still be stuck on our monopolised ADSL copper network. Maybe in 20 years time when it's cheap enough, a private company may have invested in building a fiber network. The Government is making it happen NOW.

If it isn't profitable (positive result bearing) to build a network now privately, why do it? Why would you waste resources to build something for which there is not commensurate resources or demand?

Yes, the government is forcing something and you are going to free ride on it. So for you, it is all apples. But you are indirectly paying for it, because you're getting something built that there was no demand for, and so resources have been allocated away from things that people want in the economy. This is going to create a distortion, and ultimately, albeit perhaps imperceptibly, you will be worse off.

Just like it took the US Government to put a man on the moon in 1969.

Again, you're making our argument. There was not enough private sector demand or resources to make this happen, so the government forcibly confiscated the resources and made it to be.

This is rule by the fist, not by cooperation.

If it was left to private enterprise it wouldn't have happened until... it still hasn't happened.

How can you know what an alternate reality would be?

We've got private space flights but it only became economically viable recently, 40 odd years after your Government made it happen.

Maybe we have private flights now because there is finally a market for it. When the USG invests tax money into a program, it has a crowding out effect and reduces private sector investment.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4"]The Myth of Science as a Public Good (by Terence Kealey) - YouTube[/ame]