Our system is far from perfect, but more government interference and involvement is not the answer.
Oh, sure it is. It's just the wrong answer. :)
But you see Kevin, the real problem here is that you're stuck in your mindset that's not useful. You're in denial, willful ignorance and you're just trying to spread panic and fear. *cough* Uh oh. Hope I'm not getting sick....
"Got cancer? A hernia? Thirteen weeks is a long time."
Got chest pains? A few hours is a long time.
"Our system is far from perfect, but more government interference and involvement is not the answer."
Why, Kevin, don't you like being told how to behave by gubmint clerks with an agenda? Remember, when one is in gubmint and the discussion is about universal health care, the emphasis is on universal. Now, you don't want the Head Clerk What's In Charge to come over there, do you?
I don't think we would have a system like Britain's. It's really just not possible here and it would do us a large amount of economic damage. Because of the wide variety of private care already offered here, I don't think we would end up with one central system like theirs. Remember, though, accoding to WHO they rank 18th and we rank 37th. We spend three times as much on our care and get a lower quality then they do? Hmm, sounds like I'm not getting any sort of return on my investement.
What a universal program health care program would do here is promote competition. People would have a choice, public or private, and none of the choices would be no health care at all. That is the kind of country America should be.
What I find very interesting every time we go down this path here iz that some people here seem certain that the worst is going to happen. Are you really all that certain? I know that I'm not completely certain what uhc system would work or how. This issue, along with many others, soldifies my chief point about some conservatives: once they make up their mind, there isn't any wavering. In this case, universal health care is always wrong.
Well, there's no doubt that there have been socialized systems that have failed. I think there are many problems with the British system. But how about France? Number one in the world and doing quite well, thank you. And I experienced it first hand and it is stellar. Spain? Israel? Finland? They all rank ahead of the US and have socialized medecine. Check out the latest rankings
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
I also took the liberty, as I knew that another UHC debate would come up again, of asking a friend of mine on my tennis team (he has dual US and Canadian citizenship) if there are long waits for simple procedures. He said no. I asked him if there were long waits at all. He said no. I asked him how he would compare the Canadian system to the US system and he said that they are pretty much the same level of care.
I know that everyone who posts here would like it if everyone could take care of themselves. True, some people are lazy and don't "deserve" help. But the fact is that some people can't. They need our help.
And what I find interesting, in a group of people who I consider to be largely patriotic, is how quickly you give up simply because the government is involved. Alright, so...you don't like it. Then stop bitching about it and do something. Do you honestly all think that privitizing everything is the answer? I think we've seen plenty of examples, in the last seven years, at how catastrophic that can be.
In all seriousness, DJ is touching on one of the real motivators here:
Why, Kevin, don't you like being told how to behave by gubmint clerks with an agenda?
If the government isn't involved in health care, how can they help you?
As part of that, we'll have our highly educated "betters", most of whom didn't waste their time in medical school, or economic grad work, or statistics, but who have "your" (as a whole)'s best interest at heart able to make decisions without the burden of too much medical knowledge, keeping in mind the "big picture", and not being emotional about specifics.
I also took the liberty, as I knew that another UHC debate would come up again, of asking a friend of mine on my tennis team (he has dual US and Canadian citizenship) if there are long waits for simple procedures. He said no. I asked him if there were long waits at all. He said no. I asked him how he would compare the Canadian system to the US system and he said that they are pretty much the same level of care.
And as a former Canadian who was forever crippled by the socialist Canadian medical system, I say your tennis buddy is full of shit. There are long waits for procedures. There are long waits to see GPs. If you want an MRI, you need to go to Detroit. There is no comparison.
And what I find interesting, in a group of people who I consider to be largely patriotic, is how quickly you give up simply because the government is involved.
It's not a matter of giving up. It's a matter of recognizing that government involvement ALWAYS increases costs and reduces availability. ALWAYS and everywhere it is tried. Saying otherwise is like claiming rocks fall up.
Doesn't anyone else understand that "universal coverage" and "public medicine" are prescriptions for genocide? Babyboomers had better wake up, or they will go in but will not come out. Who will their family call, the government?
I think the other governments (the ones with government funded health plans) are just waiting for America to fall so that, in collusion, the genocide may begin. What was it the German doctors reported in the dark age... heart attacks was most common in those times, wasn't it?
And what I find interesting, in a group of people who I consider to be largely patriotic, is how quickly you give up simply because the government is involved.
Patriotic != Love of government.
I can't believe, after months here, someone had to explain that. Again.
Most of the time these days, there is debate based on personalities and not issues. I urge that we all employ some of our power to put pressure on politicians to do something about our worsening health crisis by proposing detailed and specific plans.
Unix, I think you are supposing that the government will make your health care decisions for you. Other than Kuecinich and Edwards, show me where exactly in Obama's or Hillary's plan where that is going to happen.
"Saying otherwise is like claiming rocks fall up."
Well, as long as you are open minded about it....
Doom, wow, don't know what to say to that one but I do agree with you on one thing: America could fall and it's because of what has been going on with our government the last eight years.
Doc, well some of the candidates have started. Obama and Hillary have pretty detailed plans on their web site.
"Remember, though, accoding to WHO they rank 18th and we rank 37th. We spend three times as much on our care and get a lower quality then they do? Hmm, sounds like I'm not getting any sort of return on my investement."
Which sounds good until you realise that only 25% of the marks used to give that ranking were for actual quality of care. The rest were for things like who paid for the care (government = high score, private = low score).
In actual quality of care, US scored higher than the UK.
I live in the UK, and as soon as I can afford it I'm getting private medical insurance cover.
But how about France? Number one in the world and doing quite well, thank you. And I experienced it first hand and it is stellar. Spain? Israel? Finland? They all rank ahead of the US and have socialized medecine.
They just haven't crashed yet, Markadelphia. These systems don't crash right away. It usually takes four or five decades. The UK's system is crashing now because it was implemented in the Fourties.
Hmmm...do we have a Socialist system in place that was implemented four or five decades ago, is crashing now but can't be fixed because too many people depend on it? Why, yes we do!
And that's the rub. That's why you Socialists push these systems so hard - because you know that once they are implemented they are almost impossible to get rid of. And by hook or by crook, you WILL turn America into a Socialist country.
Universal health coverage will start out seeming great, slowly worsen and finally become a complete disaster. Our grandkids will have to take incredibly painful steps in order to get rid of it. And yes, towards the end the government WILL try to cut costs by limiting who is and is not covered, just as it is doing in the UK right now.
What I find very interesting every time we go down this path here iz that some people here seem certain that the worst is going to happen. Are you really all that certain? I know that I'm not completely certain what uhc system would work or how. This issue, along with many others, soldifies my chief point about some conservatives: once they make up their mind, there isn't any wavering. In this case, universal health care is always wrong.
We only do that if that is the lesson of history. And goshwow - in this case it IS! Funny how that works out.
I agree that we do need a very, VERY basic system that allows truly indigent people access to healthcare in times of crisis. But we've already got that - it's called Medicaid. No further system is required.
In my travels to South America last month I met a Canadian who was staying at my hotel. He lives in Calgary.
He wasn't too happy with the Canadian Health Care system. He said many of the Canadian politicians get their care in the US at places like the Mayo clinic.
He said care and services are rationed. His experience was that the neighborhood clinics featured in Sicko were full many times because people go there if they get so much as a paper cut.
He said one citizen is suing the Canadian Government right now because he was forced to wait 2 years for hip replacement surgery.
He said there is a mandatory 1 year wait on on elective surgery (non life-threatening).
He said the latest thing is travel agencies offering trip packages to India so people can get their surgeries sooner. He said Toronto newspapers are full of advertisements for those packages.
Other than Kuecinich and Edwards, show me where exactly in Obama's or Hillary's plan where that is going to happen.
Mark, you simply refuse to get it,
It isn't immediate. Like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., etc., etc., it takes a few decades of continual "adjustments" and "modifications" to "make it more fair" and "close the loopholes" and "increase public buy-in" before the whole thing collapses under its own weight.
And where will Obama be then?
Three quotes I found recently that I think truly are appropriate here:
Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances.
Universal health care is such a concentration of power.
Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.
And, finally:
I want people to take thought about their condition and to recognize that the maintenance of a free society is a very difficult and complicated thing and it requires a self-denying ordinance of the most extreme kind. It requires a willingness to put up with temporary evils on the basis of the subtle and sophisticated understanding that if you step in to do something about them you not only may make them worse, you will spread your tentacles and get bad results elsewhere.
All of those are by Milton Friedman.
Here's another, by John Stuart Mill:
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise.
"Smokers or people who are chronically overweight may have to agree to exercise or to other changes in their lifestyles in return for NHS treatment."
In other news, Britons suffering from piles or rectal fistulae who voted for Labour are going to be given a cellar of salt to rub upon their sore bums.
The "Bloody Justice Initiative" the Shadow Health Minister termed it.
"Moreover, patients who miss or chronically arrive late for hospital appointments may have penalties imposed on them, The Times of London reported."
So this will penalize people who aren't wealthy enough to pay the "Gridlock Tax" now being collected in metro London, huh?
Yep...give 'em all a salt shaker if they voted for these goobers.
I don't know about anywhere else, but Israel's state medical system is problematic. In a state with the highest concentration of doctors per capita in the world (about 1 per 12, because each infantry squad gets its own combat medic trained up), quality of care is relatively poor. As an overseas student, I was told to avoid Israeli hospitals if I could manage it.
"He said there is a mandatory 1 year wait on on elective surgery (non life-threatening)."
That is astounding, and it hits close to home.
I have had surgery on my hands three times (twice on the left, once on the right) for a condition called "trigger finger". It's called "trigger finger release".
No, I'm not making this up. Go see http://www.webmd.com/osteoarthritis/guide/trigger-finger for a good summary. I don't have arthritis, just a tendency to develop trigger finger, three times so far.
This condition develops quickly, progresses rapidly, and can be excruciatingly painful. When I grabbed for something that slipped out of my hand, my finger "triggered", and the pain brought me to my knees, I sought help.
Treatment varies:
1) "Occasionally, your doctor may put a splint on the affected hand to restrict the joint movement" Try it. Put a splint on your hand that keeps your middle finger straight, and then try grasping anything with that hand. I suggest toilet paper, for starters. It didn't help.
2) "If symptoms continue, anti-inflammatory medications, such as ibuprofen or naproxen, may be prescribed." They don't cure it, they simply slow the progression, and they do very little of that. Read the labels; long term use of such things is not advised. It didn't help.
3) "Your doctor may also recommend an injection of a steroid medication into the tendon sheath.": And the doctor said, "It's EXTREMELY painful to do." I asked, "For how long would it provide relief?" He replied, "A week, tops, usually less." I replied, "Nope. Ain't interested. What else can we do?"
4) "If the condition does not respond to conservative measures or consistently recurs, surgery may be recommended to release the tendon sheath and restore movement." Bingo.
Surgery for this problem is ...
1) ... easy. Numb the hand with a local, wash it with an iodine solution, make an incision about 3/4 inch long over the tendon and sheath, cut the sheath open along its length, close and suture the incision.
2) ... fast. It takes about five minutes of the surgeon's time.
3) ... convenient. It is outpatient surgery. The building where I had it the last one done is smaller than my house.
4) ... cheap. The fee to the facility cost about $2,700, the surgeon's fee was about $800, and the anesthesiologist's fee was about $250.
5) ... available. I had it done twice in Taos, New Mexico, population about 7,000.
6) ... successful. It WORKS. Relief was immediate, I could use my hand the next day, care was simply keeping it clean and covered with a band-aid, and complete recovery took about three months. I mean it gave me my hand back each time, and after three months, it was good as new. The sheath is not necessary; opening it lengthwise makes it bigger, the problem disappears, the tendon recovers, and it all works just dandy.
Now, if I had to wait a year for it each time, I would have spent three years in pain and more than mildly incapacitated. If the problem persists and isn't cured, the tendon locks and atrophies, and it becomes incurable.
Yup, you guessed it. If I couldn't get it locally, I would have travelled to a different country to get it.
Waiting a year for five minutes of a surgeon's time because it is elective and not life threatening, now that is quality health care.
You see, the only actual problem with Universal Health-care is that it's not ever funded properly. ;-)
If we could magically fund government health care to unlimited levels, we would be able to offer fantastic care at the all-you-can-eat free health care buffet. Anything less than unlimited funding and you will get lines, rationing, and government mandated therapy restrictions.
Two posts back from the linked one, I explain what happens when someone like myself has to pay the full amount for stomach-acid reducing medicine, instead of paying a small co-pay, and heaping the rest, (~$120+ per month), on everyone else enrolled in my group plan. The short: many people suddenly have an incentive to try a less expensive alternative. You also might figure out why prescription drugs keep getting more and more expensive while the actual consumers avoid paying the actual amount. Meanwhile, elective surgeries such as Lasik keep getting more and more affordable. Wonder why?
Also, didn't someone have a link about Britons super-gluing their crowns back in, because getting a dental visit was nigh impossible?
Medicaid is awful. Most private doctors don't want to accept it, because it pays poorly, but also is a huge pain-in-the-ass to deal with bureaucracy. Doctors just hate to deal with it.
Also, government interference in the U.S. health care economy is part of the problem of increasing costs. Could government fix some of that problem? Sure, but it hasn't and I don't see it happening. But it has price fixing, increasingly large bureaucratic layers to go through, and certainly has, if anything, helped shield insurance companies and hospital chains from true competition, in any number of ways.
"Do you honestly all think that privitizing everything is the answer?"
Kevin, please excuse me for saying this at your place, but, Mark, Abso-damn-lutley!!!
Man can survive, even a modern, overtly political entity such as a country, with extremely little governmental interference. Ask yourself the correct questions, Mark, and be honest, and you'll eventually come to the correct answers.
Viridian, do you think the French Health Care system is headed for a crash?
Last, since you have seen the movie Sicko, your criticisms are valid :)
"The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority."
I couldn't agree more. Guess who has all that power now? US Corporations. I agree that power should not be concentrated solely in the government but the private sector shouldn't have as much either. It should be balanced.
Mastiff, you may be right. I was basing my opinion on my ex-girl friend and some other friends who lived there and the WHO report.
At least we all agree that they system we have doesn't work. And if we don't want any of the plans that are out there from the candidates, then what do we want? I understand your distrust of government but what of corporate America?
Medicaid is awful. Most private doctors don't want to accept it, because it pays poorly, but also is a huge pain-in-the-ass to deal with bureaucracy.
Exactly.
Because Medicaid and Medicare pay after services are rendered. And then pay insisting that cheaper procedures "could" have been used./b>
So, guess who gets to pay for the shortfall when they (or insurance, but insurance can (unlike the government) be sued successfully, so they're better, by a bit, plus they do have to compete) fail to cover the costs?
If you guessed "Other Consumers", you'd be right.
Several Florida doctors have in fact, opened clinics where insurance isn't processed at all. You got it, hey, great, you deal with the paperwork. As a result, visits are $35. (My Doctor's office currently charges me $110/appointment.)
And they're booked. One doctor (this is from memory, watching a TV News interview) said he said enough was enough when he looked at his payroll and found he had more people processing insurance than he had doctors, nurses, techs, and medical specialists. He claims to be clearing more money, able to treat people better, and with less hassles.
An argument is a series of valid related statements put together to produce a conclusion. For example:
A + B + C + D + E = R
A through E represent the valid statements. R represent the Results or conclusion produced by the statements.
If any of the intermediate statements is invalid, then the result is automatically invalid. For example, if B represents the statement "2+2" and this statement is evaluated to produce the answer "4", then the Result will be valid as long as A, C, D and E are also valid. However, if "2+2" is replaced with "17", then there is no way that the Result can be valid.
In Sicko, Michael Moore tells us that Cuba's socialized medicine provides first rate care for everyone. Yet, as these videos from one of the best hospitals for regular citizens in Cuba's capital of Havanna proves, Moore's claim is a bald faced LIE. Therefore, it is impossible to accept his conclusion that we should adopt socialized medicine.
I have to admit that his Cuba portion of the film, in my opinion, was totally unnecessary. Up to that point, he did a fine job explaining how much of a racket our health care system is and how other country's, some of whom have socialized medicine, are better systems.
The Cuba part was silly, although if you saw the film, he did prove one of the right's talking points: the conditions at Gitmo are great. Ironic, huh?
I also thought his point of the film was to show insured people in this country are being ripped off...which they absolutely are...and that critics of socialized medicine are reacting to information being put out by the people who have the most to lose from a government based health care system.
The film is an exploration of the grey areas of health care as well so I guess I don't see why you feel he had to have a definitive, logical conclusion.
The French Healthcare system may not crash in the near future but I can tell you that several of those countries over there are (right now)looking for ways to privatize their healthcare system. The company I work for is headquartered in Germany.
Combine Euopes generous welfare benefits (where citizens are taken care of from womb to tomb by the government) with low birthrates and you have a recipe for economic disaster because there are not enough taxpayers and not enough wealth being generated to pay for everyones benefits. Much is made of our budget deficit in the US but that is chump change compared to the pension crisis awaiting the EU. Give it time, just give it time.
Privatizing may not be the answer for everything but I know that Government never runs anything cheaper or more efficient than private industry because Government has no incentive to be cheaper or more efficient.
Unix, I saw that show too about the doctors saying to hell with reimbursement...I think it was a John Stossel show. The doctor had a list of services and a price list like a menu so you know exactly what you are getting and at what cost.
Attempts at socialism are nothing new though. Look at Chavez in Venezuela. Meat, milk, sugar and eggs are hard to come by, but imported whiskey and Hummers are abundant (General Motors is shipping 3000 Hummers to Venezuela and opening new dealerships). Chavez instituted price controls and got the government involved with state stores. That leads to some or all of the following:
A. the market supplies less of an item
B. the item becomes more expensive
C. a black market develops, which can lead to more crime
D. inflation spreads to other items, even if they're not yet in short supply, because people hoard them.
Chavez is not treading new ground. The Soviet Union tried and failed, Cuba tried and failed and Argentina is trying and failing, too, with energy and beef prices.
What frankly amazes me is that anyone with any education can still have any faith in a full blown socialist system. Without question, plenty of countries need dramatic economic change, but socialism? How many times, and on what scale, does the socialist model need to fail before folks realize it's NOT a workable economic model?
The middle and upper class is getting out of Venezuela faster than you can say Visa. Who will be left in Venezuela as Chavez clamps down on dissent and turns to socialism? The people who don’t have the money to leave of course and once oil production falls further, as it inevitably will since the oil expert foreigners have also been kicked out of the country, the future down there will not be bright as the country will turn even further into a socialist shithole third world country in no time with 1 leader hoarding all the wealth. Give them 10 years, maybe less once we are able to manufacture and mass-produce ways to use dirt or leaves to fuel our vehicles.
"What frankly amazes me is that anyone with any education can still have any faith in a full blown socialist system."
Or even a partial one. It amazes a lot of us. Kevin has addressed the subject thoroughly, as has Steven den Beste. The condition is called "cognitive dissonance", and the slogan is, "Do it again, only harder!"
What frankly amazes me is that anyone with any education can still have any faith in a full blown socialist system.
There are some ideas that you can tell were concocted by those with a long time in academia.
As I once said to my father, if I hadn't known he had a Ph.D in Econ, I would after he made the comment he had - it was so absolutely appallingly at odds with history, common sense, and practicality that it had to be the product of advanced education.
Now, in all fairness, my father is an outstanding manager. He's turned around huge state agencies, focused them on their tasks, goals, and made them places that made a difference.
I had an epiphany once when we were out fishing, and I told him that I'd figured out his problem. He looks at these sorts of issues, sees what he would do, and says "Hell, I could fix that." I pointed out that it won't be him, or anybody else competent, it would be the "Teds" or "Davids" or "Sams" who would be the ones in charge. (He actually didn't argue that much, meaning I actually got across to him some.)
Which he might well could. I'd lay money on that he could. But I also note that none of his agencies were running at any sort of efficiency save one (where he handpicked a replacement) - his largest and longest effort (over 12 years as Head Honcho) was totally trashed in under 6 months when he was replaced with a (very intellectually smart) contemporary after he retired.
4 years after he'd left, 6 directors later, one of "his guys" got the top slot, and has it back to "Better than government average." When my father decided to do some consulting, he was also one of the first to call him, begging him to come help. He even - not jokingly - offered to take the demotion to deputy for Dad to run the show again.
What frustrates me to no end - my father, who I present those bona fides as proof he's hardly an idiot, will then forget all of that when it comes to political decisions.
Out fishing another time, I asked him, "Dad, what's the purpose of (our) government?". His answer? "To protect us from corporations."
(Usually, we just stick to fishing. For obvious reasons. By the way, my answer to the last question? "To ensure liberty.")
"Combine Europes generous welfare benefits (where citizens are taken care of from womb to tomb by the government) with low birthrates and you have a recipe for economic disaster because there are not enough taxpayers and not enough wealth being generated to pay for everyones benefits."
Bingo!
And WHO was it who based our Social InSecurity system on the false proposition that we'd keep seeing a geometric growth rate, forever and ever, instead of the Western post-war model of near zero birth rates? That's right, the Socialist of All Socialists in America, FDR!
Where did he get his "brilliant" idea? It wasn't any one person, but a group, independent of one another, who had either political pull, or who had recently written about inflationary spending practices, notably Keynes (Post WWI). Stalin may have had some influence here too, as FDR had occasion to "consult" with the dictator after the Reds had militarily taken over the rich agricultural areas of the Ukraine, and suppressing (detaining, starving and killing) the wealthy farmers, or kulaks. It was control and redistribution policy toward forced industrialization, and the potatoes and wheat from the region was used to feed those other cities' workers (I'm sure there was some sorry-assed excuse called "need" in there, somewhere).
Now, guess where those current social security payments come from, Mark? They aren't sitting in some "account" in a government-run bank. They don't accrue ANY kind of growth, and the only way the goddamned-.gov "increases" benefits is by taking MORE money directly from people who earn it, and giving it to those who don't! It is an in-and-out ponzi-scheme based on ever increasing numbers to make the BASE wider, to support the supposed SMALLER numbers of the old/infirmed/destitute who are to nominally make up the "in need" category.
The problem here is that, as I alluded to earlier, the Western World hasn't gone down that particular growth road over the last half-century, even if you count the baby-boomers generation! People here haven't been procreating on the level of 10 or 12 kids since the early part of the 20th century. Life expectancy has gone through the roof too, going from, what, 50, to about 78 years, an increase of over 50 percent! People living longer, into a more care-prone period of life is a sure drain on any type of "collective care" system.
We haven't even started here, and I also haven't touched on your assertion about the gummint "system" attempting to "compete" with private care. This is laughable, and it's apparant for anyone who knows about governmental coercion of markets. Hint: Gummints just write the law to their liking, and eliminate competition with the stroke of a pen.
My advice to you, Mark, is if you think that the "Universal" model is so attractive, go to Canada, it's really quite a short drive for you.
Another point, -B, when Social Security began, it started paying out at age 65. The average life expectancy for females at that time was about 65, and for males, if I recall correctly, was about 62, so about half of the elderly population didn't make it to retirement age, and those that did didn't live to collect very long.
Now the average life expectancy of Baby Boomers is 77.8 years. They get to draw off Social Security for over twelve years on average, not three or four, and the trend is ever upward, so the amount of money going out is also increasing.
We've been paying in more than it's been paying out for a long, long time, guys! And the surplus has been invested! The gubmint borrowed it, and there are all those IOU's in a filing cabinet, somewhere in Virginia, right? So, when it needs that excess in the future, it'll just call in those IOU's, and we'll all pay more taxes to pay them back, because the gubmint spent it all, and, um, well, never mind ...
I'm no fan of FDR, but it was more likely he consulted Bismarck and Asquith (with Lloyd-George and Churchill) than Stalin on Social Security. Not saying it was the right decision, but you're rant runs away from the reality.
Re: Finland's socialized medical care, my husband experienced the Finnish socialized medical system for 30 years before he moved to the U.S. He had major care under the Finnish system, including a knee reconstruction and brain surgery. He has also been in a major car wreck in the U.S. and has experienced the hospital care here. After comparing/contrasting, he prefers the American system.
1. You don't have any say over what kind of treatment you get. None. The doctor decides it for you, and if you don't like it, tough bananas.
2. The "free" Finnish system costs a fortune in taxpayer money -- taxes are very high in Finland, and on top of that I think Finland is deep in the hole with the World Bank.
3. What does it say about public medical care that the relatively wealthy Finns would rather pay (again) to go to a private hospital?
As for Canada, I'd ask your tennis buddy if he's ever had any kind of major health problems that were treated in Canada. Most reports I get about how OK the Canadian/French/Finnish systems are come from people who've experienced nothing more than basic care for minor things. The perception changes greatly once you suspect you have or get diagnosed with something major and find out you have to wait weeks or months for tests and treatment. My grandfather in Canada just got diagnosed with prostate cancer (in the U.S.), and guess what? He's driving back across the border to get treatment, because he doesn't want to wait months in Canada.
C'mon, Sarah. Being trained in the scientific method, you must be aware that a statistical sample of size ONE is perfectly valid IF the sample agrees with the conclusion the sampler has already jumped to. Remember the method: First, get your results, then derive your data.
Try some of James Warburg's words regarding the overtly socialist platform used in 1932. He helped write it only to realize later that it was a boondoggle.
Kinda smacks of the stuff that happened, and was at the time, currently happening, in good 'ole Red Mother Russia: centralized management, price controls, agricultural cuts, monetary policies being completely rewritten for the benefit of the government.
How did the Gummint cronies get these ideas about what to do with the "failing" economy during the Great Depression? Yes, your aforementioned academics could be cited, and are completely justified, but a phone call to Red Joe would have been just as easy.
Al Smith's American Liberty League openly accused and opposed FDR and his administration's stance on its anti-business policies, including some other items more in line with defending individual rights to work, earn and property acquisition.
I aint makin' this stuff up.
Look, the facts may be somewhat in question, but the there are enough to look at in hindsight and make some undeniable conclusions about how things were happening at home and around the world at the time. It may have NOT been a sit down with Red Joe that cemented the New Deal, and if that was your inference of my earlier rant, then all I can do is say that it wasn't my intention to suggest that it WAS. That's my fault for not making the argument clearer, I suppose, but from my perspective, the situation of the world and the way that governments conspire to do the things that they do, HELL, look at the Effing UN even TODAY!
What about that clan of professional kleptocrats is any good, at all? For anything?
-B, The point is FDR was following the 'liberal' European model of a 'mixed economy' - not the revolutionary one. The people I cited were not academics or revolutionaries - they were the European politicans who introduced the modern welfare state (which is sin enough that you needn't taint them with Stalinist excess).
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/01/so-when-is-universal-health-care-system.html (43 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Our system is far from perfect, but more government interference and involvement is not the answer.
Oh, sure it is. It's just the wrong answer. :)
But you see Kevin, the real problem here is that you're stuck in your mindset that's not useful. You're in denial, willful ignorance and you're just trying to spread panic and fear. *cough* Uh oh. Hope I'm not getting sick....
"Got cancer? A hernia? Thirteen weeks is a long time."
Got chest pains? A few hours is a long time.
"Our system is far from perfect, but more government interference and involvement is not the answer."
Why, Kevin, don't you like being told how to behave by gubmint clerks with an agenda? Remember, when one is in gubmint and the discussion is about universal health care, the emphasis is on universal. Now, you don't want the Head Clerk What's In Charge to come over there, do you?
I don't think we would have a system like Britain's. It's really just not possible here and it would do us a large amount of economic damage. Because of the wide variety of private care already offered here, I don't think we would end up with one central system like theirs. Remember, though, accoding to WHO they rank 18th and we rank 37th. We spend three times as much on our care and get a lower quality then they do? Hmm, sounds like I'm not getting any sort of return on my investement.
What a universal program health care program would do here is promote competition. People would have a choice, public or private, and none of the choices would be no health care at all. That is the kind of country America should be.
What I find very interesting every time we go down this path here iz that some people here seem certain that the worst is going to happen. Are you really all that certain? I know that I'm not completely certain what uhc system would work or how. This issue, along with many others, soldifies my chief point about some conservatives: once they make up their mind, there isn't any wavering. In this case, universal health care is always wrong.
Well, there's no doubt that there have been socialized systems that have failed. I think there are many problems with the British system. But how about France? Number one in the world and doing quite well, thank you. And I experienced it first hand and it is stellar. Spain? Israel? Finland? They all rank ahead of the US and have socialized medecine. Check out the latest rankings
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
I also took the liberty, as I knew that another UHC debate would come up again, of asking a friend of mine on my tennis team (he has dual US and Canadian citizenship) if there are long waits for simple procedures. He said no. I asked him if there were long waits at all. He said no. I asked him how he would compare the Canadian system to the US system and he said that they are pretty much the same level of care.
I know that everyone who posts here would like it if everyone could take care of themselves. True, some people are lazy and don't "deserve" help. But the fact is that some people can't. They need our help.
And what I find interesting, in a group of people who I consider to be largely patriotic, is how quickly you give up simply because the government is involved. Alright, so...you don't like it. Then stop bitching about it and do something. Do you honestly all think that privitizing everything is the answer? I think we've seen plenty of examples, in the last seven years, at how catastrophic that can be.
In all seriousness, DJ is touching on one of the real motivators here:
Why, Kevin, don't you like being told how to behave by gubmint clerks with an agenda?
If the government isn't involved in health care, how can they help you?
As part of that, we'll have our highly educated "betters", most of whom didn't waste their time in medical school, or economic grad work, or statistics, but who have "your" (as a whole)'s best interest at heart able to make decisions without the burden of too much medical knowledge, keeping in mind the "big picture", and not being emotional about specifics.
I also took the liberty, as I knew that another UHC debate would come up again, of asking a friend of mine on my tennis team (he has dual US and Canadian citizenship) if there are long waits for simple procedures. He said no. I asked him if there were long waits at all. He said no. I asked him how he would compare the Canadian system to the US system and he said that they are pretty much the same level of care.
And as a former Canadian who was forever crippled by the socialist Canadian medical system, I say your tennis buddy is full of shit. There are long waits for procedures. There are long waits to see GPs. If you want an MRI, you need to go to Detroit. There is no comparison.
And what I find interesting, in a group of people who I consider to be largely patriotic, is how quickly you give up simply because the government is involved.
It's not a matter of giving up. It's a matter of recognizing that government involvement ALWAYS increases costs and reduces availability. ALWAYS and everywhere it is tried. Saying otherwise is like claiming rocks fall up.
Doesn't anyone else understand that "universal coverage" and "public medicine" are prescriptions for genocide? Babyboomers had better wake up, or they will go in but will not come out. Who will their family call, the government?
I think the other governments (the ones with government funded health plans) are just waiting for America to fall so that, in collusion, the genocide may begin. What was it the German doctors reported in the dark age... heart attacks was most common in those times, wasn't it?
I don't think we would have a system like Britain's.
Damn, I didn't even get in in time to say cue Mark in 3, 2, 1...
And what I find interesting, in a group of people who I consider to be largely patriotic, is how quickly you give up simply because the government is involved.
Patriotic != Love of government.
I can't believe, after months here, someone had to explain that. Again.
Most of the time these days, there is debate based on personalities and not issues. I urge that we all employ some of our power to put pressure on politicians to do something about our worsening health crisis by proposing detailed and specific plans.
Unix, I think you are supposing that the government will make your health care decisions for you. Other than Kuecinich and Edwards, show me where exactly in Obama's or Hillary's plan where that is going to happen.
"Saying otherwise is like claiming rocks fall up."
Well, as long as you are open minded about it....
Doom, wow, don't know what to say to that one but I do agree with you on one thing: America could fall and it's because of what has been going on with our government the last eight years.
Doc, well some of the candidates have started. Obama and Hillary have pretty detailed plans on their web site.
"Remember, though, accoding to WHO they rank 18th and we rank 37th. We spend three times as much on our care and get a lower quality then they do? Hmm, sounds like I'm not getting any sort of return on my investement."
Which sounds good until you realise that only 25% of the marks used to give that ranking were for actual quality of care. The rest were for things like who paid for the care (government = high score, private = low score).
In actual quality of care, US scored higher than the UK.
I live in the UK, and as soon as I can afford it I'm getting private medical insurance cover.
But how about France? Number one in the world and doing quite well, thank you. And I experienced it first hand and it is stellar. Spain? Israel? Finland? They all rank ahead of the US and have socialized medecine.
They just haven't crashed yet, Markadelphia. These systems don't crash right away. It usually takes four or five decades. The UK's system is crashing now because it was implemented in the Fourties.
Hmmm...do we have a Socialist system in place that was implemented four or five decades ago, is crashing now but can't be fixed because too many people depend on it? Why, yes we do!
And that's the rub. That's why you Socialists push these systems so hard - because you know that once they are implemented they are almost impossible to get rid of. And by hook or by crook, you WILL turn America into a Socialist country.
Universal health coverage will start out seeming great, slowly worsen and finally become a complete disaster. Our grandkids will have to take incredibly painful steps in order to get rid of it. And yes, towards the end the government WILL try to cut costs by limiting who is and is not covered, just as it is doing in the UK right now.
What I find very interesting every time we go down this path here iz that some people here seem certain that the worst is going to happen. Are you really all that certain? I know that I'm not completely certain what uhc system would work or how. This issue, along with many others, soldifies my chief point about some conservatives: once they make up their mind, there isn't any wavering. In this case, universal health care is always wrong.
We only do that if that is the lesson of history. And goshwow - in this case it IS! Funny how that works out.
I agree that we do need a very, VERY basic system that allows truly indigent people access to healthcare in times of crisis. But we've already got that - it's called Medicaid. No further system is required.
In my travels to South America last month I met a Canadian who was staying at my hotel. He lives in Calgary.
He wasn't too happy with the Canadian Health Care system. He said many of the Canadian politicians get their care in the US at places like the Mayo clinic.
He said care and services are rationed. His experience was that the neighborhood clinics featured in Sicko were full many times because people go there if they get so much as a paper cut.
He said one citizen is suing the Canadian Government right now because he was forced to wait 2 years for hip replacement surgery.
He said there is a mandatory 1 year wait on on elective surgery (non life-threatening).
He said the latest thing is travel agencies offering trip packages to India so people can get their surgeries sooner. He said Toronto newspapers are full of advertisements for those packages.
Just one mans opinion, and not even mine.
Other than Kuecinich and Edwards, show me where exactly in Obama's or Hillary's plan where that is going to happen.
Mark, you simply refuse to get it,
It isn't immediate. Like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., etc., etc., it takes a few decades of continual "adjustments" and "modifications" to "make it more fair" and "close the loopholes" and "increase public buy-in" before the whole thing collapses under its own weight.
And where will Obama be then?
Three quotes I found recently that I think truly are appropriate here:
Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances.
Universal health care is such a concentration of power.
Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.
And, finally:
I want people to take thought about their condition and to recognize that the maintenance of a free society is a very difficult and complicated thing and it requires a self-denying ordinance of the most extreme kind. It requires a willingness to put up with temporary evils on the basis of the subtle and sophisticated understanding that if you step in to do something about them you not only may make them worse, you will spread your tentacles and get bad results elsewhere.
All of those are by Milton Friedman.
Here's another, by John Stuart Mill:
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise.
Eureka!
"Smokers or people who are chronically overweight may have to agree to exercise or to other changes in their lifestyles in return for NHS treatment."
In other news, Britons suffering from piles or rectal fistulae who voted for Labour are going to be given a cellar of salt to rub upon their sore bums.
The "Bloody Justice Initiative" the Shadow Health Minister termed it.
"Moreover, patients who miss or chronically arrive late for hospital appointments may have penalties imposed on them, The Times of London reported."
So this will penalize people who aren't wealthy enough to pay the "Gridlock Tax" now being collected in metro London, huh?
Yep...give 'em all a salt shaker if they voted for these goobers.
"Universal health care is such a concentration of power."
So is the ATF.
Mark,
I don't know about anywhere else, but Israel's state medical system is problematic. In a state with the highest concentration of doctors per capita in the world (about 1 per 12, because each infantry squad gets its own combat medic trained up), quality of care is relatively poor. As an overseas student, I was told to avoid Israeli hospitals if I could manage it.
"He said there is a mandatory 1 year wait on on elective surgery (non life-threatening)."
That is astounding, and it hits close to home.
I have had surgery on my hands three times (twice on the left, once on the right) for a condition called "trigger finger". It's called "trigger finger release".
No, I'm not making this up. Go see http://www.webmd.com/osteoarthritis/guide/trigger-finger for a good summary. I don't have arthritis, just a tendency to develop trigger finger, three times so far.
This condition develops quickly, progresses rapidly, and can be excruciatingly painful. When I grabbed for something that slipped out of my hand, my finger "triggered", and the pain brought me to my knees, I sought help.
Treatment varies:
1) "Occasionally, your doctor may put a splint on the affected hand to restrict the joint movement" Try it. Put a splint on your hand that keeps your middle finger straight, and then try grasping anything with that hand. I suggest toilet paper, for starters. It didn't help.
2) "If symptoms continue, anti-inflammatory medications, such as ibuprofen or naproxen, may be prescribed." They don't cure it, they simply slow the progression, and they do very little of that. Read the labels; long term use of such things is not advised. It didn't help.
3) "Your doctor may also recommend an injection of a steroid medication into the tendon sheath.": And the doctor said, "It's EXTREMELY painful to do." I asked, "For how long would it provide relief?" He replied, "A week, tops, usually less." I replied, "Nope. Ain't interested. What else can we do?"
4) "If the condition does not respond to conservative measures or consistently recurs, surgery may be recommended to release the tendon sheath and restore movement." Bingo.
Surgery for this problem is ...
1) ... easy. Numb the hand with a local, wash it with an iodine solution, make an incision about 3/4 inch long over the tendon and sheath, cut the sheath open along its length, close and suture the incision.
2) ... fast. It takes about five minutes of the surgeon's time.
3) ... convenient. It is outpatient surgery. The building where I had it the last one done is smaller than my house.
4) ... cheap. The fee to the facility cost about $2,700, the surgeon's fee was about $800, and the anesthesiologist's fee was about $250.
5) ... available. I had it done twice in Taos, New Mexico, population about 7,000.
6) ... successful. It WORKS. Relief was immediate, I could use my hand the next day, care was simply keeping it clean and covered with a band-aid, and complete recovery took about three months. I mean it gave me my hand back each time, and after three months, it was good as new. The sheath is not necessary; opening it lengthwise makes it bigger, the problem disappears, the tendon recovers, and it all works just dandy.
Now, if I had to wait a year for it each time, I would have spent three years in pain and more than mildly incapacitated. If the problem persists and isn't cured, the tendon locks and atrophies, and it becomes incurable.
Yup, you guessed it. If I couldn't get it locally, I would have travelled to a different country to get it.
Waiting a year for five minutes of a surgeon's time because it is elective and not life threatening, now that is quality health care.
Markadelphia gets it just fine; he is merely engaging in sophistry, in accordance with his playbook.
Markadelphia is still ignoring history, even as it's happening right in front of him. Again.
Good Socialist Intentions ruining the whole thing? Gee, who'da thunk that would happen, again?
History is more than just reading about dead people.
Shamless plug: More on health care, specifically so called “lifestyle drugs”, a post I did last year.
You see, the only actual problem with Universal Health-care is that it's not ever funded properly. ;-)
If we could magically fund government health care to unlimited levels, we would be able to offer fantastic care at the all-you-can-eat free health care buffet. Anything less than unlimited funding and you will get lines, rationing, and government mandated therapy restrictions.
Two posts back from the linked one, I explain what happens when someone like myself has to pay the full amount for stomach-acid reducing medicine, instead of paying a small co-pay, and heaping the rest, (~$120+ per month), on everyone else enrolled in my group plan. The short: many people suddenly have an incentive to try a less expensive alternative. You also might figure out why prescription drugs keep getting more and more expensive while the actual consumers avoid paying the actual amount. Meanwhile, elective surgeries such as Lasik keep getting more and more affordable. Wonder why?
Also, didn't someone have a link about Britons super-gluing their crowns back in, because getting a dental visit was nigh impossible?
Medicaid is awful. Most private doctors don't want to accept it, because it pays poorly, but also is a huge pain-in-the-ass to deal with bureaucracy. Doctors just hate to deal with it.
Also, government interference in the U.S. health care economy is part of the problem of increasing costs. Could government fix some of that problem? Sure, but it hasn't and I don't see it happening. But it has price fixing, increasingly large bureaucratic layers to go through, and certainly has, if anything, helped shield insurance companies and hospital chains from true competition, in any number of ways.
"Do you honestly all think that privitizing everything is the answer?"
Kevin, please excuse me for saying this at your place, but, Mark, Abso-damn-lutley!!!
Man can survive, even a modern, overtly political entity such as a country, with extremely little governmental interference. Ask yourself the correct questions, Mark, and be honest, and you'll eventually come to the correct answers.
Viridian, do you think the French Health Care system is headed for a crash?
Last, since you have seen the movie Sicko, your criticisms are valid :)
"The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority."
I couldn't agree more. Guess who has all that power now? US Corporations. I agree that power should not be concentrated solely in the government but the private sector shouldn't have as much either. It should be balanced.
Mastiff, you may be right. I was basing my opinion on my ex-girl friend and some other friends who lived there and the WHO report.
At least we all agree that they system we have doesn't work. And if we don't want any of the plans that are out there from the candidates, then what do we want? I understand your distrust of government but what of corporate America?
Maurice:
Medicaid is awful. Most private doctors don't want to accept it, because it pays poorly, but also is a huge pain-in-the-ass to deal with bureaucracy.
Exactly.
Because Medicaid and Medicare pay after services are rendered. And then pay insisting that cheaper procedures "could" have been used./b>
So, guess who gets to pay for the shortfall when they (or insurance, but insurance can (unlike the government) be sued successfully, so they're better, by a bit, plus they do have to compete) fail to cover the costs?
If you guessed "Other Consumers", you'd be right.
Several Florida doctors have in fact, opened clinics where insurance isn't processed at all. You got it, hey, great, you deal with the paperwork. As a result, visits are $35. (My Doctor's office currently charges me $110/appointment.)
And they're booked. One doctor (this is from memory, watching a TV News interview) said he said enough was enough when he looked at his payroll and found he had more people processing insurance than he had doctors, nurses, techs, and medical specialists. He claims to be clearing more money, able to treat people better, and with less hassles.
Markadelphia,
Moore openly and blatantly lied about Cuba's socialized medicine:
Video of the health care Cuban citizens get, Part 1
Video of the health care Cuban citizens get, Part 2
I guess it's time to for a review of logic 101:
An argument is a series of valid related statements put together to produce a conclusion. For example:
A + B + C + D + E = R
A through E represent the valid statements. R represent the Results or conclusion produced by the statements.
If any of the intermediate statements is invalid, then the result is automatically invalid. For example, if B represents the statement "2+2" and this statement is evaluated to produce the answer "4", then the Result will be valid as long as A, C, D and E are also valid. However, if "2+2" is replaced with "17", then there is no way that the Result can be valid.
In Sicko, Michael Moore tells us that Cuba's socialized medicine provides first rate care for everyone. Yet, as these videos from one of the best hospitals for regular citizens in Cuba's capital of Havanna proves, Moore's claim is a bald faced LIE. Therefore, it is impossible to accept his conclusion that we should adopt socialized medicine.
I have to admit that his Cuba portion of the film, in my opinion, was totally unnecessary. Up to that point, he did a fine job explaining how much of a racket our health care system is and how other country's, some of whom have socialized medicine, are better systems.
The Cuba part was silly, although if you saw the film, he did prove one of the right's talking points: the conditions at Gitmo are great. Ironic, huh?
I also thought his point of the film was to show insured people in this country are being ripped off...which they absolutely are...and that critics of socialized medicine are reacting to information being put out by the people who have the most to lose from a government based health care system.
The film is an exploration of the grey areas of health care as well so I guess I don't see why you feel he had to have a definitive, logical conclusion.
The French Healthcare system may not crash in the near future but I can tell you that several of those countries over there are (right now)looking for ways to privatize their healthcare system. The company I work for is headquartered in Germany.
Combine Euopes generous welfare benefits (where citizens are taken care of from womb to tomb by the government) with low birthrates and you have a recipe for economic disaster because there are not enough taxpayers and not enough wealth being generated to pay for everyones benefits. Much is made of our budget deficit in the US but that is chump change compared to the pension crisis awaiting the EU. Give it time, just give it time.
Privatizing may not be the answer for everything but I know that Government never runs anything cheaper or more efficient than private industry because Government has no incentive to be cheaper or more efficient.
Unix, I saw that show too about the doctors saying to hell with reimbursement...I think it was a John Stossel show. The doctor had a list of services and a price list like a menu so you know exactly what you are getting and at what cost.
Attempts at socialism are nothing new though. Look at Chavez in Venezuela. Meat, milk, sugar and eggs are hard to come by, but imported whiskey and Hummers are abundant (General Motors is shipping 3000 Hummers to Venezuela and opening new dealerships). Chavez instituted price controls and got the government involved with state stores. That leads to some or all of the following:
A. the market supplies less of an item
B. the item becomes more expensive
C. a black market develops, which can lead to more crime
D. inflation spreads to other items, even if they're not yet in short supply, because people hoard them.
Chavez is not treading new ground. The Soviet Union tried and failed, Cuba tried and failed and Argentina is trying and failing, too, with energy and beef prices.
What frankly amazes me is that anyone with any education can still have any faith in a full blown socialist system. Without question, plenty of countries need dramatic economic change, but socialism? How many times, and on what scale, does the socialist model need to fail before folks realize it's NOT a workable economic model?
The middle and upper class is getting out of Venezuela faster than you can say Visa. Who will be left in Venezuela as Chavez clamps down on dissent and turns to socialism? The people who don’t have the money to leave of course and once oil production falls further, as it inevitably will since the oil expert foreigners have also been kicked out of the country, the future down there will not be bright as the country will turn even further into a socialist shithole third world country in no time with 1 leader hoarding all the wealth. Give them 10 years, maybe less once we are able to manufacture and mass-produce ways to use dirt or leaves to fuel our vehicles.
"What frankly amazes me is that anyone with any education can still have any faith in a full blown socialist system."
Or even a partial one. It amazes a lot of us. Kevin has addressed the subject thoroughly, as has Steven den Beste. The condition is called "cognitive dissonance", and the slogan is, "Do it again, only harder!"
As I understand it, one of Sarkozy's appealing positions was that he was going to reform the French healthcare system, 'cause it's broken.
Last in Line:
What frankly amazes me is that anyone with any education can still have any faith in a full blown socialist system.
There are some ideas that you can tell were concocted by those with a long time in academia.
As I once said to my father, if I hadn't known he had a Ph.D in Econ, I would after he made the comment he had - it was so absolutely appallingly at odds with history, common sense, and practicality that it had to be the product of advanced education.
Now, in all fairness, my father is an outstanding manager. He's turned around huge state agencies, focused them on their tasks, goals, and made them places that made a difference.
I had an epiphany once when we were out fishing, and I told him that I'd figured out his problem. He looks at these sorts of issues, sees what he would do, and says "Hell, I could fix that." I pointed out that it won't be him, or anybody else competent, it would be the "Teds" or "Davids" or "Sams" who would be the ones in charge. (He actually didn't argue that much, meaning I actually got across to him some.)
Which he might well could. I'd lay money on that he could. But I also note that none of his agencies were running at any sort of efficiency save one (where he handpicked a replacement) - his largest and longest effort (over 12 years as Head Honcho) was totally trashed in under 6 months when he was replaced with a (very intellectually smart) contemporary after he retired.
4 years after he'd left, 6 directors later, one of "his guys" got the top slot, and has it back to "Better than government average." When my father decided to do some consulting, he was also one of the first to call him, begging him to come help. He even - not jokingly - offered to take the demotion to deputy for Dad to run the show again.
What frustrates me to no end - my father, who I present those bona fides as proof he's hardly an idiot, will then forget all of that when it comes to political decisions.
Out fishing another time, I asked him, "Dad, what's the purpose of (our) government?". His answer? "To protect us from corporations."
(Usually, we just stick to fishing. For obvious reasons. By the way, my answer to the last question? "To ensure liberty.")
"Combine Europes generous welfare benefits (where citizens are taken care of from womb to tomb by the government) with low birthrates and you have a recipe for economic disaster because there are not enough taxpayers and not enough wealth being generated to pay for everyones benefits."
Bingo!
And WHO was it who based our Social InSecurity system on the false proposition that we'd keep seeing a geometric growth rate, forever and ever, instead of the Western post-war model of near zero birth rates? That's right, the Socialist of All Socialists in America, FDR!
Where did he get his "brilliant" idea? It wasn't any one person, but a group, independent of one another, who had either political pull, or who had recently written about inflationary spending practices, notably Keynes (Post WWI). Stalin may have had some influence here too, as FDR had occasion to "consult" with the dictator after the Reds had militarily taken over the rich agricultural areas of the Ukraine, and suppressing (detaining, starving and killing) the wealthy farmers, or kulaks. It was control and redistribution policy toward forced industrialization, and the potatoes and wheat from the region was used to feed those other cities' workers (I'm sure there was some sorry-assed excuse called "need" in there, somewhere).
Now, guess where those current social security payments come from, Mark? They aren't sitting in some "account" in a government-run bank. They don't accrue ANY kind of growth, and the only way the goddamned-.gov "increases" benefits is by taking MORE money directly from people who earn it, and giving it to those who don't! It is an in-and-out ponzi-scheme based on ever increasing numbers to make the BASE wider, to support the supposed SMALLER numbers of the old/infirmed/destitute who are to nominally make up the "in need" category.
The problem here is that, as I alluded to earlier, the Western World hasn't gone down that particular growth road over the last half-century, even if you count the baby-boomers generation! People here haven't been procreating on the level of 10 or 12 kids since the early part of the 20th century. Life expectancy has gone through the roof too, going from, what, 50, to about 78 years, an increase of over 50 percent! People living longer, into a more care-prone period of life is a sure drain on any type of "collective care" system.
We haven't even started here, and I also haven't touched on your assertion about the gummint "system" attempting to "compete" with private care. This is laughable, and it's apparant for anyone who knows about governmental coercion of markets. Hint: Gummints just write the law to their liking, and eliminate competition with the stroke of a pen.
My advice to you, Mark, is if you think that the "Universal" model is so attractive, go to Canada, it's really quite a short drive for you.
Another point, -B, when Social Security began, it started paying out at age 65. The average life expectancy for females at that time was about 65, and for males, if I recall correctly, was about 62, so about half of the elderly population didn't make it to retirement age, and those that did didn't live to collect very long.
Now the average life expectancy of Baby Boomers is 77.8 years. They get to draw off Social Security for over twelve years on average, not three or four, and the trend is ever upward, so the amount of money going out is also increasing.
Not to mention that procedures are getting more complex and can do all sorts of things, which also increases the resources and costs.
Not to mention that procedures are getting more complex and can do all sorts of things, which also increases the resources and costs.
When it was proposed, planned, and passed, antibiotics (at the time, IIRC, just penicillin) were still very rare, and not to be found regularly.
Now, consider that to what is a "minor emergency" today....
But, but, ...
We've been paying in more than it's been paying out for a long, long time, guys! And the surplus has been invested! The gubmint borrowed it, and there are all those IOU's in a filing cabinet, somewhere in Virginia, right? So, when it needs that excess in the future, it'll just call in those IOU's, and we'll all pay more taxes to pay them back, because the gubmint spent it all, and, um, well, never mind ...
Hey -B,
I'm no fan of FDR, but it was more likely he consulted Bismarck and Asquith (with Lloyd-George and Churchill) than Stalin on Social Security. Not saying it was the right decision, but you're rant runs away from the reality.
Mark,
Re: Finland's socialized medical care, my husband experienced the Finnish socialized medical system for 30 years before he moved to the U.S. He had major care under the Finnish system, including a knee reconstruction and brain surgery. He has also been in a major car wreck in the U.S. and has experienced the hospital care here. After comparing/contrasting, he prefers the American system.
1. You don't have any say over what kind of treatment you get. None. The doctor decides it for you, and if you don't like it, tough bananas.
2. The "free" Finnish system costs a fortune in taxpayer money -- taxes are very high in Finland, and on top of that I think Finland is deep in the hole with the World Bank.
3. What does it say about public medical care that the relatively wealthy Finns would rather pay (again) to go to a private hospital?
As for Canada, I'd ask your tennis buddy if he's ever had any kind of major health problems that were treated in Canada. Most reports I get about how OK the Canadian/French/Finnish systems are come from people who've experienced nothing more than basic care for minor things. The perception changes greatly once you suspect you have or get diagnosed with something major and find out you have to wait weeks or months for tests and treatment. My grandfather in Canada just got diagnosed with prostate cancer (in the U.S.), and guess what? He's driving back across the border to get treatment, because he doesn't want to wait months in Canada.
C'mon, Sarah. Being trained in the scientific method, you must be aware that a statistical sample of size ONE is perfectly valid IF the sample agrees with the conclusion the sampler has already jumped to. Remember the method: First, get your results, then derive your data.
My sample size, on the other hand, is a whopping two -- I can derive a trend from that, can't I? ;-)
Yup, you sure can, and up to fifth order, too!
juris,
Are you sure about that?
Try some of James Warburg's words regarding the overtly socialist platform used in 1932. He helped write it only to realize later that it was a boondoggle.
Kinda smacks of the stuff that happened, and was at the time, currently happening, in good 'ole Red Mother Russia: centralized management, price controls, agricultural cuts, monetary policies being completely rewritten for the benefit of the government.
How did the Gummint cronies get these ideas about what to do with the "failing" economy during the Great Depression? Yes, your aforementioned academics could be cited, and are completely justified, but a phone call to Red Joe would have been just as easy.
Al Smith's American Liberty League openly accused and opposed FDR and his administration's stance on its anti-business policies, including some other items more in line with defending individual rights to work, earn and property acquisition.
I aint makin' this stuff up.
Look, the facts may be somewhat in question, but the there are enough to look at in hindsight and make some undeniable conclusions about how things were happening at home and around the world at the time. It may have NOT been a sit down with Red Joe that cemented the New Deal, and if that was your inference of my earlier rant, then all I can do is say that it wasn't my intention to suggest that it WAS. That's my fault for not making the argument clearer, I suppose, but from my perspective, the situation of the world and the way that governments conspire to do the things that they do, HELL, look at the Effing UN even TODAY!
What about that clan of professional kleptocrats is any good, at all? For anything?
-B, The point is FDR was following the 'liberal' European model of a 'mixed economy' - not the revolutionary one. The people I cited were not academics or revolutionaries - they were the European politicans who introduced the modern welfare state (which is sin enough that you needn't taint them with Stalinist excess).
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>