Knights & Knaves Alehouse

G: "(even if a long shot)" try a nill shot. Anyhow, I'd rather see the Union stay together, and liberalism defeated. I still believe in the American people.

When see this rubbish about a National Health system meaning healthcare rationing and increased costs, I keep wondering if you're aware of the world outside the US at all.

There are literally dozens of countries that can run a National Health Service effectively. I mean, come on, guys. The French can do this.

Papers wrote:

I keep wondering if you're aware of the world outside the US at all.

The world according to Fox and Rush Limbaugh is 'the world outside', where have you been? It's a cheap shot, but anyone who's travelled abroad and been hospitalized in Europe finds an extremely competent group of people with highly informed practices, some more informed than our own here in the states.

P&P, I admittedly am not familiar with how govt. is run in England or France (how waistful it is). Here, in the good ol' USA its a parasitic sham. Its totally completely out of control wasting litterally billions an billions (no one knows how much). HMOs are a good example of savings being overpowered with new costs. For every dollar saved by having an HMO drive down cost, you probably add two dollars to pay for the freak'n HMO (a socialized system would be far far worse, at least here). Total corruption (protected threw legislation). Also, the health care industry is a growth industry. Quality in care increases through competition. If you ever come to the United States you should check out the quality of the places you can have tests done for instance (some in my little beach town feel like 5 star hotels, and give the tests at the same price or less then the crapfastic ones), and the number that exist in every city is amazing. Competition has created a health care boom (which should mean lower costs). Whats the problem? The cost of developing new drugs, lawsuites, red tape, and a corrupt insurance system (as Joe B has pointed out). It is my personal belief these costs have been purposely added to the system by the govt. to eventually require the system to be taken over by it. Insane? Do you trust the US Congress? These guys are all attorneys with the personality of used car salesmen.

To fix these problems would be difficult (the insurance lobby and legal lobby are huge) but it would be a hell of alot better then going socialist.

In any event, last I heard, when someone gets sick in England, France or Canada and they have the financial means, they head over in a jet to the USA for treatment.

Slippery Axe: Buddy boards are not likely to cap CEO salaries, so ... its not really an issue after all ... because the high rollers get stock. Options, actually, much of the time, eh?

What I've seen going back to the 1980s sure looks to me like a concerted effort (led by the new breed of Republicans) to crush small businesses. There's the talk, then there's the walk! (As Ronnie said: Are you better off now ...?)

As I recall, the British NHS a couple of years ago was considering "rationing" some services -- but I don't know what became of that. I know there have been headline-making management problems in both the UK and Canada. Those seem to me to pale next to what happened to our Federal home mortgage programs after they were privatized, and what has happened all across our financial sector over the past quarter-century.

My impression is that people in countries with full-fledged "socialized medicine" are at least as satisfied as Americans. What I hear and read most often is that people appreciate being able to count on getting an injury or illness treated without worrying about whether insurance will cover it -- much less about not having insurance at all. That suggests to me that it's worth looking objectively at how things work.

On the other hand, it bugs me that anti-interventionists conflate quite different approaches in order to raise a "Red scare." Public financing for consumers is not the same as public operation of providers, and one without the other might turn out to be better suited to the American situation. It is certainly not proper to ascribe to people propositions they have in fact not made (a common stratagem of talk-radio pundits).

AxeMental wrote:In any event, last I heard, when someone gets sick in England, France or Canada and they have the financial means, they head over in a jet to the USA for treatment.

I've heard waaayyyy too many verifiable stories of Canadians coming across the border for elective procedures... things for which they were put on a list back in Canuckistan.

Elective, you say? Surely they can wait? Yeah, well... apparently that also involves things like CT scans needed for diagnosing potential health problems.

Not for me, no sir.

To learn delights me, and I know my understanding can always be improved. For that matter, I know I have forgotten some things that I once knew. Just now, I'm thinking that ...

The history of Federalism and anti-Federalism is curious. The party of Jefferson (today the Democrats) and that of Lincoln (the later Republicans) were long divided in terms of the sectors of capital they favored: agrarian, small industrial and labor versus big industrial and financial.

By default, the Dems ended up long wedded (for better and worse) to the Dixiecrats of the "solid South." The Great Depression brought class conflict to a head, and President Hoover and his party were ready targets. There's plenty of room for debate over the actual economic effects of FDR's policies, and maybe even over how they matched his campaign against Hoover. However, they (along with the challenges of WW2 and Communism) cast the mold for a Democratic Federalism.

The Civil Rights movement appealed to Federal enforcement of the Constitution as a defense of liberty against local tyranny -- Lincoln's stock in trade. The GOP, though, increasingly chose to drive the "social conservative" side of the wedge and take white votes over black. The movement was not limited to race (which continued to be a cause of contention), going on to provide election fodder in issues of "women's rights," "gay rights," and so on.

Viet Nam, often characterized as "Lyndon Johnson's War," seems further to have divided Ds more than Rs. The anti-war movement and others were not driven by Reds, but they played starring roles. From what I've seen, the New Leftists went on to form a significant faction in the Democratic Party that to this day exerts influence from positions in the academy. I have repeatedly been surprised by the willingness of politically active Americans to become fellow travelers with Communists on one hand or Fascists on the other, divided pretty consistently along party lines of Democrats and Republicans respectively.

Now, health care has become yet another chance for the extremists to take the spotlight. It comes along with serious issues in economic and war policy that are also vulnerable to such treatment.

I hope for the survival of the Republic, seeing in its potential demise (at least in the foreseeable future) aid and comfort only to the enemies of liberty. I hope we can recover the Revolutionary understanding that "we must hang together, or else get hanged separately." The Federal government is our government; they are chiefly would-be usurpers who seek to divide and thereby to dispossess us.

Anotherinteresting observation about Obama's scare mongering. This is just a continuation of the role the liberal/socialist started with global warming.

Obama packs an awful lot of "spin" into his speeches -- but on this particular point, it seems to me we've been treated to an awful lot of absurdity from the other side! It's not 1933, but we're also not deluded when we see that we're facing serious problems rather than that the Emperor's New Clothes are the most splendid ever. Maybe the timely change of government will help avoid another "Hoover hangover."

Historically the way out of a recession is lower taxes. This puts money in people's pockts.

AxeMental wrote:In any event, last I heard, when someone gets sick in England, France or Canada and they have the financial means, they head over in a jet to the USA for treatment.

I don't know of anyone British who's jetted over to the USA for a medical procedure.

Err, except for boob jobs. That's one area the US healthcare system does lead the world.

AxeMental wrote:Historically the way out of a recession is lower taxes. This puts money in people's pockts.

Actually, historically the surest way out of a recession is to invade France.

Joking aside, the only cure for recession is time. Fiscal and monetary stimulus can provide temporary relief if you don't mind the subsequent inflation.

In the past 28 years, the way out seems to have been kicking the Republicans out of the White House. Maybe it has something to do with the advantages in investing revenue over spending debt.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

AxeMental wrote:In any event, last I heard, when someone gets sick in England, France or Canada and they have the financial means, they head over in a jet to the USA for treatment.

I don't know of anyone British who's jetted over to the USA for a medical procedure.

Berlusconi did exactly that from Italy- at the same time as pushed massive cuts in health spending, go figure.

Quite a few people come to Britain for medical care.

Of course every system has its problems. The NHS at present has many - mostly a result of attempting to inject "business" style models into the system under Thatcher-through-New Labour - which mean more managers and less health-workers (too many chiefs and not enough Indians).

The Italian system suffers from the same corruption as all Italian society.

But the American system is simply INSANE. US citizens pay more tax than UK citizens and they have to pay their own healthcare insurance. And insurance companies will do anything to avoid paying out if they can.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote: Err, except for boob jobs. That's one area the US healthcare system does lead the world.

Yes, and liposuction - makes a lot of business sense - sell 'em food, sell 'em something to suck out the fat.

I can't comment on how health care works in other countries, as I've never availed myself of their systems. However, I'll be willing to concede to the point that nationalized medicine works well where it's in use, because the anecdotal evidence in this thread suggests it, and I have nothing to contradict that.

The question is, would it work in the United States? There are variables here that do not exist in the western European economies. The most obvious variables are governmental type, history, area, size and diversity. I don't think these can be discounted as having an influence on anything that's nationalized.

Just because something works somewhere else, isn't a guarantee that it would work with the U.S. Frankly, I have little faith the U.S. government is capable of doing anything correctly. Many who claim that the U.S. gov't is so very inept in many ways, are also those advocating that this same gov't take care of their health. WTF?

FWIW, I've personally never had a problem with our healthcare system. I've always had insurance, and not always through the same provider, but some things are consistent. I stay far, far away from HMOs, and much prefer PPOs. I can see whatever doctor I want, whenever I want, and do not need a referral to see a specialist. Usually, I've had a cap of $2000 per year per household member on out of pocket expense. This last bit came in quite handy while undergoing treatments to fight cancer almost 15 years ago. ETA: Yes, I pay a few hundred dollars per month for family coverage, but assume I'd pay about that much in additional taxes for gov't provider medical coverage.

I'm sure that if I were unemployed, then my story would be quite different. For now, however, I'm not, and it isn't.

Am I against nationalized healthcare? Only if I lose the ability to see the doctor I want when I want. Also, I would want the option to pay for any procedure that I want done that Mommy doesn't want to pay for.