Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Canadian Health Care vs USA Health Care

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 9:39:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here is an interesting study comparing Canadian Care and USA health care. Here is the abstract:

"Does Canada's publicly funded, single payer health care system deliver better health outcomes and distribute health resources more equitably than the multi-payer heavily private U.S. system? We show that the efficacy of health care systems cannot be usefully evaluated by comparisons of infant mortality
and life expectancy. We analyze several alternative measures of health status using JCUSH (The Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health) and other surveys. We find a somewhat higher incidence of chronic health conditions in the U.S. than in Canada but somewhat greater U.S. access to treatment for these conditions. Moreover, a significantly higher percentage of U.S. women and men are screened for major forms of cancer. Although health status, measured in various ways is similar in both countries, mortality/incidence ratios for various cancers tend to be higher in Canada. The need to ration resources in Canada, where care is delivered "free", ultimately leads to long waits. In the U.S., costs are more often a source of unmet needs. We also find that Canada has no more abolished the tendency for health status to improve with income than have other countries. Indeed, the health-income gradient is slightly steeper in Canada than it is in the U.S."


Here is the full PDF:

http://www.nber.org...

It's not all positive for the USA, but it does seem that folks in the USA have far better acess to care than folks in Canada. Another interesting result is that single payer has NOT resulted in more equitable health outcomes. In fact, people in Canada have less equitable health outcomes than in the USA.

None of the results of this study should be all that surprising. Canada has a centrally planned health care system where prices aren't really allowed to work. This leads to shortages, declining quality, and numerous other problems.

Another point that is not adressed by this study is that medical innovation is slowed down substantially by state run health care systems. It is no coincidence that such a disproportionate share of medical innovations come from the USA.

As mentioned in the study, people in the USA have far more access to medical technology. The OECD shows that there are 25.9 MRIs per million people in the USA. In Canada, there are only 6.7 MRIs per million people. For CT scans, there are 34.3 per million people in the USA compared to 12.7 per million people in Canada. For mammographs, there are 40.2 mammographs per million people in USA compared to 21.3 per million people in Canada.

This may explain why 51% of Canadian doctors report patients having trouble accessing diagnostic tests compared to only 9% of USA doctors.

Plus, in Canada, people have far more trouble with access to specialists and elective surgery. 33% of Canadians report waiting more than 4 months for elective surgery compared to 8% of people in the USA having to wait that long. For specialists, 57% of Canadians report waiting more than 4 weeks to see a specialist compared to only 23% of people in the USA.

The point here is that people in the USA have far better access to care than people in Canada.

How about costs?

Yes, USA health care is more expensive. According to the OECD, The USA spent 17.4% of GDP on health care in 2009 (the latest date available). In Canada, only 11.4% of GDP is spent on health care. However, health spending is actually rising faster in Canada than in the USA. From 1999 to 2009, real per capita health spending rose 76% in the USA compared to 93% in Canada. So, health spending is actually rising faster in Canada.

Also, it should be noted that Canada has a population about 10% the size of the USA. This population is also less culturally diverse and more collective minded than the USA population. So, even as single payer health care does not work all that well in Canada, it would be much worse in the USA.

A central government would have a much harder time running a health care system for 300 million culturally diverse people than for 30 million homogenous people.

In summary, Canada and other first world nations show how single payer would never work in the USA.

Here is the OECD where stats on health spending and medical technology comes from (you have to look under health statistics):

http://www.oecd.org...

Here is the Commonwealth Fund report where my stats on wait times come from:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org...
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 10:26:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
CORRECTION:

I said in the OP that Canada's real per capita health spending rose 93% from 1999 to 2009. I re-checked everything and it turns out that it only rose 81% from 1999 to 2009.

That is still higher than the 76% increase in real per capita health spending in the USA during that period. So, the point remains.

However, from 2004 to 2009, which is even more recently, Canadian real health spending per capita rose 36% compared to 26% during the same period in the USA.

The point is that while the USA does spend more on health care, health spending is rising faster in Canada.
President of DDO
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:06:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 9:39:08 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Here is an interesting study comparing Canadian Care and USA health care. Here is the abstract:


Contradictor. 100 million Americans have no or limited access to regular health care (cannot see a doctor regularly). This results in 45,000 deaths in the United States due to a lack of health coverage: http://news.harvard.edu...

This medical study has been peer reviewed.

I have many friends in Canada, and all of them -- even those who don't work or work low-wage jobs -- get regular access to a doctor. I, in the United States, cannot. My wife could not and she died in early 2006 from lymphoma, a condition that is treatable if caught early, but because she and I had no medical coverage (and woefully inadequate income) to enable us to go to a doctor regularly, she wasn't see until her condition was so serious, she couldn't get out of bed and by that point, it was too advanced for any effective treatment. The Harvard study would have to be false and my friends would have to be lying for that "study" you linked to be true.

These "Tobacco Research Institute" type studies to obfuscate the fact that the United States health care system is rated by a number of independent medical analyses as being on par with 3rd world countries specifically due to lack of access by so many to basic medicine (most definitely not due to medical technology, which truly is top notch but is only accessible to a fraction of the population) aren't just an unfortunate fraud, they're a deadly tragedy. The U.S. health care system creates a 9/11-scale death toll more than once every single month.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:25:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And upon further research, nber.org -- the National Bureau of Economic Research -- does what it name says: research issues from an economic perspective. They do not have particular knowledge, research programs nor expertise in medicine.

Further, the study relies solely on a telephone survey of some 5,000 Americans. Browsing through it (correct me if I'm wrong), but they did not extract out the obvious (and, in fact, proven) dichotomy of insured versus uninsured in the U.S. The Harvard and an earlier study proved, through extensive research, that uninsured Americans are three times as likely to die from a preventable cause as insured Americans. Uninsured Americans do not have ready, regular access to a doctor to screen conditions before they become so serious that emergency care becomes obviously required (or the victim dies of their undiagnosed-due-to-no-preventive-care-access).

Canada inherently does not have this dichotomy, as no one in Canada lacks regular care from a doctor. The study bafflingly determines as fact an obvious falsehood that people without medical insurance can somehow get regular screenings and access to a doctor, which is simply not the case. I have multiple chronic conditions myself that I cannot get treated, and my wife developed a serious condition that killed her.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 7:19:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pervrat,

All you did was cite a study that does not dispute anything I said. The 45,000 figure is far outdated and has been found to have little support. It is a bit absurd that the advocates of socialized medicine have made this kind of statistical dishonestly commonplace in this debate.

Based on studies and figures, I made the following assertions:

1.) Canadian Health Care includes far less medical technology and much longer wait times than USA health care.

2.) Canadian health care is less effective at curing diseases than USA health care.

3.) Canadian health care does not even deliver more equitable health outcomes than USA health care, which is a pretty devastating blow to the social justice argument for single payer.

4.) USA health care costs more than Canadian health care. However, Canadian health care costs are rising at a faster rate than USA health care costs.

5.) A Canadian type health care system woud be even worse in the USA given the size and culture of the USA.

You have not really even challenged any of these assertions.
President of DDO
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:24:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 7:19:02 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Pervrat,

All you did was cite a study that does not dispute anything I said. The 45,000 figure is far outdated and has been found to have little support. It is a bit absurd that the advocates of socialized medicine have made this kind of statistical dishonestly commonplace in this debate.

False. The 45,000 figure was a bonafide medical research study from a school that has produced several medical breakthroughs and has passed peer review. If you reject valid and peer-reviewed medical studies, you have no intellectual standing to argue anything in regard to health care.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 4:14:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Canada has a centrally planned health care system where prices aren't really allowed to work. This leads to shortages, declining quality, and numerous other problems.

In reality, the physicians make the medical physicians, not the corrupted profits-over-life bloated private bureaucracy.

Another point that is not adressed by this study is that medical innovation is slowed down substantially by state run health care systems.

Not true. Most drugs (nearly all) are federally funded by the NIH. Most drug companies just create "me too" drugs - with only minor variations.

As mentioned in the study, people in the USA have far more access to medical technology.

There are NOT long waits for primary care in Canada. There are waits for specialists, and long waits for elective care (cataract surgery for example).

HOWEVER, less Canadians (11%) have unmet health needs than Americans (14%). Besides the waits result from a weaker medical infrastructure -- but have a better healthcare framework. Plus, Canadians have better survival rates for all cancers combined.

A central government would have a much harder time running a health care system for 300 million culturally diverse people than for 30 million homogenous people.

SP is brilliantly simple. Payments are equally distributed by the NIH and Federal Health Board (would be created) - and then the private sector is given a boost to do what they are supposed to do - provide care for those who need it.

The USA is the only industrialized nation NOT to have Universal Healthcare. Twenty-eight have SP systems, while Germany has a system similar to Clinton's plan. Switzerland has a healthcare plan like Obama's A.C.A.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 4:20:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 4:14:57 PM, Contra wrote:
Canada has a centrally planned health care system where prices aren't really allowed to work. This leads to shortages, declining quality, and numerous other problems.

In reality, the physicians make the medical physicians, not the corrupted profits-over-life bloated private bureaucracy.

the private system has an incentive to be good by lower prices (lower prices = more customers). Also the doctors do not choose HC.


Another point that is not adressed by this study is that medical innovation is slowed down substantially by state run health care systems.

Not true. Most drugs (nearly all) are federally funded by the NIH. Most drug companies just create "me too" drugs - with only minor variations.


As mentioned in the study, people in the USA have far more access to medical technology.

There are NOT long waits for primary care in Canada. There are waits for specialists, and long waits for elective care (cataract surgery for example).

HOWEVER, less Canadians (11%) have unmet health needs than Americans (14%). Besides the waits result from a weaker medical infrastructure -- but have a better healthcare framework. Plus, Canadians have better survival rates for all cancers combined.

A central government would have a much harder time running a health care system for 300 million culturally diverse people than for 30 million homogenous people.

SP is brilliantly simple. Payments are equally distributed by the NIH and Federal Health Board (would be created) - and then the private sector is given a boost to do what they are supposed to do - provide care for those who need it.

The USA is the only industrialized nation NOT to have Universal Healthcare. Twenty-eight have SP systems, while Germany has a system similar to Clinton's plan. Switzerland has a healthcare plan like Obama's A.C.A.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 8:39:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 4:14:57 PM, Contra wrote:
Canada has a centrally planned health care system where prices aren't really allowed to work. This leads to shortages, declining quality, and numerous other problems.

In reality, the physicians make the medical physicians, not the corrupted profits-over-life bloated private bureaucracy.

This is a major misunderstanding of how health care works.

In Canada, the only care you get is whatever the government will pay for. In the USA, it is whatever you want to pay for. And, yes, buying insurance is optional.

So, patients have much more control in the USA.


Another point that is not adressed by this study is that medical innovation is slowed down substantially by state run health care systems.

Not true. Most drugs (nearly all) are federally funded by the NIH. Most drug companies just create "me too" drugs - with only minor variations.

Nope. First, private sector played a larger role:

http://www.imsa.org.za...(4)/Tufts%20Study%20on%20Public%20and%20Private%20Inputs%20to%20Drug%20Discovery~1.pdf

Second, if the public sector is so great at developing innovation, why are all of the medical breakthroughs coming from America?


As mentioned in the study, people in the USA have far more access to medical technology.

There are NOT long waits for primary care in Canada. There are waits for specialists, and long waits for elective care (cataract surgery for example).

HOWEVER, less Canadians (11%) have unmet health needs than Americans (14%). Besides the waits result from a weaker medical infrastructure -- but have a better healthcare framework. Plus, Canadians have better survival rates for all cancers combined.

Nope, USA has better cancer survival rates as the study I cited showed.

And, do specialists and elective surgery not matter?

Maybe in Canada where nobody lives long enough to know what either of these things are.


A central government would have a much harder time running a health care system for 300 million culturally diverse people than for 30 million homogenous people.

SP is brilliantly simple. Payments are equally distributed by the NIH and Federal Health Board (would be created) - and then the private sector is given a boost to do what they are supposed to do - provide care for those who need it.

The USA is the only industrialized nation NOT to have Universal Healthcare. Twenty-eight have SP systems, while Germany has a system similar to Clinton's plan. Switzerland has a healthcare plan like Obama's A.C.A.

SP is brilliantly simple. But, health care is not brilliantly simple. The economics of health care is not brilliantly simple.

A central government is simply not able to determine the health care needs of 300 Million different people.

The only way that the USA could have a humane HC system is if we allow prices to work and markets to work.
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 8:54:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jimtimmy,

The treatments to cover would be medically necessary. They would be administered by a Health Planning Board, which would administer health funds and use them according to community needs.

In Canada, government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be. Unless you favor bloated private bureaucrats to manage healthcare who are more concerned with profits than human life. Think about that.

People in nations w/ Universal Health Care have more doctor and hospital visits that we do. And we certainly have overall worse health, so this further proves my point.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:03:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 8:54:51 PM, Contra wrote:
Jimtimmy,

The treatments to cover would be medically necessary. They would be administered by a Health Planning Board, which would administer health funds and use them according to community needs.

In Canada, government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be. Unless you favor bloated private bureaucrats to manage healthcare who are more concerned with profits than human life. Think about that.

People in nations w/ Universal Health Care have more doctor and hospital visits that we do. And we certainly have overall worse health, so this further proves my point.

Right, a health planning board. That is exactly what we need.

Seriously, I can't believe after thousands of years of proof that central planning doesn't work we are still dealing with people who think that a "health planning board" will solve our health care woes.

And, how exactly do doctors make all the decisions when this health planning board is making all the funding decisions?

Yes, all other countries have universal HC. But, that doesn't mean anything. No other first world country has 300 Million people that are very diverse and decentralized. They just don't.

And, for the places that do, it has hardly been a clear success. It would just be worse in the USA.

What our key difference seems to be is that you believe a central board of bureacrats is capable of making the health decisions of 300 Million people with different wants and needs. I, on the other hand, think a decentralized system where individuals make their own health decisions is the only course that we can take.
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:06:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You can't make your own decisions with health care much of the time. You can't choose to have or not have a triple bypass operation. The question is if you want a non-profit system which treats people ethically, or if you want care payed for by greedy private insurance who favor MONEY over your LIFE.

I will debate this if you wish.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:09:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 9:06:24 PM, Contra wrote:
You can't make your own decisions with health care much of the time. You can't choose to have or not have a triple bypass operation. The question is if you want a non-profit system which treats people ethically, or if you want care payed for by greedy private insurance who favor MONEY over your LIFE.

I will debate this if you wish.

It seems to me as if liberals don't understand basic economics. Competition promotes incentives to treat the consumers favourably so that they will come back or in the case of healthcare, not sue.

Your contention that free market companies somehow disregard the consumer is absurd. A free market depends on the willingness of the consumer. If the company is unfavourable and undesirable by the consumer because it doesn't care about them or some other of your contentions against business, it will go out of businesses.

Economics 101.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:13:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 9:09:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:06:24 PM, Contra wrote:
You can't make your own decisions with health care much of the time. You can't choose to have or not have a triple bypass operation. The question is if you want a non-profit system which treats people ethically, or if you want care payed for by greedy private insurance who favor MONEY over your LIFE.

I will debate this if you wish.

It seems to me as if liberals don't understand basic economics. Competition promotes incentives to treat the consumers favourably so that they will come back or in the case of healthcare, not sue.

Your contention that free market companies somehow disregard the consumer is absurd. A free market depends on the willingness of the consumer. If the company is unfavourable and undesirable by the consumer because it doesn't care about them or some other of your contentions against business, it will go out of businesses.

Economics 101.

This.
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:15:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 9:06:24 PM, Contra wrote:
You can't make your own decisions with health care much of the time. You can't choose to have or not have a triple bypass operation. The question is if you want a non-profit system which treats people ethically, or if you want care payed for by greedy private insurance who favor MONEY over your LIFE.

I will debate this if you wish.

I would like to debate this. But, can you wait a few days to a week?

As far as your point goes, I think the contention that government treats people ethically is a bit absurd.

The fact is that if we have learned anything about economics over the past centuries, it is that individuals and institutions pursuing their own self interest on a free market leads to the best outcomes for everyone most of the time. Medical care is included.
President of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:19:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Canada has an obligation to produce a military the size of ours, protect our mutual interests with it- as we downscale our military to the size of Canada's. Then we can start talking about affordable tax-funded healthcare.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:20:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 9:09:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:06:24 PM, Contra wrote:
You can't make your own decisions with health care much of the time. You can't choose to have or not have a triple bypass operation. The question is if you want a non-profit system which treats people ethically, or if you want care payed for by greedy private insurance who favor MONEY over your LIFE.

I will debate this if you wish.

It seems to me as if liberals don't understand basic economics. Competition promotes incentives to treat the consumers favourably so that they will come back or in the case of healthcare, not sue.

Unless you have a pre-existing condition. Then you are too costly for the business' profits. Then you are out of care and forced to nothing or Medicaid, which is a poor system due to a lack of support.

Your contention that free market companies somehow disregard the consumer is absurd. A free market depends on the willingness of the consumer. If the company is unfavourable and undesirable by the consumer because it doesn't care about them or some other of your contentions against business, it will go out of businesses.

Well they have survived so far. Even if they treat the consumer "nicely", they are still living out tens of millions with no care, and Single-Payer is brilliantly simple, is equitable, and saves hundreds of billions of dollars.

Economics 101.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:29:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 9:20:29 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:09:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:06:24 PM, Contra wrote:
You can't make your own decisions with health care much of the time. You can't choose to have or not have a triple bypass operation. The question is if you want a non-profit system which treats people ethically, or if you want care payed for by greedy private insurance who favor MONEY over your LIFE.

I will debate this if you wish.

It seems to me as if liberals don't understand basic economics. Competition promotes incentives to treat the consumers favourably so that they will come back or in the case of healthcare, not sue.

Unless you have a pre-existing condition. Then you are too costly for the business' profits. Then you are out of care and forced to nothing or Medicaid, which is a poor system due to a lack of support.

It is a person's responsibility to get insured before they get the condition. It isn't the government's role to fix poor life choices. People screw up; they suffer the ramifications. People don't screw up; they reap the rewards. You are advocating for a Nanny State which intervenes in a person's personal life. We have seen how well that has worked out.

Your contention that free market companies somehow disregard the consumer is absurd. A free market depends on the willingness of the consumer. If the company is unfavourable and undesirable by the consumer because it doesn't care about them or some other of your contentions against business, it will go out of businesses.

Well they have survived so far. Even if they treat the consumer "nicely", they are still living out tens of millions with no care, and Single-Payer is brilliantly simple, is equitable, and saves hundreds of billions of dollars.

First of all, it does not save billions of dollars. As evident through history, a bureaucratic system of anything has led to decreased efficiency in that sector. Read Max Gammon Theory of Bureaucratic Displacement (originated from observed NHS in Britain), "The more bureaucratic the organization, the greater extent to which useless work replaces useful work."

A bureaucracy has not incentive to effectively allocate money as they are neither benefiting or gaining from the transaction in either way.

Second, there aren't tens of millions of people uninsured. This is liberal hyperbole. In reality, there are only about 12 million uninsured people (See above link), about .03% of the population. So if you want to overhaul the entire system and make it supposedly "better" for .03% of the population, then you are a moronic idiot. Even though in reality, those .03% would probably be better off in a free market healthcare system as they would be too poor to pay the companies but would still be treated under the Hippocratic Oath.

Third, they have survived because they have specifically catered to the need of the consumer. Look up consumerism.

Economics 101.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:33:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Contra,

I think you are misunderstanding a few things.

First, thus whole point about pre existing conditions needs to be cleared up. Let me offer an analogy, imagine your house burned down and you had no fire insurance. Well, then you went to the insurance company and tried to purchase fire insurance.

They would say no because you had the pre existing condition of your house already being burned down. The point of insurance is that you pay into a risk pool that will cover you in case of an extreme emergency. People who are more likely to have this emergency, should have to pay more into this pool. People who already have had this emergency and did not pay into the risk pool before, should not be able to take advantage of the risk pool. This is just common sense.

Now, as far as the "simplicity" of single payer health care goes, I think this is the wrong way to look at it. Sure, in theory, single payer is "simple". People go to the doctor or hospital and the doctors and hospitals directly bill the government. However, it turns out that health care is very complex.

So, who decides how much a doctor is paid?

Does the doctor decide?

Probably not, because they would demand far too much. The government would probably decide. And, unless you are politically connected, the government can easily use its monopoly powers to severely underpay doctors.

And, of course, we are talking about a one size fits all approach to paying too. So, it would be very hard to see how individual doctors could charge for individual ce services to the government.

See how complex this is getting?

Of course, we also have to deal with special interests and politically popular groups getting precedent when funding decisions are made by this "health planning board" you mention.

And, as far as innovation goes, centrally planned systems have a very tough time incorporating new technologies, methods, and drugs into their rigid systems.

So, this whole idea of single payer sounds alright at first. But, some simple thought seems to show that it would be very hard to administer in reality.

Of course, we live in the USA. This is a very large, diverse, individualistic, and decentralized country. This means that the USA is the worst place for a single payer system to be implemented. And, they haven't even worked that well in places that are a more natural fit.
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:53:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is a person's responsibility to get insured before they get the condition. It isn't the government's role to fix poor life choices. People screw up; they suffer the ramifications. People don't screw up; they reap the rewards. You are advocating for a Nanny State which intervenes in a person's personal life. .

So all the people with genetic conditions (which was what I was talking about) - they are just given a kick in the shoulder? The same with the customers who cost more than they give the company in profits...

Plus, a "nanny state" is another phrase for Smart Government which sets the most effective framework possible for healthcare policy (SP).

We have seen how well that has worked out

Says the hardcore right-wing authoritarian but now maybe a libertarian (flip-flop).

First of all, it does not save billions of dollars.

Incorrect on your part. In fact, it has been studied heavily by several organizations, and has found savings from $100-300 billion dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.pnhp.org...

As evident through history, a bureaucratic system of anything has led to decreased efficiency in that sector. Read Max Gammon Theory of Bureaucratic Displacement (originated from observed NHS in Britain), "The more bureaucratic the organization, the greater extent to which useless work replaces useful work."

Thank you for showing this point. May I say that SP greatly simplifies administration, and that our fragmented for-profit private payer system is the most bureaucratic system in the modern world. Canada's administration size is the same size as Blue Cross Blue Shield's Massachusetts operation.

http://www.pnhp.org...

Second, there aren't tens of millions of people uninsured. This is liberal hyperbole. In reality, there are only about 12 million uninsured people (See above link), about .03% of the population.

You are forgetting the tens of millions that have to go with poor or unmet care.

So if you want to overhaul the entire system and make it supposedly "better" for .03% of the population, then you are a moronic idiot.

Once again, you are forgetting the tens of millions that lack insurance altogether, or all those who aren't covered for all their needs.

Even though in reality, those .03% would probably be better off in a free market healthcare system as they would be too poor to pay the companies but would still be treated under the Hippocratic Oath.

People with insurance have better care than people with non-insurance.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:59:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here is my response to pre-existing conditions:

Doctors and the government negotiate the earnings of doctors. Although it would be more likely that the doctors are paid for fee for each visit, and with less paperwork, they could see more patients.

Of course, we also have to deal with special interests and politically popular groups getting precedent when funding decisions are made by this "health planning board" you mention.

Is possible, but the board is composed of patient representatives and medical experts. Either way, it is still less corrupt than the current system.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 10:48:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Contra,

I feel like using your outline for this response.

So all the people with genetic conditions (which was what I was talking about) - they are just given a kick in the shoulder? The same with the customers who cost more than they give the company in profits...

Plus, a "nanny state" is another phrase for Smart Government which sets the most effective framework possible for healthcare policy (SP).


You are operating under the frame work that these people will not be able to get insurance. This is false. These people will be able to receive insurance from private companies in a free market system, but they will have to pay in more money. This makes sense as they are putting a larger strain on the companies and therefore the companies have a duty to charge more money from the people with pre-existing conditions. Insurance is made to prevent future risk. If you are at a heightened sense of risk, then insurance should obviously cost more.

Onto the Nanny State point, I really cannot tell if you are serious. A Nanny State, as shown by history via countries such as Greece, USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, etc... have absolutely failed in their mission of delivering "total equality" to the citizens (an absurd thing to strive for). You really need to re-evaluate your entire economic stance if you believe in a Nanny State.

Says the hardcore right-wing authoritarian but now maybe a libertarian (flip-flop).

Ad hominem.

Incorrect on your part. In fact, it has been studied heavily by several organizations, and has found savings from $100-300 billion dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com......
http://www.pnhp.org......


All of the links that you listed are superficially biased. Paul Krugman is an infamous liberal economist and "Physicians for a National Health Program".... Really?

Thank you for showing this point. May I say that SP greatly simplifies administration, and that our fragmented for-profit private payer system is the most bureaucratic system in the modern world. Canada's administration size is the same size as Blue Cross Blue Shield's Massachusetts operation.

So you want to tell me that a free market system is more bureaucratic than a system based solely on bureaucratic principles? You have got to be joking.

I recognize that the current US system is not necessarily completely free market and I am not advocating for it, but to say that a system which focuses on the lack of bureaucracy as more bureaucratic than one who focuses on that direct principle is absurd.

You are forgetting the tens of millions that have to go with poor or unmet care.

Unsubstantiated point rebutted by my link.

Not to mention that doctors have an obligation (Hippocratic Oath) to save dire patients, regardless of economic stature.

People with insurance have better care than people with non-insurance.

Was anybody disputing this? The ones with non-insurance have poorer quality healthcare (obviously), but they will still have access to life saving procedures.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 4:15:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You are operating under the frame work that these people will not be able to get insurance. This is false. These people will be able to receive insurance from private companies in a free market system, but they will have to pay in more money.

A true point, but is nonetheless not as good as SP. SP would prevent most medical bankruptcies, and costs would be cheaper for the vast majority.

Onto the Nanny State point, I really cannot tell if you are serious. A Nanny State, as shown by history via countries such as Greece, USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, etc... have absolutely failed in their mission of delivering "total equality" to the citizens (an absurd thing to strive for). You really need to re-evaluate your entire economic stance if you believe in a Nanny State.

It provides total equality on payments - if you need care truly, you can get it. The same is with a criminal, they have a right to a lawyer, a patient should have a right to a doctor.

Besides, a "nanny state" that actually is fiscally responsible with conservative spending and liberal benefits should seem like a common-sense approach. It is better than a nanny state with conservative policies that protects the income of the rich at the expense of society.

All of the links that you listed are superficially biased. Paul Krugman is an infamous liberal economist and "Physicians for a National Health Program".... Really?

Fine, I will provide different sources.

The CBO and GAU have determined that SP would result in savings of $100-300 billion even by covering all the under or uninsured and increasing benefits.

http://cthealth.server101.com...

In fact, our system has about 50-100% higher administrative costs than SP systems.

http://library.thinkquest.org...

So you want to tell me that a free market system is more bureaucratic than a system based solely on bureaucratic principles? You have got to be joking.


The market is a great economic system, and usually is efficient at distributing resources with a Smart Government collaborating with the private sector. However, the evidence has agreed with me, that the case is different with health care. Health care is actually the best administered by the government, and both Fareed Zakaria and the evidence agrees with my position.

Was anybody disputing this? The ones with non-insurance have poorer quality healthcare (obviously), but they will still have access to life saving procedures.

Don't forget the 45,000 that die each year because a lack of insurance in health care.

http://www.reuters.com...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 4:58:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Again, what makes you think central planning works so well in health care?

Everywhere where free markets are tried in HC they work very well.

Everywhere where government distorts or plans, failure is obvious.
President of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 5:18:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The most important part is being skipped which is the POOR get access not just the RICH>
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 5:19:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 5:18:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The most important part is being skipped which is the POOR get access not just the RICH>

That wasn't skipped. In the OP, I mentioned how the study I cited found that health care is less equitable in Canada than the USA.
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 5:37:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 4:58:37 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Again, what makes you think central planning works so well in health care?

Everywhere where free markets are tried in HC they work very well.

Everywhere where government distorts or plans, failure is obvious.

http://www.photius.com...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan