heywood on 6/9/2008 at 16:06
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Oregon is doing something else isn't it?
Oregon had a supplementary state paid program which tried to cover poor people who weren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. But the cost kept going up to the point where they couldn't pay for it anymore. Now they have a lottery to decide who gets the coverage (no joke, unfortunately).
The Massachusetts program tries to share the cost burden between the state, employers, and individuals and tries to take advantage of competition between insurers, so in theory it should be more robust in the face of cost growth.
Last I heard, the California plan was held up for lack available state budget.
SD on 6/9/2008 at 16:29
Quote Posted by howie
I look it as being a wash to some extent. Unforunate people without health care go to the emergency rooms if there is a problem and can not be denied treatment - legal and illegal imigrants. So it is said the illegals are burdening the hospitals to point their charge for services rate go up. This why the health care cost for the rest of us keep going up.
We have illegal immigrants in our countries too. So does pretty much everyone else. You can't point to that as a major reason for your healthcare being so much more expensive than everyone else's when the same thing affects everyone else.
Quote Posted by howie
Universal health care will only make the cost go even farther up because of red tape that is involved in all government programs.
So why does every single country with universal healthcare pay far less than the United States? Your argument doesn't stack up.
Quote Posted by heywood
regarding your claim that health care in the US is so expensive because of the bureaucracy of private insurance companies: I've seen reports saying the overhead of private health care bureaucracy is as low as 10-12% or as high as 25-30% depending on whose advocacy group is doing the study. These percentages are not anywhere near high enough to explain the rate of cost growth, and they're not going up as the cost of health care rises.
I didn't try to claim it was the only factor, in fact I even included another factor in my post (that the government is unable to use its dominant market position to bargain drug prices down).
I honestly can't recommend (
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ten_reasons_why_american_health_care_is_so_bad) Ezra Klein highly enough. Reposting cos you obviously haven't read it.
heywood on 6/9/2008 at 17:32
I did read the one you posted but it wasn't related to your argument that I responded to.
paloalto90 on 6/9/2008 at 18:50
Quote:
So why does every single country with universal healthcare pay far less than the United States? Your argument doesn't stack up.
Was health care cheaper in these countries before they started universal health care?
If your simply going to switch from private funding to govt funding and not tackle the rising cost of care your going to guarantee an ever expanding bloated govt mess.
When people get together and spend private money for a community that also would be positive liberty right?
However when I spend it on myself selfishly that is negative liberty?
What if I spend my own money on my education?Eventually there will be an intersection between my self interest and the public good when I use my education in my job.
Why must "positive liberty" come through taxation?
I think it would be grand living under a monarchy with a beneficent king but hell under a degenerate tyrant.
What if I don't agree with the govt definition of good health care?
What if I don't agree with their definition of a good education?
Limited taxation at the federal level seals the social contract for me while giving more power to the states to deal with their unique situations.
jay pettitt on 6/9/2008 at 19:33
Quote Posted by paloalto90
What if I don't agree with the govt definition of good health care?
What if I don't agree with their definition of a good education?
Change your government.
howie on 6/9/2008 at 20:18
If you think socialized medicine is new to the USA? You would be wrong. This is an old speech (10 minutes) on this subject. Not really sure when he made this speech but it is food for thought - if you can bear it.
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs)
heywood on 6/9/2008 at 20:41
Quote Posted by paloalto90
When people get together and spend private money for a community that also would be positive liberty right?
However when I spend it on myself selfishly that is negative liberty?
What if I spend my own money on my education?Eventually there will be an intersection between my self interest and the public good when I use my education in my job.
Why must "positive liberty" come through taxation?
Negative vs. positive liberty is not about self interest vs. the public (collective) interest. Both forms of liberty focus on individual rights. For example, if a town bans pit bulls in the pubic interest, it's not an example of positive liberty. It's depriving pit bull owners of a negative liberty. On the other hand, if a person can't find a job because they can't access/afford the required education, they have been deprived of a positive liberty. SD defined them pretty well I thought, but Google for Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty" if it's not clear.
Positive liberty doesn't necessarily have to come through taxation, but often does. For example, universal primary and secondary education is a positive liberty which is guaranteed through taxation. Freedom from sin is also considered a positive liberty (among the religious anyway) but it is guaranteed not through taxation but laws restricting amoral behavior - such as the 18th amendment and current drug laws. Institutionalized treatment of the mentally ill is a positive liberty that requires both components - taxation and behavioral restrictions.
Obviously, positive and negative liberties are often at odds, and can become out of balance. Overemphasizing positive liberty results in paternalism, the nanny state, socialism and at the extreme, authoritarian communism. Overemphasizing negative liberty results in laissez-faire capitalism, Wild West anarcho-capitalism and at the extreme, anarchy.
Fafhrd on 6/9/2008 at 20:47
It goes back further than Reagan. NIXON was a proponent of socialised health care, ffs.
Quote Posted by Tonamel
Of course not. You should be ensuring the standard of living for yourself (and your dependants). Why should you expect anyone else to make your life cozy for you?
Because a lot of the time circumstances beyond a person's control prevent their ability to ensure their own standard of living. When that happens, it shouldn't be crazy to expect the government to have their back.
howie on 6/9/2008 at 21:00
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
It goes back further than Reagan. NIXON was a proponent of socialised health care, ffs.
Thats just it. I don't know when that recording was made (?). He sounds young in the recording so I'm not even sure if he was a republican or democrat at the time. Reagan was a actor first, a democrat, then after a severe brain injury became a Republican.
Tonamel on 6/9/2008 at 21:05
Give a man a fish...
It's not that I'm opposed to government sponsored health care. It's that I'm opposed to national health care. The cost of living varies wildly from state to state, and even city to city. Trying to make one system that's going to work for everyone is begging for failure.
Also, what are your reasons for why the government should provide health care to those who can afford to pay for it themselves?
