Actually, if you scale up the cost of the British NHS to America, America would save substantially over the cost of private healthcare. The NHS costs roughly £120B x5 for America's population = £600B x1.5 for the exchange rate = US$900B. That compares very favourably indeed with the $2.5T America spent in 2009.
And there are huge knock-on costs, like people not being forced into bankruptcy to cover medical bills and a healthier workforce overall.
This assumes you'll run it with reasonable efficiency, of course. The NHS has a 3% admin rate.
I don't want it. Neither does the vast majority of Americans, by a very wide margin.
Now, can we move on to the more important discussion of why you want to FORCE people like myself to pay for something we don't want?
Your country is screwed, and you know it. Stop trying to drag us down to your level. Your people used to be so proud and capable. My God man, what the hell happened to you over there?
America would save substantially over the cost of private healthcare.
Extremely unlikely.
like people not being forced into bankruptcy to cover medical bills and a healthier workforce overall.
Britons are healthier overall? That's just blatant PR BS. Forced into Bankruptcy is a good soundbite - what *does* "Forced into Bankruptcy" mean? When someone is forced into bankrupcty, what happens?
That's even assuming there's a "crisis" in people being bankrupted due to "medical bills". Which is far from a proven idea.
Socialised medicine can be more cost-effective.
No. It can cost less. But that doesn't mean it's effective. If your intent is to spend less, Socialized Medicine is workable. If it's to provide more and better health care? Not so much.
You're also missing the huge elephant in the room - the NHS isn't the only system. The US and the private system cover a lot of the failures, as people can go buy what they want. Most people who make claims about Canada's health care won't talk about the fact that people facing huge shortages and waiting lists just drive south and get it taken care of. There are whole clinics in border cities that cater to Canadians.
That "relief valve" helps immensely with the "bottom line" - and if the US socializes, it's gone.
The NHS already has a huge problem getting doctors to stay there rather than moving to the states. They have huge issues with delivery times, with care. Nurse Practitioners now do what Doctors used to. Nurses now do what Nurse Practitioners were tasked to do. Techs now do what Nurses used to do.... Nurses and increasingly doctors are foreign born and non-native English speakers.
..... But it *is* cheaper. For now. Just so you don't expect great healthcare. Just cheap healthcare.
The UK also has a thriving private healthcare system to provide what the NHS cannot. It still works out vastly cheaper than the American system. The NHS isn't perfect by any means, but I'm not in favour of letting the perfect get in the way of the good enough. America would save over $1T by implementing the NHS. You cannot dismiss that with a soundbite.
...but I'm not in favour of letting the perfect get in the way of the good enough.
Do you know (he asked rhetorically) would be good?
It would be good if I could get a complex and tricky surgical procedure (let us assume for the moment I need one to save my life, which I do not) performed for $1,200 cash on the barrelhead.
Two months ago, we were able to do just that, thereby saving the life...
...of one of our cats.
Do you know why were able to negotiate that procedure for that price (cat's doing quite well, by the way)?
Because there is a relatively free market in veterinary medicine. (And vet school, by all accounts, is a tougher course than human medicine, because of the scope of knowledge -- multiple species, biochemistries, and phyisiologies -- required).
"Because there is a relatively free market in veterinary medicine."
And because there isn't a thriving industry of (** hawk, spit **) lawyers raking in wagonloads of dough by making the industry do way more than is necessary in anticipation of having to defend that they haven't done less.
Yep. There's a lot of wailing and moaning among gridiron football fans regarding the NFL's attempts to reduce the incidence of concussions by attempting to crack down on helmet-to-helmet hits. This is why. Think "black lung." Think "asbestos." Think "the NFL and every franchise in it, sued into bankruptcy."
America would save over $1T by implementing the NHS.
No, it wouldn't.
You cannot dismiss that with a soundbite.
You're the one using soundbites. Project much? I think there's a program that can help you - dunno what the waiting list looks like.
The NHS won't work in America. Period. No matter how much you "save". And that's a ephemeral savings. The American standard of care is vastly superior to the NHS standard. There's also a reason why the UK doctors are flocking to the US.
Care to give me a soundbite to explain THAT?
but I'm not in favour of letting the perfect get in the way of the good enough.
"Good enough". Let me know when you've got easily treatable cancer, and the NHS denies you the cure, how "good enough" that is.
I was going to suggest that we cue up the countdown for the designated village idiot to drop on by, but it seems we've had someone else to get that ball rolling.
Kevin, do you think, occasionally, that you simply do not deserve this kind of treatment?
Hmm.. 'designated village idiot' eh? I suggest that speaks volumes more about you than it does me.
Have you considered a reasoned argument instead of insults? I've given what it costs us here in the U.K. Scale that up for the US and you see a saving of over $1T.
As I've said, the NHS isn't perfect. Yes, we have waiting lists. Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good enough. And if you'd bothered to read, we also have a thriving private healthcare industry. Which also has a much lower overhead than in America. A common insurance is that the private healthcare plan comes in if you have to wait too long for the NHS.
Again, you ignore the fact that the NHS is WORSE. We aren't letting perfect get in the way of good enough. Our system is good enough, and the UKs is worse. Saving money isn't the point here. Its getting better care for the price paid.
The solution isn't adding more government, its taking more away. We need MORE of a free market in healthcare. End the "licensing" of doctors. Get rid of the FDA. THAT will go a long way toward saving money.
Your scaling predictions are faulty. One point you are completely missing is the vast difference in areas to be covered, which affects transportation costs, the optimal number and size of available facilities, etc.
Note that the United Kingdom has about 10 times the population density of the U.S. That means they can get away more easily with fewer, larger facilities, taking advantage of an economy of scale. The U.S. has a far more spread out population. The additional costs required to build enough hospitals so that everyone can enjoy speedy emergency care is a significant factor that your scaling law completely ignores.
To illustrate my point, imagine two countries with identical populations. One country is very small, with the vast majority of the population in one city. The other has two distant population centers. How many hospitals (of arbitrarily large size) does each country need? What do you think the differences in costs will be in developing one really big hospital compared to two smaller hospitals?
Pretending that single-variable cost projections are anything approximating a good guess of costs in a complicated system like health care provision is nothing less than idiotic.
Have you considered a reasoned argument instead of insults? I've given what it costs us here in the U.K. Scale that up for the US and you see a saving of over $1T.
No, you haven't. You've done some math, with no backing for the validity of your assumptions, dodged the "reasoned argument" bit, and stuck to your proposed theoretical savings.
Yes, that pretty much classifies you as "Village Idiot" until you prove you can actually back up something you're saying.
Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good enough.
According to who? I'm happy with what we've got, for the most part. (The government interference is the part I have problems with now.)
I'm happy with what we spend, I'm happy at the cost/benefit ratio.
Why are you insisting to screw that up and force it down in quality?
Now, can you answer my question - that you used as a "soundbite" about bankruptcy?
Kill the Old People! NHS = Lord of the Flies. Waiting lists, poor sanitation, expensive government bureaucratic encumbrances, loss of doctors, poor health-results, higher death-rates... All good stuff!
We do read, Quentin. We've discussed this topic here for a long time. If you'd bothered to read the YEARS of comments here on the subject of socialized health care, you'd have seen that.
"... we also have a thriving private healthcare industry."
Yeah, we know that. We've talked about it.
But why do you also have a thriving private healthcare industry? Because the gubmint-controlled-and-taxpayer-paid-for socialist variety cannot or will not deliver what is needed and/or desired. That is why ...
"... we have waiting lists ... A common insurance is that the private healthcare plan comes in if you have to wait too long for the NHS."
So, a common practice is to buy insurance to cover what you've already paid for in taxes but the gubmint won't provide. Golly. That's "reasonable efficiency", is it?
"Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good enough."
Don't let a cliché get in the way of thinking.
Not good enough is good enough as long as you don't need it, at which point it is not good enough. So, don't substitute the not good enough for the good enough and then tell us it's good enough when it isn't.
"You cannot dismiss that with a soundbite."
You cannot prove it, nor can you make it believable, by repeating it.
I'm glad you're all sufficiently well off to afford private healthcare or have jobs which provide it as a perk. Many Americans aren't so fortunate and are one major medical expense away from serious trouble.
Your healthcare industry jolly well ought to be a lot better since it costs you twice what we pay - and that's including the private side. I've experience of treatment both on the NHS and going private. I control the funds of someone who's in private care. However, the best healthcare I've experienced was actually from France's state healthcare system.
I wonder how many here have any actual experience of European UHC?
I wonder how many here have any actual experience of European UHC?
Maybe you should have asked that first, before making presumptions and projections and slogans.
No matter, you're not expressing your views. You don't actually wonder that, that's your way of saying "I bet that nobody does." Why not say what you mean, rather than asking obviously rhetorical questions (whose answers might demolish your logical fallacies?)
Note also that our Quentin, rather than address the facts others have addressed here, has moved the goalposts. It's as though statist collectivists have a playbook or something.
I'm glad you're all sufficiently well off to afford private healthcare or have jobs which provide it as a perk. Many Americans aren't so fortunate and are one major medical expense away from serious trouble.
Whether we are one major medical expense from serious trouble is entirely beside the point. Whether that is true or not, what entitles one to the life and work of another?
Hard to argue first principles with someone who hasn't got any.
"...I'm glad you're all sufficiently well off to afford private healthcare or have jobs which provide it as a perk..."
Guess what, you sanctimonious, finger-wagging asshole, I'm not, "well off," as you put it, despite being a licensed professional. I pay, directly, for ALL of my own insurance. IT'S NOT A PERK, FUCKWIT.
Take whatever "opinions" you think you have about the U.S., our healthcare system and anything else, and keep them to your ignorant, god-damned self, Limey, and quit trying to evangelize about the greatness of the NHS, or whatever other kind of fucking ponzi-scheme you're trying to pass off.
"I wonder how many here have any actual experience of European UHC?"
I suppose my wife does, considering she was got her PHD and M.B. from Cambridge, and was going to be an NHS doctor.
I gave her a better deal: Marry a USAF 1st Lieutenant and come back to Boston.
There she was a researcher in plastic surgery for a while. Then she got an MBA.
Now she's a Vice President of one of the largest hospital groups in the USA at age 35 in charge of advanced medical practice implementation. One of her job goals is to bring the cost of the health care down without compromising quality or quantity of patients treated.
She's done both as a provider, been treated by both (for two different life threatening situation, one in each), and she's told me she's not going back to NHS way. She's had treatement over here to repair the care she got from the NHS. As for the condition she developped while over here, well, my quick Google search reveals that she'd have to hope that she had been in the group of 10,000 that the NHS decided they would fund treatment for... out of the 60,000 to 80,000 estimated total sufferers in the UK. And that was just to be in the trial group that was declared this year to be "an utter fiasco".
I'm glad you're all sufficiently well off to afford private healthcare or have jobs which provide it as a perk. Many Americans aren't so fortunate and are one major medical expense away from serious trouble.
Sorry, wrong answer. I have no health coverage whatsoever, and have a nice little set of things that are killing me by installments. Been there and done that already, still wearing the scars.
But somewhere along the way it occurred to me that we're all mortal, we all break down over time and eventually die. We don't get any choice in that. But I do get to choose not to "afford" my healthcare by stealing it from strangers.
I'll pass, thanks. My health will go away regardless of what I do, regardless of how much I spend. But unless I personally choose to abandon it,I get to keep my integrity.
You're the one in here with Pom-Poms and no facts, just repeated slogans shouted.
Now, you made a claim about bankrupcty. Please at least answer my question about _what that means_.
Or else flounce off chewing your gum. You want to actually have reasoned discussion, this is the place for it. But so far, you're just repeating soundbites and projecting.
Now. Bankrupcty. What does being forced into it mean?
> Now. Bankrupcty. What does being forced into it mean?
Poverty. Loss of job in many cases. Loss of home. Loss of everything.
As for no facts, I've stated plenty of them. Like the different costs. Even Libertarians need to recognise that there are some things that the state does better than the individual. You've evidently got cover somehow. But you're still paying twice as much as we are.
"...Even Libertarians need to recognise that there are some things that the state does better than the individual..."
More equivocating bullshit.
I will not recognise that horseshit, and it's because of the profound, historical failures of Gummint to do so, as you've claimed. And I refuse to give you your history lesson on this. Read a book.
"Poverty. Loss of job in many cases. Loss of home. Loss of everything."
No, not here it doesn't.
Here, bankruptcy is covered by federal statutes, beginning with the Constitution. I presume you mean what is known here as "Chapter 7" bankruptcy, in which the debtor coughs up assets to cover what debts they can cover. He is allowed to keep some assets per "exemption" rules, and he can opt for the federal exemptions or the exemptions his state allows. They allow quite a lot, as the intent is to not cast the debtor onto the street.
Its primary effect is that it grants the debtor a discharge with respect to certain debts such that, while the debts are still owed, the creditors they are owed to are prohibited from making any effort to collect them. The surprising result is that, because a debtor cannot re-file for bankruptcy protection for seven years, credit card companies usually flood the debtor with credit. The debtor is thus left with much of his assets, with the opportunity to recover without hassle, and with credit available to facilitate the process. That's what bankruptcy is for.
The point is that bankruptcy brings RELIEF, not poverty, not "loss of everything."
And, bankruptcy has no connection whatever with employment status. Indeed, it generally makes the debtor a better employee because it removes tremendous worry and such from his shoulders. It is not unusual for the employer to be unaware that it happens.
No, I have never filed for bankruptcy and never needed to. But, I have opposed people who did, on the grounds that they did not follow the rules, and so I learned the rules. Yes, I won. The result was almost the same as if they had followed the rules. The significant differences were: 1) they were not granted a discharge; 2) I was granted a collectable judgement against them; 3) I legally collected most of what they owed me; and, 4) they had ZERO credit afterward.
Ah, the power of the internet. It makes jumping to conclusions ever so much less productive, doesn't it?
"But you're still paying twice as much as we are."
The comparison that we face is not what we pay compared to what you pay. The comparison that we face is what we will pay, if the gubmint takes over control of health care here, compared to what we pay now.
The complaint that we pay more than we should have to is correct, and we've been making that complaint here for a long time. The presumption that we would pay less if gubmint took over control of health care in this country is unfounded, and your experience theredoes not justify that presumption here. Indeed, the entire history of our gubmint justifies precisely the opposite presumption, and a comparison of our gubmint to your gubmint does not change that.
"But you're still paying twice as much as we are." So?
I have friends who have been treated for injuries while they were in Britian they say it sucked. The wait was long the service crappy the people rude.
If I want to pay for my own insurance or medical treatment as opposed to stealing it from other people at the point of the governments gun as GOF points out why do you care and if you really cared shouldn't you be working in the medical field in some third world location for free instead of wagging your finger at us because we want to maintain a sense of independance?
And no I don't need to recognize the state is particulary efficient at anything...well Ken has a point regarding governments skill at murder.
Even Libertarians need to recognise that there are some things that the state does better than the individual.
I can find plenty of evidence that the state is better at killing people in job lots than anything short of an extinction level event. Or did you have something else in mind?
> Now. Bankrupcty. What does being forced into it mean?
Poverty. Loss of job in many cases. Loss of home. Loss of everything.
Thank you.
I thought you might think that. Which is why I asked rather than presuming you didn't know what "bankruptcy" is. Bankruptcy doesn't cause you to lose your job. Or your home. Or your belongings.
The term "bankruptcy" is shorthand for filing for bankruptcy protection. In other words, it protects your home, and your belongings and your "everything. If you're really "Bankrupt" and have nothing, there's no point in filing for it! You have nothing to protect, nothing to lose.
But your presumption that someone filing for bankruptcy has lost "everything" colors your view, and so we find one of your base assumptions is totally wrong.
This is why we ask such questions, to find out what base assumptions are. The references to Mark are for a regular commenter who cannot follow his thoughts back to base assumptions. I'm glad that you could at least define what you're - incorrectly - calling "bankrupt". Now we can perhaps begin with less emotion and more facts.
As for no facts, I've stated plenty of them. Like the different costs.
You've said that, yes. That doesn't make them facts.
Can you demonstrate anything that would indicate that a simple per-capita cost comparison in anything else that would support that for heath care? Simply presuming that it would work the same isn't good enough. You could state that's your presumption, and follow from there - but if that assumption is wrong (and it is, barring examples and proof), then everything deriving from it is wrong.
Even Libertarians need to recognise that there are some things that the state does better than the individual.
Health care isn't one of them.
You've evidently got cover somehow. But you're still paying twice as much as we are.
*I* am not. Nor are most here. You're comparing apples and geologic rocks.
Until you demonstrate far more correlation and identity, you can't make those comparisons. You can make per-capita comparisons, you can use total costs, you can use costs of people named Rupert.
But that doesn't mean that your assumption is valid. You have to prove validity, not just wave numbers around.
And that's even before you get into the fundamental problems that most of us here have with the government "running" health care.
So your "facts" aren't backed up, and ignore a large amount of data. As well as being based on fundamental misunderstandings of the terms.
You don't understand the moral/freedom issues we have with handing over power to the government - and we've been watching the NHS fiasco over here. We don't like what we see.
If you want to discuss the facts - present them. And thanks for clarifying what you didn't understand about bankruptcy. People with severe health problems being forced into "bankruptcy" isn't what you thought it was. Nor do I see that as a huge problem. (For many reasons, most importantly, the numbers you see are horribly inflated on purpose.)
Now that you understand that "bankruptcy" is actually protecting people, does that change what you think about it?
For more explanation as to some of the problems with doing a direct per-capita presumption, leaving aside all the moral arguments and first principle issues, let me post this.
The entire UK would fit into Texas. That has some huge ramifications for the cost of health care - it must be much more spread out. Think of the difference in emergency medicine. Hell, pretty much the whole UK is accessable with no more than 3 hours in a helicopter.
By comparison, that helicopter taking off from where I live, and flying south, still hasn't left the state of GA in 3 hours.
That's not to say that per-capita isn't useful. But without more proof that the comparison is apt, without demonstration of the comparability, it's a poor "proof". This just demonstrates one of the (potential) problems with that comparison.
It doesn't matter about those two - the point is to compare the just the overall size, and to point out the vast disparity, and why a "per capita" comparison isn't valid without a LOT more proof.
For example, you could easily build one hospital in the UK to handle Inverted Cranial Rectumus, and it's within easy reach of the entire population. Or, say, 3 or 4 to keep it within 2 hours of everybody.
4 wouldn't cover even a quarter of the US's population.
I started to make a (attempted) humorous comment, but you know, I just think it's because it's how they process information.
Once they accept something, it's _true_. It's twue, it's twue, it's twue!
So Quentin can come in, throw out a obviously bogus number, and assume that's all the debate is, because he sees that, and .. why are we still arguing?
Mark is the same way. He'll actively avoid reading things that demonstrate that he's wrong, or that his source or conclusion is at best, arguable, and keep on insisting that what he said at first was completely correct.
Leaving aside the projection and bluster, Quentin came in, launched one "fact", and retreated.
It's the same deficiency that Mark has, and that's why the MO is so similar.
Why stop with the humor? You can be funny and serious in the same post...
But analyzing a leftie using the logic of a rightie*? That's a recipe for failure. You're probably right of course, but in your description you have to use words and logic the way we do to ascribe an action to Mark or Quentin that in their mind is nowhere close to how you describe it. Thus, possibly prompting their return to rebut your 'projections'.
Now watch this video and tell me it wasn't pulled from the comment section here. Especially when she gets to the end and says she's a teacher - thought of Mark immediately.
It only got me 18 months to get Mark to address his "17 is more than 22" comparison. At least for as much as he could address it, which is to sidestep it and move the goalposts....
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/2010/10/mutually-exclusive.html (54 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Actually, if you scale up the cost of the British NHS to America, America would save substantially over the cost of private healthcare. The NHS costs roughly £120B x5 for America's population = £600B x1.5 for the exchange rate = US$900B. That compares very favourably indeed with the $2.5T America spent in 2009.
And there are huge knock-on costs, like people not being forced into bankruptcy to cover medical bills and a healthier workforce overall.
This assumes you'll run it with reasonable efficiency, of course. The NHS has a 3% admin rate.
Socialised medicine can be more cost-effective.
"...Socialised medicine can be more cost-effective..."
A) PROVE IT.
B) I don't give a flying FUCK about it being cost effective, I'll pay for as much care as I want, and I'll do it by PAYING FOR IT MYSELF!
I could shred the rest of it, but that should be "good enough."
Asswipe.
I don't want it. Neither does the vast majority of Americans, by a very wide margin.
Now, can we move on to the more important discussion of why you want to FORCE people like myself to pay for something we don't want?
Your country is screwed, and you know it. Stop trying to drag us down to your level. Your people used to be so proud and capable. My God man, what the hell happened to you over there?
I don't want the teeth of a Brit thank you very much.
NHS type medical care is inferior to what we have now.
Quentin:
America would save substantially over the cost of private healthcare.
Extremely unlikely.
like people not being forced into bankruptcy to cover medical bills and a healthier workforce overall.
Britons are healthier overall? That's just blatant PR BS. Forced into Bankruptcy is a good soundbite - what *does* "Forced into Bankruptcy" mean? When someone is forced into bankrupcty, what happens?
That's even assuming there's a "crisis" in people being bankrupted due to "medical bills". Which is far from a proven idea.
Socialised medicine can be more cost-effective.
No. It can cost less. But that doesn't mean it's effective. If your intent is to spend less, Socialized Medicine is workable. If it's to provide more and better health care? Not so much.
You're also missing the huge elephant in the room - the NHS isn't the only system. The US and the private system cover a lot of the failures, as people can go buy what they want. Most people who make claims about Canada's health care won't talk about the fact that people facing huge shortages and waiting lists just drive south and get it taken care of. There are whole clinics in border cities that cater to Canadians.
That "relief valve" helps immensely with the "bottom line" - and if the US socializes, it's gone.
The NHS already has a huge problem getting doctors to stay there rather than moving to the states. They have huge issues with delivery times, with care. Nurse Practitioners now do what Doctors used to. Nurses now do what Nurse Practitioners were tasked to do. Techs now do what Nurses used to do.... Nurses and increasingly doctors are foreign born and non-native English speakers.
..... But it *is* cheaper. For now. Just so you don't expect great healthcare. Just cheap healthcare.
And, of course, the NHS starves old people to death, too.
The UK also has a thriving private healthcare system to provide what the NHS cannot. It still works out vastly cheaper than the American system. The NHS isn't perfect by any means, but I'm not in favour of letting the perfect get in the way of the good enough. America would save over $1T by implementing the NHS. You cannot dismiss that with a soundbite.
UK cancer survival rate lowest in Europe
Note which country does best.
Now, research the comparative death rates for stroke and heart disease.
Then tell me again how good the "cheaper" NHS is.
We can save $1T too, if we don't mind a lot more deaths.
...but I'm not in favour of letting the perfect get in the way of the good enough.
Do you know (he asked rhetorically) would be good?
It would be good if I could get a complex and tricky surgical procedure (let us assume for the moment I need one to save my life, which I do not) performed for $1,200 cash on the barrelhead.
Two months ago, we were able to do just that, thereby saving the life...
...of one of our cats.
Do you know why were able to negotiate that procedure for that price (cat's doing quite well, by the way)?
Because there is a relatively free market in veterinary medicine. (And vet school, by all accounts, is a tougher course than human medicine, because of the scope of knowledge -- multiple species, biochemistries, and phyisiologies -- required).
PS -- that price, freely negotiated between the vet and ourselves, also included a week of inpatient care and associated stuff.
"Because there is a relatively free market in veterinary medicine."
And because there isn't a thriving industry of (** hawk, spit **) lawyers raking in wagonloads of dough by making the industry do way more than is necessary in anticipation of having to defend that they haven't done less.
(** hawk, spit **) lawyers
But you repeat yourself.
Yep. There's a lot of wailing and moaning among gridiron football fans regarding the NFL's attempts to reduce the incidence of concussions by attempting to crack down on helmet-to-helmet hits. This is why. Think "black lung." Think "asbestos." Think "the NFL and every franchise in it, sued into bankruptcy."
America would save over $1T by implementing the NHS.
No, it wouldn't.
You cannot dismiss that with a soundbite.
You're the one using soundbites. Project much? I think there's a program that can help you - dunno what the waiting list looks like.
The NHS won't work in America. Period. No matter how much you "save". And that's a ephemeral savings. The American standard of care is vastly superior to the NHS standard. There's also a reason why the UK doctors are flocking to the US.
Care to give me a soundbite to explain THAT?
but I'm not in favour of letting the perfect get in the way of the good enough.
"Good enough". Let me know when you've got easily treatable cancer, and the NHS denies you the cure, how "good enough" that is.
Quentin:
Speaking of soundbites... Care to answer my question I posed?
Forced into Bankruptcy is a good soundbite - what *does* "Forced into Bankruptcy" mean? When someone is forced into bankruptcy, what happens?
I was going to suggest that we cue up the countdown for the designated village idiot to drop on by, but it seems we've had someone else to get that ball rolling.
Kevin, do you think, occasionally, that you simply do not deserve this kind of treatment?
Hmm.. 'designated village idiot' eh? I suggest that speaks volumes more about you than it does me.
Have you considered a reasoned argument instead of insults? I've given what it costs us here in the U.K. Scale that up for the US and you see a saving of over $1T.
As I've said, the NHS isn't perfect. Yes, we have waiting lists. Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good enough. And if you'd bothered to read, we also have a thriving private healthcare industry. Which also has a much lower overhead than in America. A common insurance is that the private healthcare plan comes in if you have to wait too long for the NHS.
Again, you ignore the fact that the NHS is WORSE. We aren't letting perfect get in the way of good enough. Our system is good enough, and the UKs is worse. Saving money isn't the point here. Its getting better care for the price paid.
The solution isn't adding more government, its taking more away. We need MORE of a free market in healthcare. End the "licensing" of doctors. Get rid of the FDA. THAT will go a long way toward saving money.
Well Quentin, up until now, I was referring to someone else.
By all means, don't let me stop you from taking Marxy's crown.
PS - Go fuck yourself.
Your scaling predictions are faulty. One point you are completely missing is the vast difference in areas to be covered, which affects transportation costs, the optimal number and size of available facilities, etc.
Note that the United Kingdom has about 10 times the population density of the U.S. That means they can get away more easily with fewer, larger facilities, taking advantage of an economy of scale. The U.S. has a far more spread out population. The additional costs required to build enough hospitals so that everyone can enjoy speedy emergency care is a significant factor that your scaling law completely ignores.
To illustrate my point, imagine two countries with identical populations. One country is very small, with the vast majority of the population in one city. The other has two distant population centers. How many hospitals (of arbitrarily large size) does each country need? What do you think the differences in costs will be in developing one really big hospital compared to two smaller hospitals?
Pretending that single-variable cost projections are anything approximating a good guess of costs in a complicated system like health care provision is nothing less than idiotic.
Have you considered a reasoned argument instead of insults? I've given what it costs us here in the U.K. Scale that up for the US and you see a saving of over $1T.
No, you haven't. You've done some math, with no backing for the validity of your assumptions, dodged the "reasoned argument" bit, and stuck to your proposed theoretical savings.
Yes, that pretty much classifies you as "Village Idiot" until you prove you can actually back up something you're saying.
Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good enough.
According to who? I'm happy with what we've got, for the most part. (The government interference is the part I have problems with now.)
I'm happy with what we spend, I'm happy at the cost/benefit ratio.
Why are you insisting to screw that up and force it down in quality?
Now, can you answer my question - that you used as a "soundbite" about bankruptcy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLprXHbn19I
Kill the Old People! NHS = Lord of the Flies. Waiting lists, poor sanitation, expensive government bureaucratic encumbrances, loss of doctors, poor health-results, higher death-rates... All good stuff!
Quentin:
So after having repeated your soundbite, (which you accused us of) you're running off?
Yeah. There's a reason why you're being compared to Mark.
"...Yeah. There's a reason why you're being compared to Mark."
You mean, there's only one?
(chortle)
There's a reason Americans are not British...
...and Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare or savings.
"And if you'd bothered to read ..."
We do read, Quentin. We've discussed this topic here for a long time. If you'd bothered to read the YEARS of comments here on the subject of socialized health care, you'd have seen that.
"... we also have a thriving private healthcare industry."
Yeah, we know that. We've talked about it.
But why do you also have a thriving private healthcare industry? Because the gubmint-controlled-and-taxpayer-paid-for socialist variety cannot or will not deliver what is needed and/or desired. That is why ...
"... we have waiting lists ... A common insurance is that the private healthcare plan comes in if you have to wait too long for the NHS."
So, a common practice is to buy insurance to cover what you've already paid for in taxes but the gubmint won't provide. Golly. That's "reasonable efficiency", is it?
"Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good enough."
Don't let a cliché get in the way of thinking.
Not good enough is good enough as long as you don't need it, at which point it is not good enough. So, don't substitute the not good enough for the good enough and then tell us it's good enough when it isn't.
"You cannot dismiss that with a soundbite."
You cannot prove it, nor can you make it believable, by repeating it.
"Rah! Rah! America!"
I'm glad you're all sufficiently well off to afford private healthcare or have jobs which provide it as a perk. Many Americans aren't so fortunate and are one major medical expense away from serious trouble.
Your healthcare industry jolly well ought to be a lot better since it costs you twice what we pay - and that's including the private side. I've experience of treatment both on the NHS and going private. I control the funds of someone who's in private care. However, the best healthcare I've experienced was actually from France's state healthcare system.
I wonder how many here have any actual experience of European UHC?
I wonder how many here have any actual experience of European UHC?
Maybe you should have asked that first, before making presumptions and projections and slogans.
No matter, you're not expressing your views. You don't actually wonder that, that's your way of saying "I bet that nobody does." Why not say what you mean, rather than asking obviously rhetorical questions (whose answers might demolish your logical fallacies?)
Note also that our Quentin, rather than address the facts others have addressed here, has moved the goalposts. It's as though statist collectivists have a playbook or something.
I'm glad you're all sufficiently well off to afford private healthcare or have jobs which provide it as a perk. Many Americans aren't so fortunate and are one major medical expense away from serious trouble.
Whether we are one major medical expense from serious trouble is entirely beside the point. Whether that is true or not, what entitles one to the life and work of another?
Hard to argue first principles with someone who hasn't got any.
"...I'm glad you're all sufficiently well off to afford private healthcare or have jobs which provide it as a perk..."
Guess what, you sanctimonious, finger-wagging asshole, I'm not, "well off," as you put it, despite being a licensed professional. I pay, directly, for ALL of my own insurance. IT'S NOT A PERK, FUCKWIT.
Take whatever "opinions" you think you have about the U.S., our healthcare system and anything else, and keep them to your ignorant, god-damned self, Limey, and quit trying to evangelize about the greatness of the NHS, or whatever other kind of fucking ponzi-scheme you're trying to pass off.
"I wonder how many here have any actual experience of European UHC?"
I suppose my wife does, considering she was got her PHD and M.B. from Cambridge, and was going to be an NHS doctor.
I gave her a better deal: Marry a USAF 1st Lieutenant and come back to Boston.
There she was a researcher in plastic surgery for a while. Then she got an MBA.
Now she's a Vice President of one of the largest hospital groups in the USA at age 35 in charge of advanced medical practice implementation. One of her job goals is to bring the cost of the health care down without compromising quality or quantity of patients treated.
She's done both as a provider, been treated by both (for two different life threatening situation, one in each), and she's told me she's not going back to NHS way. She's had treatement over here to repair the care she got from the NHS. As for the condition she developped while over here, well, my quick Google search reveals that she'd have to hope that she had been in the group of 10,000 that the NHS decided they would fund treatment for... out of the 60,000 to 80,000 estimated total sufferers in the UK. And that was just to be in the trial group that was declared this year to be "an utter fiasco".
I'm glad you're all sufficiently well off to afford private healthcare or have jobs which provide it as a perk. Many Americans aren't so fortunate and are one major medical expense away from serious trouble.
Sorry, wrong answer. I have no health coverage whatsoever, and have a nice little set of things that are killing me by installments. Been there and done that already, still wearing the scars.
But somewhere along the way it occurred to me that we're all mortal, we all break down over time and eventually die. We don't get any choice in that. But I do get to choose not to "afford" my healthcare by stealing it from strangers.
I'll pass, thanks. My health will go away regardless of what I do, regardless of how much I spend. But unless I personally choose to abandon it, I get to keep my integrity.
Grumpy Old Fart,
Thanks for reminding us all of the best argument of all.
Game, set, match, or in the contemporary vernacular: "Epic Win."
Kudos.
"Rah! Rah! America!"
Quentin:
You're the one in here with Pom-Poms and no facts, just repeated slogans shouted.
Now, you made a claim about bankrupcty. Please at least answer my question about _what that means_.
Or else flounce off chewing your gum. You want to actually have reasoned discussion, this is the place for it. But so far, you're just repeating soundbites and projecting.
Now. Bankrupcty. What does being forced into it mean?
> Now. Bankrupcty. What does being forced into it mean?
Poverty. Loss of job in many cases. Loss of home. Loss of everything.
As for no facts, I've stated plenty of them. Like the different costs. Even Libertarians need to recognise that there are some things that the state does better than the individual. You've evidently got cover somehow. But you're still paying twice as much as we are.
"...Even Libertarians need to recognise that there are some things that the state does better than the individual..."
More equivocating bullshit.
I will not recognise that horseshit, and it's because of the profound, historical failures of Gummint to do so, as you've claimed. And I refuse to give you your history lesson on this. Read a book.
"Poverty. Loss of job in many cases. Loss of home. Loss of everything."
No, not here it doesn't.
Here, bankruptcy is covered by federal statutes, beginning with the Constitution. I presume you mean what is known here as "Chapter 7" bankruptcy, in which the debtor coughs up assets to cover what debts they can cover. He is allowed to keep some assets per "exemption" rules, and he can opt for the federal exemptions or the exemptions his state allows. They allow quite a lot, as the intent is to not cast the debtor onto the street.
Its primary effect is that it grants the debtor a discharge with respect to certain debts such that, while the debts are still owed, the creditors they are owed to are prohibited from making any effort to collect them. The surprising result is that, because a debtor cannot re-file for bankruptcy protection for seven years, credit card companies usually flood the debtor with credit. The debtor is thus left with much of his assets, with the opportunity to recover without hassle, and with credit available to facilitate the process. That's what bankruptcy is for.
The point is that bankruptcy brings RELIEF, not poverty, not "loss of everything."
And, bankruptcy has no connection whatever with employment status. Indeed, it generally makes the debtor a better employee because it removes tremendous worry and such from his shoulders. It is not unusual for the employer to be unaware that it happens.
No, I have never filed for bankruptcy and never needed to. But, I have opposed people who did, on the grounds that they did not follow the rules, and so I learned the rules. Yes, I won. The result was almost the same as if they had followed the rules. The significant differences were: 1) they were not granted a discharge; 2) I was granted a collectable judgement against them; 3) I legally collected most of what they owed me; and, 4) they had ZERO credit afterward.
Ah, the power of the internet. It makes jumping to conclusions ever so much less productive, doesn't it?
"But you're still paying twice as much as we are."
The comparison that we face is not what we pay compared to what you pay. The comparison that we face is what we will pay, if the gubmint takes over control of health care here, compared to what we pay now.
The complaint that we pay more than we should have to is correct, and we've been making that complaint here for a long time. The presumption that we would pay less if gubmint took over control of health care in this country is unfounded, and your experience there does not justify that presumption here. Indeed, the entire history of our gubmint justifies precisely the opposite presumption, and a comparison of our gubmint to your gubmint does not change that.
"But you're still paying twice as much as we are." So?
I have friends who have been treated for injuries while they were in Britian they say it sucked. The wait was long the service crappy the people rude.
If I want to pay for my own insurance or medical treatment as opposed to stealing it from other people at the point of the governments gun as GOF points out why do you care and if you really cared shouldn't you be working in the medical field in some third world location for free instead of wagging your finger at us because we want to maintain a sense of independance?
And no I don't need to recognize the state is particulary efficient at anything...well Ken has a point regarding governments skill at murder.
Even Libertarians need to recognise that there are some things that the state does better than the individual.
I can find plenty of evidence that the state is better at killing people in job lots than anything short of an extinction level event. Or did you have something else in mind?
> Now. Bankrupcty. What does being forced into it mean?
Poverty. Loss of job in many cases. Loss of home. Loss of everything.
Thank you.
I thought you might think that. Which is why I asked rather than presuming you didn't know what "bankruptcy" is. Bankruptcy doesn't cause you to lose your job. Or your home. Or your belongings.
The term "bankruptcy" is shorthand for filing for bankruptcy protection. In other words, it protects your home, and your belongings and your "everything. If you're really "Bankrupt" and have nothing, there's no point in filing for it! You have nothing to protect, nothing to lose.
But your presumption that someone filing for bankruptcy has lost "everything" colors your view, and so we find one of your base assumptions is totally wrong.
This is why we ask such questions, to find out what base assumptions are. The references to Mark are for a regular commenter who cannot follow his thoughts back to base assumptions. I'm glad that you could at least define what you're - incorrectly - calling "bankrupt". Now we can perhaps begin with less emotion and more facts.
As for no facts, I've stated plenty of them. Like the different costs.
You've said that, yes. That doesn't make them facts.
Can you demonstrate anything that would indicate that a simple per-capita cost comparison in anything else that would support that for heath care? Simply presuming that it would work the same isn't good enough. You could state that's your presumption, and follow from there - but if that assumption is wrong (and it is, barring examples and proof), then everything deriving from it is wrong.
Even Libertarians need to recognise that there are some things that the state does better than the individual.
Health care isn't one of them.
You've evidently got cover somehow. But you're still paying twice as much as we are.
*I* am not. Nor are most here. You're comparing apples and geologic rocks.
Until you demonstrate far more correlation and identity, you can't make those comparisons. You can make per-capita comparisons, you can use total costs, you can use costs of people named Rupert.
But that doesn't mean that your assumption is valid. You have to prove validity, not just wave numbers around.
And that's even before you get into the fundamental problems that most of us here have with the government "running" health care.
So your "facts" aren't backed up, and ignore a large amount of data. As well as being based on fundamental misunderstandings of the terms.
You don't understand the moral/freedom issues we have with handing over power to the government - and we've been watching the NHS fiasco over here. We don't like what we see.
If you want to discuss the facts - present them. And thanks for clarifying what you didn't understand about bankruptcy. People with severe health problems being forced into "bankruptcy" isn't what you thought it was. Nor do I see that as a huge problem. (For many reasons, most importantly, the numbers you see are horribly inflated on purpose.)
Now that you understand that "bankruptcy" is actually protecting people, does that change what you think about it?
Quentin:
For more explanation as to some of the problems with doing a direct per-capita presumption, leaving aside all the moral arguments and first principle issues, let me post this.
The entire UK would fit into Texas. That has some huge ramifications for the cost of health care - it must be much more spread out. Think of the difference in emergency medicine. Hell, pretty much the whole UK is accessable with no more than 3 hours in a helicopter.
By comparison, that helicopter taking off from where I live, and flying south, still hasn't left the state of GA in 3 hours.
That's not to say that per-capita isn't useful. But without more proof that the comparison is apt, without demonstration of the comparability, it's a poor "proof". This just demonstrates one of the (potential) problems with that comparison.
Unix, is that both GB and Australia being stuffed into the US borders? May I mention you forgot Alaska and Hawaii.
Apparently, yes.
It doesn't matter about those two - the point is to compare the just the overall size, and to point out the vast disparity, and why a "per capita" comparison isn't valid without a LOT more proof.
For example, you could easily build one hospital in the UK to handle Inverted Cranial Rectumus, and it's within easy reach of the entire population. Or, say, 3 or 4 to keep it within 2 hours of everybody.
4 wouldn't cover even a quarter of the US's population.
Hmmm, seems he ran off just when it was getting interesting.
That's the "Brave Sir Robin" tactic.
Must have went to the same 'blogging for lefties' weekend seminar as Marxy.
I started to make a (attempted) humorous comment, but you know, I just think it's because it's how they process information.
Once they accept something, it's _true_. It's twue, it's twue, it's twue!
So Quentin can come in, throw out a obviously bogus number, and assume that's all the debate is, because he sees that, and .. why are we still arguing?
Mark is the same way. He'll actively avoid reading things that demonstrate that he's wrong, or that his source or conclusion is at best, arguable, and keep on insisting that what he said at first was completely correct.
Leaving aside the projection and bluster, Quentin came in, launched one "fact", and retreated.
It's the same deficiency that Mark has, and that's why the MO is so similar.
Why stop with the humor? You can be funny and serious in the same post...
But analyzing a leftie using the logic of a rightie*? That's a recipe for failure. You're probably right of course, but in your description you have to use words and logic the way we do to ascribe an action to Mark or Quentin that in their mind is nowhere close to how you describe it. Thus, possibly prompting their return to rebut your 'projections'.
Now watch this video and tell me it wasn't pulled from the comment section here. Especially when she gets to the end and says she's a teacher - thought of Mark immediately.
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/10/25/wow-someone-was-eavesdropping-on-my-conversations-with-liberals/
*labels used for convenience purposes only.
"The NHS has a 3% admin rate. "
But alas, the MP's, dash it all, created a special committee to investigate, and wouldn't you know it? The figure is 14%.
"The NHS spends 14% of its entire budget – about £15.4bn a year – on management and administration, an influential Commons committee reveals today."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/30/nhs-management-costs-spending
Quick, which number is bigger, 3 or 14?
There you go again, with all those facts and stuff.
This'll be a good metric.
It only got me 18 months to get Mark to address his "17 is more than 22" comparison. At least for as much as he could address it, which is to sidestep it and move the goalposts....
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>