National heath care has arrived (Political)

[jgbrowning]

Do you have hard and solid, verifiable proof of the that, or is it just magical thinking?

One cannot "prove" the future, obviously. In addition if something is not "verifiable proof" that something does not have to be "magical thinking" either. Don't set up false dichotomies. Just because I cannot prove my assertion the way you want it proved does not mean it is therefore, magical thinking.

Actually, statistics from another representative republic, with at least 200 million people spread out over at least 3.5 million square miles, would go a long way toward at least getting my attention.

There are none. Only 6 countries in the world are larger than that and only 4 countries in the world with at least that many people. The one (non US) country that fits both parameters is not a representative republic. I don't think your parameters required for "verifiable proof" are very good ones.

The fact that pretty much all of Europe, with more people and greater landmass than the US has many individual national health care systems that work fine (even with all the unnecessary redundancy and inefficiently multiple systems creates), coupled with the fact that the European Union area earns about 20% less per capita than the US should be all the proof you need to come to the conclusion that the US is not "magically retarded" and unable to successfully do what's been done in Europe.

IMO, all of the successful programs done in other 1st world countries is verifiable proof that something similar can be done in one of the wealthiest, best infrastructured, and most productive countries in the world.

From Wiki: Countries in Europe with universal health care include Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

IMO, that should be enough land and people to get anyone's attention. Start investigating the different systems of those countries. Just because they're all not under 1 flag does not invalidate the possibility of universal health care in the US.

joe b.

[AxeMental]

Joe, can you point to any evidence that would lead us to believe any govt. agency wouldn't be another bottomless money pit? Every govt. deptartment and agency is run pretty much the same (see my earlier posts). They operate best in front of the public (say going to the post office) worst behind closed doors. That has been my experiance at least.
Also the caliber of people in the USA going into govt. is subpar (compared to those going into the private sector). Partly due to affermitive action.

[jgbrowning]

Joe, can you point to any evidence that would lead us to believe any govt. agency wouldn't be another bottomless money pit? Every govt. deptartment and agency is run pretty much the same (see my earlier posts). They operate best in front of the public (say going to the post office) worst behind closed doors. That has been my experiance at least.
Also the caliber of people in the USA going into govt. is subpar (compared to those going into the private sector). Partly due to affermitive action.

I'll never "prove" anything to you if what I have already pointed out isn't enough proof. I believe that Americans can get things done: that we are not failures, that we are not losers, that we can implement policy and follow through with policy to the betterment of our nation and citizens. If you don't believe that is possible, if you don't believe good government is possible, there's not really any reason to talk about it anymore. If you do believe good government is possible, you have your evidence.

National health care (as practiced in 1st world European countries) is cheaper and more effective than what we have now. Are European citizens smarter than we Americans? Are the people in their Governments so superior to ours that we cannot do as well as they? I don't believe so and I don't see any reasons why we can't perform on par with them by providing universal health care to our citizens.

joe b.

[Dwayanu]

1957: The Soviets can launch payloads into orbit, but we're lucky just to get a rocket off the launch pad.

Guess we'd better accept our second-rate status; yeah, that's the spirit!

[TRP]

Do you have hard and solid, verifiable proof of the that, or is it just magical thinking?

One cannot "prove" the future, obviously. In addition if something is not "verifiable proof" that something does not have to be "magical thinking" either. Don't set up false dichotomies. Just because I cannot prove my assertion the way you want it proved does not mean it is therefore, magical thinking.

You'd made an unequivocal, positive statement. I was pointing out that you only want it to be better, but really have no proof that it would be better.

As to your example of the disparate systems in Europe, I do think that it would work very differently here than in Europe. I have absolutely no trust that Mommy Sam could put together a system that works at least as well (let alone better) than what I have right now.

Experimenting with healthcare on this scale is serious business. If the U.S. moves to a European model, there will be no going back if it sucks worse than what some believe sucks now. Once you hand over your healthcare decisions to Mommy Sam, don't look for him to give them back if it doesn't work out. We'll be stuck.

Unlike Axe, I'm not so much concerned about a moneypit, healthcare is a moneypit already, so that wouldn't be much of a change. My concern is giving over my autonomy to lobbyists. I have absolutely no trust that Mommy Sam could put together a system that works at least as well (let alone better) than what I have right now.

Also, don't take my snark on your statement as implying that I'm absolutely against changing healthcare in the U.S., but do color me extremely cautious on turning over to Mommy Sam decisions that I currently make for myself. I assure you, that I'm pretty savvy about my own medical needs, and have no qualms about paying out of pocket what I and my doctor(s) deem necessary or beneficial.

[jgbrowning]

If the U.S. moves to a European model, there will be no going back if it sucks worse than what some believe sucks now. Once you hand over your healthcare decisions to Mommy Sam, don't look for him to give them back if it doesn't work out. We'll be stuck.

Do you have any hard and solid, verifiable proof of a 1st world country that tried a universal health care system that failed in implementation resulting in worse health care for the majority of their citizens than what existed prior? More importantly, have those countries failed to correct the situation and still have worse health care than before? I don't just want failures, I want failures that stuck.

Everyone seems to want "proof" of success without also wanting to show "proof" of failure. Show me what we have to be afraid of by example, and then we'll see how we can go about making sure we're not like those other guys who failed. We have the advantage of a lot of systems and situations coming before us to help us make the best decisions possible and we should use them. If making a nationwide universal health care system is so difficult, there must be many failed examples from which we can learn to to better.

IMO, moving to a universal health care system for 1st world countries has been an unequivocal positive for the majority of the citizenry involved.

This discussion seems to be boiling down to "I don't believe the US can do it" even when we have so many examples of national success and so few examples of national failure. I think the US can do it as well as has been done in Europe, and I'm interested in examples showing why we have a high chance of failure when compared with them.

joe b.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Well, Joe, though I'm generally with you on this, the implementation would certainly be far from trivial.

The flagship European Union healthcare systems were built by governments immediately after World War II. These were people who'd just fought a major war and were accustomed to austerity. They wanted to build a land fit for the war heroes to live in and with so many amputees and wounded veterans, medical care was very high on the public agenda. People wanted free healthcare a lot, and they used to rationing and going without things to get what they wanted -- so the National Health Service was born in a country with a real will to make it work even in the face of a high cost to individual citizens.

The post-War government also wasn't fighting a wealthy insurance lobby. Let's face it, the insurance industry in the US will spend money like water to try to kill a US national health service. And now probably isn't the optimum time to implement it; the job losses in the insurance industry plus the necessary increased taxation will make the centre-right moderates scream nearly as much as the far right hawks will.

I do think a National Health Service in the US is inevitable once the recession's over, because that's what the public expect of Obama and they did vote for him.

[AxeMental]

Joe: "I believe that Americans can get things done: that we are not failures, that we are not losers"

As do I. Infact, 200 years of a free market system in Medicine has provided us with a kick ass system superior to every other in the world. Yes its too expensive. But I have yet to hear any liberal (incl. you) talk about fixing the insurance, legal, and FDA systems to get the cost down.

I suspect this is because without those costs, there'd be no reason to try socialism.

[jgbrowning]

Well, Joe, though I'm generally with you on this, the implementation would certainly be far from trivial.

I never meant to imply such, I was just pointing out that the attempt would, more than likely given all the other attempts, end with a system that functions better than what we have today for more citizens.

The flagship European Union healthcare systems were built by governments immediately after World War II. These were people who'd just fought a major war and were accustomed to austerity. They wanted to build a land fit for the war heroes to live in and with so many amputees and wounded veterans, medical care was very high on the public agenda. People wanted free healthcare a lot, and they used to rationing and going without things to get what they wanted -- so the National Health Service was born in a country with a real will to make it work even in the face of a high cost to individual citizens.

The post-War government also wasn't fighting a wealthy insurance lobby. Let's face it, the insurance industry in the US will spend money like water to try to kill a US national health service. And now probably isn't the optimum time to implement it; the job losses in the insurance industry plus the necessary increased taxation will make the centre-right moderates scream nearly as much as the far right hawks will.

Deciding to do it will be harder, IMO, than the doing. Politically I think it could not happen right now, unfortunately. Allowing non-humans a voice in a political system is a big mistake, and we've made a very large one on that end.

I do think a National Health Service in the US is inevitable once the recession's over, because that's what the public expect of Obama and they did vote for him.

Perhaps. I think you underestimate the unreasoned fear of a large percentage of our populace in regards to any form of socialism. The word itself is a bogyman. Worse than socialism, however, is a socialism that works better than capitalism. Such is an ideological double-threat.

joe b.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I'm still perplexed by this quaint idea that a national health service is "socialism".

A national police force isn't socialism; a national fire service isn't socialism; a national school curriculum with compulsory schooling isn't socialism. These things are simply common sense, rather than an assault on capitalist ideology.

So on what planet is a national health service idealogically different?

[jgbrowning]

Joe: "I believe that Americans can get things done: that we are not failures, that we are not losers"

As do I. Infact, 200 years of a free market system in Medicine has provided us with a kick ass system superior to every other in the world.

Pardon? How is our medical system superior to every other in the world when it doesn't provide as many benefits to as many citizens as others do and costs more for those that do get care?

That's only ass-kicking, not kick ass, IMO. Ask about half of the people declaring bankruptcy about how kick ass our current medical system is.

Yes its too expensive. But I have yet to hear any liberal (incl. you) talk about fixing the insurance, legal, and FDA systems to get the cost down.

I see you don't consider talking about Universal Health Care as fixing. However, it is.

I suspect this is because without those costs, there'd be no reason to try socialism.

Socialism in medicine works better for more people and costs less at the same time. We have many examples on how to "fix" the system in this manner. Why should we choose an uncharted path of fixing what we have piecemeal vrs one that has many successful examples for while we have no examples of a system such as ours being nearly as successful for as many people?

It seems like we're supposed to choose the latter simply because the word socialism is scary to many Americans. That really seems to be the gist the defense: socialism is bad even when it works to reduce cost while providing more care.

joe b.

[JDJarvis]

I'm still perplexed by this quaint idea that a national health service is "socialism".

A national police force isn't socialism; a national fire service isn't socialism; a national school curriculum with compulsory schooling isn't socialism. These things are simply common sense, rather than an assault on capitalist ideology.

So on what planet is a national health service idealogically different?

I've met and heard from a fair number of people that think national school curriculum's with compulsory schooling are in fact socialism. Granted I think they are off in la-la land, we have enough sub-literate oafs running about now.

However, we don't have a national fire service, we don't actually have a national police force and just barley have a national school curriculum in the form of bare minimal standards here in the U.S.

[AxeMental]

I'm still perplexed by this quaint idea that a national health service is "socialism".

A national police force isn't socialism; a national fire service isn't socialism; a national school curriculum with compulsory schooling isn't socialism. These things are simply common sense, rather than an assault on capitalist ideology.

So on what planet is a national health service idealogically different?

I think this wouldn't be a good comparison. Medicine is highly competitive with many individual elements competing driving down costs and increasing quality. The police force is a monopoly and has to be (unless you want malitias as an earlier poster mentioned). There are several natural monopolies that have to be socialized or semi-socialized (like power, water, sewer etc.) (medicine isn't one).

Joe, its the cost of medicine, not the quality thats the problem. Once again you side step those issues as if they don't exist (despite having first hand experiance with the insurance industry from the inside.)

[PapersAndPaychecks]

However, we don't have a national fire service, we don't actually have a national police force and just barley have a national school curriculum in the form of bare minimal standards here in the U.S.

Apart from education, it's no different here. Police forces, fire and rescue and the national health service are organised along county lines with separate police authorities and health authorities by county.

We do have a fairly strong national school curriculum compared to the US.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I think this wouldn't be a good comparison. Medicine is highly competitive with many individual elements competing driving down costs and increasing quality. The police force is a monopoly and has to be (unless you want malitias as an earlier poster mentioned). There are several natural monopolies that have to be socialized or semi-socialized (like power, water, sewer etc.) (medicine isn't one).

Well, first off, the National Health Service is a market with hospitals and surgeries and health centres and clinics competing for business. Imagine the US model, except that insurance is compulsory and deducted directly from your salary. It's called "National Insurance" and shows separately from taxation on your payslip.

(National Insurance also funds a pension and various other benefits, and it's topped up from the tax fund sometimes as well.)

Second off, the Health Service is a natural monopoly like all the others because, if you charge the poorest people for access to doctors, then what you'll get is slums full of unemployed people and rife with infectious diseases that'll breed and spread to the workers that are vital to the economy.

But you don't get that in the US because in practice, everyone has access to essential medical care whether they can pay for it or not.

But for some reason, that's not socialism whereas universal health care free at the point of delivery is -- an attitude that still makes no sense to me whatsoever.